CAR_Public/170214.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, February 14, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 32



                            Headlines

5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Penalties Over Deceptive Advertising
90 HADDON AVENUE: Reed Seeks Certification of Employees Class
ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
AETNA INC: Westchester Funds Allege Securities Act Violations
AIR CANADA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan

ALERE: INRatio Class Action Trial Expected in March 2018
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Newsom" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
AMERICAN REALTY: Misled Shareholders, Class Action Says
AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANTHEM: Data Breach Offers Key Lessons in Cybersecurity

ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: April 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ARCTIC GLACIER: Minnesota & North Dakota Okay for Reimbursement
AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Scheme Class Action Highly Unlikely
AUSTRALIA: July 17 Hearing Set in Indonesian Cattle Ban Case

AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Stewart" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NYLL
BANK OF AMERICA: Berger, et al., File Securities Class Suit
BLUE SHIELD: Averts TCPA Class Action Over Recorded Calls
BMW: Settles Two Class Actions Over Defective Sunroofs
BT: Quinn Emmanuel to Bring Shareholder Claim

BT GROUP: ADR Holders Filed Securities Class Action
BUTLER COUNTY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Lead in School Water
BUY-LOW: Arbitration Policy Is Illegal, NLRB Judge Rules
CALLSMART INC: Status Hearing in "Dolemba" Suit Reset to March 16
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Turcot Interchange Construction

CANADIAN HOCKEY: Judge Hears Junior Hockey Players' Class Action
CAREMARK HEALTH: Drug Quality Compromised During Shipping
CARLTON COOKE: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CELADON: Indiana Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Suit Over Wrongly Issued Parking Tickets

COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Johnson Moves for Certification of Class
DAN WYANT: Lawyers Plan to Appeal Dismissed Suit
DISH NETWORK: Jury Awards $20MM Verdict on TCPA Suit
DOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertisements
DOLLAR GENERAL: Smith Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

ELECTROLUX: Faces Suit Over Unethical Shipping Charges
ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge Approves Settlement for Overtime Pay Suit
FXCM INC: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GENWORTH FINC'L: Suit Hinders Acquisition of China Oceanwide

GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action
FXCM: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following US Market Ban
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Rosenfeld Sues Over Sale to China Oceanwide
GOOGLE INC: $5.5MM Cookie Class Action Settlement Okayed
HARRIS & HARRIS: Judge Cleared Skip Tracing Suit to Proceed

IKO ORGANIC: Agrees to Pay CDN$7.5-Mil. Settlement
IMAGE LINE: Thomas Seeks Certification of Truck Pushers Class
IOWA METHODIST: Faces Class Action Over Drug Switching
JETSUITE INC: Final Hearing on "Ward" Suit Settlement on March 27
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $1.5 Million Attorney Fees Raised Questions

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Could Face Class Action Over Mesh Implants
KALOBIOS PHARMA: April 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
KING CITY: Supervisor Backed Settlement on Towing Scheme Suit
KITOV PHARMA: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LAKELAND CHOPHOUSE: Faces "Stamps" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages

LAMI PRODUCTS: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
LAURA CHRISTY: "Zivkovic" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Indigent Services
MAPCO EXPRESS: Court Awards $1.9MM in Data Breach Class Action
MCDONALD'S: Misled Customers About Value Meals, Class Says

METLIFE: Sanford Heisler Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
MICHIGAN, USA: Court Denies Bailey's Bid for Class Certification
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Sells Products With Slack Fill, Suit Says
MOUNT REAL: Settles Fraud Scheme Class Action for $43 Million
MYLAN INC: Settles Provigil Antitrust Class Action for $96.5MM

NATUS MEDICAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Prelim. Approval of $17.5MM Settlement
NCAA: ETSU Refuses to Share Data on Concussion Numbers
NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Raisinets Underfilling
NESTLE WATERS: Must Face Class Action Over TCPA Violations

NEUSTAR INC: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEW BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over "American-Made" Claims
NEW ZEALAND: Could Face Suit Over Stolen Overseas Funds
NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Fraud Class Action in St. Clair County
NOVO NORDISK: Faces "Zaleski" Securities Suit Over Disclosures

OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OREGON: Benton County Opts to Remain in Timber Class Action
OREGON: Clatsop County Opts Out of Timber Revenue Class Action
PARTY CITY: New York Court Tosses Class Action Over IPO
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Appeals Del. Ch. Opinion in "Solak" Stock Suit

PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Settles Chicago Redlight-Camera Suit for $20MM
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
REWALK ROBOTICS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
REX ENERGY: Pa. Court Overturns Refusal to Certify Class Action

ROSALIA'S INC: "Roncancio" Suit Seeks OT Wages for Waiting Staff
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Must Face New York PFOA Class Action
SAINT-GOBAIN: Blood Tests Result Released Amid Class Action
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Washing Machine Recall
SANDIA NATIONAL: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action

SECOND ROUND: Certification of Class Sought in "Scifo" Suit
SONY: California Judge Rejects PS3 Class Action Settlement
SONY: Settled Suit Over Optical Drives
SONY: July 1 Deadline Set for DVD Drive Settlement Claims
SOUTH AFRICA: Democratic Alliance Seeks Probe Into Patient Deaths

SOUTH AFRICA: Group to Sue Over Life Esidimeni Patient Deaths
SPECTRUM: Faces Suit Over "Illegitimate" $9.99 Wifi Activation Fee
STATE STREET: March 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Faces "Schur" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SYNGENTA: June 5 Trial Set for Viptera Corn Class Action

TAKEDA PHARMA: 2d Cir. Partly Reverses Antitrust Case Dismissal
TARGET CORP: Amin Talati Attorneys Comment on Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Responds to Class Action Over Foul Odor
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Huffman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
TYSON FOODS: Former Chicken Farmers File Class Action

TYSON FOODS: Says SEC Subpoena Related to Poultry Price Fixing
UNITED STATES: Seeks Stay of Judge Robart's Travel Ban TRO
UNITED STATES: UW Students File Class Suit Over Trump Travel Ban
VALLEY VIEW: Farmington Residents File Sewage System Class Action
VERITAS: Judge Grants Certs on Class Over TCPA Violation

VIRGINIA: Local NAACP Looks at DMV Class Action Lawsuit
VISTA OUTDOOR: "Lentsch" Securities Suit Assigned to Judge Shelby
VOLKSWAGEN: Canadian Owners Excluded in Settlement
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Truck Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
WHITEPAGES.COM: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action

WHL: Lawyers Checked Claims That Firm Can't Afford to Pay Players
WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces "Swain" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
YAHOO INC: Faces New Suit Over Data Breach

* Immigrants Rights Project Launched Following Trump Travel Ban
* Jones Day Joins Legal Fight Against Trump Travel Ban
* South Carolina Federal Court Rejects Class Arbitration




                            *********


5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Penalties Over Deceptive Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge in Washington state has
ordered the makers of the 5-Hour Energy drink to pay nearly $4.3
million in penalties and legal fees over deceptive advertising.

Living Essentials LLC and Innovation Ventures LLC claimed the
energy shots were superior to coffee and said doctors recommend
them.  They also said their decaffeinated formula provides energy,
alertness and focus that would last hours.

A judge ruled on Feb. 7 that the companies violated the state
Consumer Protection Act and ordered them to pay nearly $2.2
million in civil penalties and $2.1 million in attorneys' fees.

The companies' communications director, Melissa Skabich, said they
will appeal.

Ms. Skabich says unlike the two other courts that found in the
company's favor, the court in Washington's King County didn't
follow the law.


90 HADDON AVENUE: Reed Seeks Certification of Employees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   (1) determining that the case entitled WILLIAM REED, et al. v.
       90 HADDON AVENUE RESTAURANT INCORPORATED d/b/a KEG &
       KITCHEN, Case No. 1:16-cv-06226-NLH-JS (D.N.J.), may
       Proceed as a conditional collective action;

   (2) authorizing the mailing of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice
       to all similarly situated persons currently and formerly
       employed by 90 Haddon Avenue Restaurant Incorporated d/b/a
       Keg & Kitchen during the past three years to inform them
       of their right to opt into this lawsuit; and

   (3) ordering the Defendant to produce a computer readable data
       file containing the names, addresses, Social Security and
       available telephone numbers of such potential Opt ins so
       that notice may be implemented.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 21, 2017, to
consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian M. Bryson, Esq.
          MCELDREW YOUNG
          123 S. Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 545-8800
          Facsimile: (215) 545-8805
          E-mail: ibryson@mceldrewyoung.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas Diaz, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER
          One Centennial Square
          33 East Euclid Avenue
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 795-2121
          Facsimile: (856) 795-0574
          E-mail: ddiaz@archerlaw.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM (NYSE:ABM), a provider of facility solutions, on Feb. 7
disclosed that on February 6, 2017, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle all claims in the class action lawsuit
Augustus et. al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. on a class-wide
basis for $110 million (pre-tax).  The settlement is subject to
the final approval of the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.  The Augustus case relates to ABM's security
business which was sold in October 2015.  On December 22, 2016,
the California Supreme Court reversed a judgment in favor of ABM
in the Appeals Court and held in favor of the plaintiffs.  The
amount of the original judgment in Augustus was $89.7 million and
attorney's fees of $4.5 million, with interest continuing to
accrue until the judgment is satisfied.  As of December 22, 2016,
post-judgment interest was approximately $41.2 million.

ABM has also entered into a settlement term sheet relating to
Karapetyan v. ABM Industries Incorporated and ABM Security
Services, Inc. to settle the case on a class-wide basis for $5
million.  Karapetyan, which also relates to ABM's divested
Security business, is a putative class action alleging that ABM
violated certain California state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks and other wage and hour claims.  The Karapetyan settlement
is contingent upon the finalization of a settlement agreement,
final approval of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, and final approval by the Superior Court of the
Augustus case.

In light of the recent decision by the Supreme Court of California
in the Augustus case, and in consideration of the likely length of
the appeals process as well as its uncertainty, ABM believes this
settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders.  The settlement does not constitute an admission of
liability, culpability, negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of
ABM.

Scott Salmirs, President and Chief Executive Officer of ABM
Industries, commented, "While we disagree with the decision of the
California Supreme Court, we are pleased to have reached a
resolution in these longstanding legal matters related to our
previously-held Security business."

Mr. Salmirs continued, "We remain excited about our 2020 Vision
and continue to be on track with our long term objectives.  We
look forward to sharing our progress on our upcoming earnings
call."

The Company is currently evaluating the settlement's financial
impact and will provide additional details on its next quarterly
conference call.

The Company expects to announce earnings results for the first
fiscal quarter of 2017 on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 after market
close.  Details of the quarterly conference call will be announced
in late February 2017.

                           About ABM

ABM (NYSE:ABM) -- http://www.abm.com-- is a provider of facility
solutions with revenues of approximately $5.1 billion and over
100,000 employees in 300+ offices throughout the United States and
various international locations.  ABM's comprehensive capabilities
include janitorial, electrical & lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC & mechanical, landscape & turf,
mission critical solutions and parking, provided through stand-
alone or integrated solutions.  ABM provides custom facility
solutions in urban, suburban and rural areas to properties of all
sizes -- from schools and commercial buildings to hospitals, data
centers, manufacturing plants and airports.  ABM Industries
Incorporated, which operates through its subsidiaries, was founded
in 1909.


AETNA INC: Westchester Funds Allege Securities Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
WESTCHESTER PUTNAM COUNTIES HEAVY & HIGHWAY LABORERS LOCAL 60
BENEFITS FUNDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., MARK T. BERTOLINI, AND SHAWN
M. GUERTIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00113 (D. Conn., January
25, 2017), alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its
senior executives attempted to leverage Aetna's participation in
certain public health insurance exchanges for favorable treatment
from regulators regarding the Humana Inc. Acquisition; (2) the
Company threatened to limit its participation in Public Exchanges
if the Department of Justice attempted to block the merger; (3)
Aetna did not withdraw from the Public Exchanges in the 17
compliant counties 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 the Public Exchanges that were profitable for
the Company; 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.  As a
result, Defendants allegedly violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Aetna Inc. is one of the largest health care benefits companies in
the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
     DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP
     One Atlantic Street
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (203) 569-1105
     Fax: (203) 348-2321
     E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com

        - and -

     Steven B. Singer, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Phone: (914) 437-8551
     Fax: (888) 631-3611
     E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     Maya Saxena, Esq.
     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399
     Fax: (561) 394-3382
     E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
             jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             lhooker@saxenawhite.com


AIR CANADA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Brampton Guardian reports courts in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec have
approved a plan for distributing $29.6 million obtained from
settlements in a class-action lawsuit related to the price-fixing
of air cargo shipping services between 2000 and 2006.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2006 and involved more than 20
defendants including Air Canada (TSX:AC) and carriers such as Air
France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Japan Airlines
International, Korean Air lines and KLM.

It was alleged the airlines imposed inflated surcharges resulting
from higher fuel and fuel and security costs.

Settlement agreements involving many of the airlines -- but not
including Air Canada and British Airways -- have been approved by
Canadian courts since the class action was launched.

Ontario-based law firm Siskinds LLP said it will continue to
pursue the class action against Air Canada and British Airways to
recover further settlement funds for distribution.


ALERE: INRatio Class Action Trial Expected in March 2018
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the Alere INRatio home monitoring system offered warfarin
(Coumadin) users a convenient way to test their blood clotting
rate without having to go the doctor's office or a laboratory.
Instead, they got an expensive, unreliable and potentially
dangerous product.

They want their money back.

Thousands of people who purchased the INRatio home monitoring
system and test strips have joined a giant class action suit that
will likely go to trial in March of 2018.

"People have spent thousands of dollars on this," says
Roland Tellis from the law firm of Baum Hedland Aristei Goldman in
Los Angeles.  "Some of our clients spent upwards of $3,000 on the
system and the strips are not inexpensive. They cost a couple of
hundred dollars a year.  When you add it up, you're talking about
a large amount of money."

The INRatio home monitoring system was manufactured by Alere, a
giant pharmaceutical company that specializes in home based
medical test kits.

In April 2014, Alere voluntarily removed the test strips from the
market.  Then in December 2014 the home monitoring system was also
recalled after reports of thousands of faulty results.

Alere was unable to correct the problems.

The FDA identified the recall as a Class I recall, the most
serious type of recall.  According to the FDA the INRatio System
may generate a rate lower than the rate that would have been
generated by the same type of test conducted in a blood laboratory
test.

Possible adverse events as a result of a false INRatio reading
could include a stroke or an uncontrollable bleeding event.

"If people received an inaccurate INR rating and either took too
much or too little of the blood thinner it could cause an event
that was akin to a stroke.  And so we know that folks have
experienced serious injuries while using INRatio," says
Mr. Tellis.

The FDA warned that the faulty results could cause serious injury
or death.

"This is an important case because if you think about it the
alternative to doing a home test was to go into a lab and have
your blood sample taken," says Mr. Tellis.  "So these were
marketed as a convenience very much like a diabetic can tell their
blood sugar levels at home.  You have the convenience of doing
this yet you are not told that the very product is designed to get
you a reading that is defective."


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Newsom" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEISHA NEWSOM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00130-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal., January 24, 2017), alleges
that Defendant placed its debt collecting calls using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a debt collection services company collecting debt,
primarily making calls and sending debt collection letters to
individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             jason@kazlg.com

        - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.


AMERICAN REALTY: Misled Shareholders, Class Action Says
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
shareholders of American Realty Capital - Retail Center of
America, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that RCA and certain of its officers and
directors, in violation of Section 14(a) the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, are soliciting RCA shareholders' approval of a
proposed merger with American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") through
a materially false and misleading proxy statement, and in breach
of their fiduciary duties. Named as defendants are the Company,
RCA's directors, AFIN and AR Global Investments LLC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel
Jeffrey S. Abraham at (212) 279-5050, or via e-mail at --
info@aftlaw.com -- or -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- or Lynda J. Grant
at 212-292-4441 or lgrant@grantfirm.com. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through the counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member.

The plaintiffs are represented by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
and TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, which have extensive experience in
shareholder and securities class action cases.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Florida Record, reports that a case
manager alleges she was denied overtime time as required by law
and has filed a class-action suit.

Camille Burke filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Jan. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Amerigroup Corp. citing the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime
compensation.  The plaintiff holds Amerigroup Corp. responsible
because the defendant allegedly failed to pay the plaintiff any
overtime premium for hours worked that exceeds 40.

The plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, all
legal fees plus interest and any other relief as the court deems
just. She is represented by Jeremiah J. Talbott of Jeremiah J.
Talbott, P.A. in Pensacola.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 0:17-cv-60179-KMM


ANTHEM: Data Breach Offers Key Lessons in Cybersecurity
-------------------------------------------------------
As businesses and consumers seek to protect themselves from
hackers, they should weigh lessons from the 2015 data breach of
healthcare firm Anthem, advise veteran data privacy and
cybersecurity attorneys from national law firm LeClairRyan.

The Russian hacking of the presidential election highlights that
other well-known commercial data breaches were also likely caused
by foreign state actors, write Janine A. Bowen --
janine.bowen@leclairryan.com -- and John P. Hutchins --
john.hutchins@leclairryan.com -- in a recent post at LeClairRyan's
"Information Counts" blog.  They are part of the firm's Cyber
Security, Data Privacy and Security Law practice team and are both
shareholders in LeClairRyan's Atlanta office.

On Jan. 29, 2015, Indianapolis-based Anthem learned that hackers
had breached its IT system and reportedly made off with the
personal data of as many as 80 million Americans.

In the post ("The Anthem Breach -- A Retrospective"), Bowen and
Hutchins write that the Anthem breach contained some lessons that
could help other businesses better respond to such a crisis.

"When Anthem learned of the breach, it quickly notified affected
individuals by e-mail and through public announcements, saying it
would send follow-up information about next steps.  This speedy
notification was lauded by many as a best practice.  But in the
wake of Anthem's public announcements, scammers sent fake e-mails
to untold thousands of Anthem members and former members, which
appeared to be from the company, as a ruse to scam impacted data
subjects into providing additional sensitive personal
information."

On the legal front, meanwhile, the class-action lawsuits filed in
the wake of the Anthem breach survived the commonly asserted "lack
of standing" defense.  "Usually, a threshold issue in any data
breach class action is the issue of 'standing,' which is raised
early at the motion-to-dismiss stage," the attorneys write.  "In
order to overcome this challenge, the plaintiffs' complaint must
sufficiently allege actual harm suffered because of the breach.
Many a data breach class action has failed this test and been
thrown out before the discovery stage."

When Anthem filed a motion to dismiss, however, the judge rejected
it -- an uncommon result at the time.  The takeaway? "Plaintiffs
are getting more sophisticated at alleging actual harm sufficient
to beat back a standing challenge," Bowen and Hutchins explain in
the post.

Fortunately for businesses, class certification remains an
obstacle that has yet to be successfully dodged in any data breach
case. (The Anthem case is still in discovery.) "Despite 12 years
of litigation over data breaches, no court has yet certified a
consumer breach class," the attorneys write.

The Anthem breach also highlights the role of consumer behavior in
contributing to data breaches.  "Some Internet users are their own
worst enemies in this regard," write Bowen and Hutchins.
"Consumers should not assume that they cannot or will not be
affected by a data breach.  Every consumer should regularly take
safety precautions to reduce the risk that their personal
information is not needlessly exposed."

For instance, they should regularly check the privacy policies of
the websites they visit and, if they don't like what they see,
"opt-out" or choose another company with which to do business, the
attorneys write.  In the post, they also encourage consumers to
regularly check free credit reports via services like Credit
Karma.

"The Anthem breach also should have served as a reminder of a very
important fact: no organization, no matter how large and no matter
what security protocols are in place, is immune from its systems
being compromised," Hutchins and Bowen write in the conclusion to
the piece.  "Continued vigilance by entities that store personally
identifiable information and by consumers who often willingly
provide it is necessary to minimize the potential for harm that
can result from its misuse."

The full blog post is available at
http://informationcounts.com/the-anthem-breach-a-retrospective/

                        About LeClairRyan

As a trusted advisor, LeClairRyan -- http://www.leclairryan.com
-- provides business counsel and client representation in
corporate law and litigation.  With offices in California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C., the firm has
approximately 350 attorneys representing a wide variety of clients
throughout the nation.


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aratana" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:PETX) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aratana securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aratana securities between
March 16, 2015 and February 3, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until April 7, 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.

Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. is a development-stage
biopharmaceutical company that develops biomedical therapeutics
for animals.  The Company offers various products to treat pain
and inflammation associated with serious medical conditions in
pets.  One of the Company's key products is ENTYCE, also known as
AT-002 (capromorelin oral solution), an appetite stimulant for
dogs.

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) Aratana did not have manufacturing contracts in place
sufficient to support manufacturing of ENTYCE at a commercial
scale; (ii) consequently, ENTYCE was not likely to be commercially
available until late 2017; (iii) accordingly, Aratana had misled
investors with respect to the likely timeline for a commercial
launch of ENTYCE; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Aratana's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 6, 2017, Aratana disclosed that the Center for
Veterinary Medicine ("CVM") had requested more information about
ENTYCE.  Aratana advised investors that the CVM's request was "in
connection with the Company's post-approval supplement request to
transfer the manufacturing of ENTYCE to a new vendor in order to
produce ENTYCE at a commercial scale" and that the Company "now
anticipates that ENTYCE . . . will be commercially available by
late 2017."

On this news, Aratana's share price fell $1.44, or 17.93%, to
close at $6.59 on February 6, 2017.

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


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: April 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Aratana shares between March 16, 2015 and
February 3, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm in advance of the April 7, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Aratana 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.

On February 6, 2017, Aratana revealed that the Center for
Veterinary Medicine had requested more information about ENTYCE,
its appetite stimulation drug. Aratana informed investors that it
"now anticipates that ENTYCE . . . .  will be commercially
available by late 2017" and that the CVM's demand was "in
connection with the Company's post-approval supplement request to
transfer the manufacturing of ENTYCE to a new vendor in order to
produce ENTYCE at a commercial scale." When this information was
released to the public, the value of Aratana stock fell, causing
investors severe harm.

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.

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 --


ARCTIC GLACIER: Minnesota & North Dakota Okay for Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
KFGO reports if you bought ice between between Jan. 2001 and early
March of 2008, you may be in line for some money back.

Several ice companies have settled a national class action lawsuit
that accused them of fixing the price of bags and blocks of ice.

Arctic Glacier is part of the settlement and people in Minnesota
and North Dakota who purchased ice from the company may qualify
for $12.00 in reimbursement.

The deadline to file a claim is May 17. You can get more
information on the refund program at topclassactions.com.


AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Scheme Class Action Highly Unlikely
--------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the odds of  a joint action against the federal government's
Centrelink debt recovery program have narrowed, with lawyers
saying it's considered highly unlikely such an action would
succeed.

However, Slater and Gordon -- and perhaps some of Australia's
other leading class action law firms -- are investigating
Centrelink's handling of the scheme, and have not ruled out
challenging the legality of its conduct under Commonwealth laws.

Slater and Gordon practice group leader Tim Finney told Fairfax
Media that individuals could have grounds to appeal the validity
and legality of debt notices sent by Centrelink.

"Slater and Gordon is currently reviewing Centrelink's conduct for
the purpose of confirming whether it has engaged in any
contraventions of applicable laws," Mr Finney said.

"Further, in some instances, the system that Centrelink has used
to calculate the alleged debts is likely to have produced
inaccurate debt notices.

"We are currently examining whether we may be able to provide
affected individuals assistance in appealing debt notices they
have received from Centrelink, on a case-by-case basis."

There had been widespread speculation one of the big law firms
would sue the government for damages over its debt recovery
program, but it's understood Slater and Gordon, Maurice Blackburn
and Shine Lawyers have all ruled it out.

However, the Commonwealth could still face legal action for
compensation, with at least one legal group investigating applying
for compensation under federal laws.

Labor and the Greens announced on Feb. 8 they had secured support
for a Senate inquiry into the data-matching system, which was
designed to claw back millions in overpayments to welfare
recipients.

The wide-ranging inquiry will examine the resources given to
Centrelink to roll out the program, the role of staff, and how
many notices were sent in error.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman launched a separate inquiry last month.

The debt-recovery process uses an automated system to match
information held by Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office
and calculate overpayments.

Many of those targeted for debt recovery say they are being
hounded by debt collectors, or threatened with jail, for money
that they do not owe.

Victoria Legal Aid says the automated debt recovery system has
boosted visits to the Centrelink information section of its
website by more than 500 per cent since Christmas.

While it is considered unlikely a class action would succeed, Zach
Banks -- one of the leaders of community group Centrelink Class
Action -- said his fight for legal action against the government
would continue.

"That robo-debt recovery is an absolute atrocity against the
lowest-paid people we have," he said.  "We live below the poverty
line."

Mr Brady said that he had contacted police with serious concerns
for the welfare of two members of the group who had threatened to
take their own lives online, to draw attention to their plight.

"People who already have mental health issues are being put under
the pump more and more and more, and it's not fair," he said.

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge told federal parliament on Feb.
7 the government was doing "important work" trying to get back
money that people had rorted from the system.

"The reason we have to do this important work is because it is the
unfortunate reality that some people deliberately misuse, abuse
the system," he said.


AUSTRALIA: July 17 Hearing Set in Indonesian Cattle Ban Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Stock & Land, reports that farmers have
re-urged the federal government to make a settlement on the class
action claim for damages worth hundreds of millions of dollars,
over the snap 2011 Indonesian live cattle ban, as a trial date
looms.

The Australian Farmers Fighting Fund (AFFF) is being used to help
propel the legal case against the Commonwealth, which saw papers
initially filed in the Federal Court in October 2014 listing the
Brett Cattle Company of Waterloo Station in the NT as the lead
entity.

National Farmers' Federation (NFF) Workplace Relations and Legal
Affairs General Manager Sarah McKinnon said the class action claim
that's being backed by the AFFF had now been listed for a two week
hearing in the Federal Court, starting from July 17 this year.

"At this stage there's been no indication from the government that
there will be any compromise on the claim and so it's full steam
ahead," she said.

"We hope that we can get to an outcome and put the issue to bed
once and for all because those who were deeply affected by it and
remain affected by it, want to be able to move on.

"It remains a live case and will be heard in the Federal Court in
July this year."

Ms McKinnon said the government in defending itself over the class
action claim had filed an outline of evidence in the court.

"There are a number of public documents on the record including
our membership's complaints and the complaint made by the Brett
Cattle Company on behalf of the rest of the class," she said.

"We'd like an outcome and we'd like to put it to bed because
people would like closure on what has been a very difficult time."

Ms McKinnon said it would be known closer to time of trial whether
former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard or the then Agriculture
Minister Joe Ludwig would be called to give evidence, at the two
week hearing.

She said it was currently "anyone's guess" and the claimants did
not know, which witnessed may be called, expert or otherwise.

"And we won't know until really the time of the hearing," she
said.

"There's an outline of evidence from Mr Ludwig that's all and it's
in the government's court as to whether or not they call him."

Australia's live cattle trade to Indonesia was suspended in mid-
2011 after the ABC 4Corners program broadcast concerns about
animal welfare standards in abattoirs which sparked unprecedented
community backlash, demanding the trade be closed.

The class action claim filed in the Federal Court alleges an
Export Control Order made by former minister Ludwig on June 7,
2011 -- restricting exports to Indonesia for six months -- was
"invalid".

Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association (NTCA) Executive
Director Tracey Hayes said despite repeated calls in the past by
her group for the federal government to meet at the negotiating
table, the government continued to "bury its head in the sand".

Ms Hayes said the benefits of an out of court settlement, in what
the NTCA believed to be a strong case, were "obvious".

"Based on what we know from calculations of the lead applicant
Brett Cattle Company's losses, we expect, as a result of the
decision made by Minister Ludwig, the losses to be in the hundreds
of millions," she said.

"We have been promised that the government would behave as a model
litigant, but we just haven't seen this.

"Both sides of politics agree this was a disastrous decision that
came out of nowhere and was based on nothing.

"People are still impacted from this 'knee jerk' decision.

"With a trial date now set for July we are going to fight one way
or the other."

After the class action claim was filed in court in late 2014, then
Coalition leader and Prime Minister Tony Abbott told a joint party
room meeting in Canberra that the former Labor government's
decision to suspend the live cattle trade was perhaps the worst
ever decision any Australian government has ever made.

He also said the government had to be very careful in assuming
that everyone with a claim against the Commonwealth had a claim
that must be met.

Mr Abbott said the interests of justice had to be served and the
interests of taxpayers, so the Commonwealth would run the case as
a best practice litigant.

That would mean adhering to rules regarding proper conduct and
avoid poor practices like deliberately delaying legal proceedings
to try and exhaust the other party's finances.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said at the time, "Perhaps we
should have done things differently then -- but today we can be
proud that Australia's world-leading animal welfare system has put
the trade on a sustainable footing, giving us opportunities to
grow and reach new markets".

In urging the government to settle the claim in mid-2016 five
years on from the ban, former NFF President Brent Finlay said
there were still strong feelings about the former Labor
government's sudden suspension decision.

He said hundreds of families, whose livelihoods were stripped from
them through no fault of their own, continued to be overwhelmed by
debt and were struggling to rebuild their businesses as a
consequence of the "rash and unsophisticated" decision made by the
former Labor government.

"It has left a huge scar and really shook the trust of some good,
decent hard working people, in their government," he said.

"The naãve manner in which the month-long suspension was executed
has inflicted wide-reaching and long-lasting damage."

He said the suspension had an immediate impact on industry,
including a sharp and unexpected halt to income, a compromise of
Australia's reputation as a reliable trade partner and perverse
animal welfare outcomes for stock stranded in holding yards.

Mr Finlay said the legal action seeking compensation from affected
parties continued to drag through the courts to the ongoing
detriment of families and business.

He said both major political parties had said, on the public
record, the ban was a poor decision.

The story Indonesian cattle ban class action claim set for trial
mid-year first appeared on Farm Online.


AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Stewart" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs against GEORGE KALTNER, AVATAR
TECHNOLOGIES INC., SALES TECHNOLOGIES INC., SALES TECHNOLOGIES
LLC., AVATAR OUTSOURCING, INC., VOICELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00565 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2017),
alleges that Defendants have willfully committed widespread
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 each workweek, and intentionally misclassifying
employees as independent contractors.

Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA that he and members of the
class are entitled to recover (1) unpaid overtime wages, (2)
liquidated damages, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

The company's line of business includes providing professional
engineering services.

Mr. Stewart is a resident of New York County and was employed as
the personal assistant of George Kaltner on behalf of Avatar
Technologies Inc., Sales Technologies Inc., and Sales Technologies
LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob Chen, Esq.
     DAI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1500 Broadway, 2200
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 730-8880


BANK OF AMERICA: Berger, et al., File Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., McCulley McCluer PLLC, Peiffer Rosca Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane LLP, and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
indirect purchasers of foreign currencies and other investments
that required the exchange of foreign currency (FX).

This proposed indirect purchaser class action applies to people in
numerous states, including Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and North Carolina. The
proposed indirect purchaser classes include individuals and
entities in those states who, between 2007 and 2013:

Exchanged U.S. dollars for foreign currency with a regional bank
or credit union; Banked with a regional bank or credit union and
used their debit card abroad or issued foreign wire transfers;
Traded stocks on a foreign exchange; Maintained 30.7 accounts and
traded foreign futures, options, or commodities; or Purchased
other foreign currency-related investments from a party other than
one of the Defendants The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege
that beginning as early as 2007 and continuing through at least
2013, some of the world's largest banks conspired with each other
to fix prices and manipulate benchmark exchange rates in the FX
market. These benchmark FX rates are used industry-wide in many
different financial instruments and FX exchange transactions. By
fixing FX rates, these banks increased their profits and decreased
the value of their customers' FX transactions.

The defendant banks include Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, RBC,
RBS, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered, and UBS. This class
action seeks to recover damages against those Defendants for
alleged violations of the antitrust and consumer protection laws
of numerous states.

These allegations have been the subject of investigations by
multiple U.S., foreign, and international governmental
authorities, and the Defendants have already been required to pay
over $10 billion in fines to U.S. and European regulators. A
related nationwide direct purchaser class action brought against
the same Defendants is currently awaiting final approval of
settlements totaling over $2 billion.

Anyone interested in joining the indirect purchaser class action
or obtaining more information can call Berger & Montague, P.C. at
800-788-9715 or email fx@bm.net.

Since its founding in 1970, Berger & Montague has litigated many
of the most significant civil antitrust cases alleging price
fixing and monopoly abuse. The firm has also played a principal
role in obtaining over one billion dollars in settlements from
drug companies alleged to have impeded the entry of generics and
artificially inflated drug prices. As a result of its success and
the skill, reputation, and experience of the firm's antitrust
lawyers, Berger & Montague is routinely appointed by federal
courts to serve in leadership roles in complex antitrust class
action cases.

McCulley McCluer PLLC is a boutique litigation firm with extensive
experience litigating antitrust claims. The firm has been selected
by numerous federal courts and co-counsel to serve in leadership
positions in some of the largest antitrust class actions in the
country. Their attorneys have prosecuted and defended antitrust
cases seeking in excess of $1 billion in markets as diverse as
pharmaceuticals, truck stops, hospital beds, and electrodes.

Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane represents businesses and
consumers in class action lawsuits against corporations and large
financial industry companies around the world that engage in
anticompetitive practices such as price fixing, market
manipulation, market division, bid rigging, and unfair
competition. The firm aggressively prosecutes anticompetitive
practices in a wide range of industries, including finance and
commodities.


BLUE SHIELD: Averts TCPA Class Action Over Recorded Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Young, Esq., of King & Spalding, in an article for
JDSupra, reports thaton January 13, 2017, the United States
District Court for the Central District of California granted Blue
Shield of California's motion for summary judgment in a case on
whether the insurer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The TCPA makes it unlawful "to make any call (other
than a call made . . . with the prior express consent of the
called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone number
assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service."  See 47 U.S.C.
Sec 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  Additionally, FCC regulations prohibit
"any telephone call that includes or introduces an advertisement
or constitutes telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice," unless the call is
made "with the prior express written consent of the called party."
See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(a)(2).

The plaintiff -- Shannon Smith -- received an automated, pre-
recorded call from Blue Shield of California, her health insurer.
The message alerted Ms. Smith that the insurer had mailed her
information about her health insurance and that it was time to
review her health insurance options.  Ms. Smith alleged that the
call violated the TCPA and the FCC regulations because (1) the
call constituted telemarketing, and (2) Blue Shield of California
had not obtained Ms. Smith's express written consent to make the
call.  The insurer argued that its call was lawful because (1) the
call did not constitute telemarketing, and (2) the prior express -
- though unwritten -- consent it had obtained from
Ms. Smith was sufficient for its non-telemarketing call.
According to the Court, because Ms. Smith did not contest that she
had provided prior express -- though unwritten -- consent, the
case turned on whether the call constituted telemarketing, which
would have required Blue Shield of California to have obtained
express written consent.

The Court determined that the call was purely informational and
did not constitute telemarketing.  In reaching that conclusion,
the Court noted several things.  First, the call's content was
virtually identical to guidance the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services issued for how health insurers could properly
contact their customers.  Additionally, the call did not
"unequivocally evoke or reference commerce," which is typical in
cases that have concluded that calls constituted telemarketing or
advertising.  In the end, it simply made "no sense to the Court
that a single call tracking Blue Shield [of California]'s
mandatory communications regarding insurance enrollment and
renewal would expose Blue Shield [of California] to millions of
dollars of liability under the TCPA."  Consequently, the Court
granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment.


BMW: Settles Two Class Actions Over Defective Sunroofs
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Coig, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that BMW has
settled two class-action lawsuits that claimed the manufacturer's
sunroofs were defective on certain makes and models, resulting in
thousands of dollars' worth of damage not covered under warranty.

The lawsuit, which was brought forth by California residents
Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson in 2013, states that certain
vehicles' sunroof drain tubes get clogged, allowing water to enter
the area of the spare tire and cause damage to important
electrical components.  The result was $2,000 worth of damage that
Anderson had to cover himself, as a dealer informed him it wasn't
covered by warranty.

The vehicles listed in the settlement include 2004-2010 BMW 5
Series (E60 and E61), and states that these models aren't
protected from potential water damage, which could ruin electrical
components that are expensive to have fixed or replaced.

The original complaint states, "BMW designed, manufactured,
distributed, sold, and leased various makes and models of BMW
vehicles that contain a serious design defect that significantly
impacts both the safety and value of its vehicles.  Specifically,
numerous models of BMW vehicles manufactured during the class
period were designed so that certain vital electrical components
known as SDARS, RDC, and PDC modules, are located in the lowest
part of the vehicles' trunk. . . . Because BMW decided to place
these vital electrical components in what is essentially the
lowest part of the vehicle (the spare tire well under the trunk),
they are especially prone to water damage that can be caused
through the normal and ordinary use of the vehicle.

"When this water damage occurs, the vehicles become inoperable and
pose a serious safety risk to those who experience this problem.
Although these components are highly susceptible to water damage,
BMW provides no warnings or advisories to BMW owners about the
location of this vital equipment or the importance of keeping the
vehicle's trunk compartment free of liquids," the lawsuit
continues.

BMW did not confess to any wrongdoing or negligence but moved
forward with a settlement to avoid the added cost and time of a
continued trial.

According to the proposed settlement, BMW owners of affected
vehicles can schedule an appointment with an authorized BMW dealer
for an inspection within one year of the final settlement date.
Any water-damaged components will be repaired or replaced. In
addition, any owner who paid out-of-pocket to cover repair or
replacement expenses will be reimbursed, up to $1,500, after
submitting a claim and providing evidence of the repair.

Dealers will also affix a warning label to the trunks of vehicles.


BT: Quinn Emmanuel to Bring Shareholder Claim
---------------------------------------------
Anna Ward, writing for Law.com, reports that Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan is building a claim on behalf of BT
shareholders and funders against the company over an accounting
scandal in its Italian business.

Earlier this month, BT issued a profit warning after it revealed
that the impact of the scandal was much worse than originally
thought.

BT's share price plunged by around 20% after the bill for
mismanagement at its Italian branch almost quadrupled from GBP145m
to GBP530m.

Quinn Emanuel London co-managing partner Richard East --
richardeast@quinnemanuel.com -- said: "We are in contact with our
clients and expect to form a group of substantial institutional
investors.  We have not decided whether this will be a funded case
or whether we will bring this as a damage based agreement.  We
confirm that we are in preliminary discussions with both
shareholders and a number of funders."

Quinn Emanuel's team includes East, London litigation partner and
energy litigation chair Ted Greeno -- tedgreeno@quinnemanuel.com -
- and EU and German competition law chair Nadine Herman.

Quinn Emanuel is also advising on a record-breaking GBP14bn claim
brought against MasterCard in September, on behalf of 46 million
British debit and credit card holders over the company's charging
of illegal payment fees.  The plaintiffs argue that part of the
cost of these fees was passed on to consumers in the form of
increased prices for goods and services.

The firm is also advising on a $44bn German investor claim against
Volkswagen related to the emissions rigging scandal the car maker
has been embroiled in, after it emerged that it had been cheating
emission tests by using software that made its cars appear less
polluting than they are.


BT GROUP: ADR Holders Filed Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
ALEX SARRAF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BT GROUP PLC., GAVIN E. PATTERSON, IAN
LIVINGSTON, and TONY CHANMUGAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00558
(S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
Italian division had for years engaged in improper accounting
practices; (ii) as a result, BT Group significantly overstated its
earnings throughout the Class Period; (iii) the foregoing facts,
when they became known, would foreseeably cause BT Group to cut
its revenue, earnings, and free cash flow forecasts; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, BT Group's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the American Depositary Receipts of BT Group
between May 23, 2013 and January 23, 2017, both dates inclusive.

BT Group is a multinational telecommunications services company
that offers fixed-line services, broadband, mobile and TV products
and services, and networked IT services in the United Kingdom and
across the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


BUTLER COUNTY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Lead in School Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob May, writing for WTAE, reports that a federal class action
negligence lawsuit filed in Pittsburgh targets the Butler Area
School District and its recently resigned superintendent over
their handling of lead discovered in the water at Summit Township
Elementary School.

"If they chose to put those people at risk, then why shouldn't
they be held responsible?" said attorney Douglas Olcott, one of
the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed in the names of a student and her mother but
asks to be certified by the court as a class action case that
could involve 200 children and families.

"It's also on behalf of all the students who were affected and
were drinking this -- what was essentially poisoned water -- for
nearly five months, unknowingly," said attorney Brendan Lupetin
who is also representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit claims the defendants made an intentional decision not
to warn students or take steps to fix dangerous conditions. It
seeks to have the district held liable for all actions or for a
failure to act.

The filing said that shortly after Aug. 15 the district received
water test results that showed both lead and copper levels "far in
excess" of safe water standards.  It said the defendants delayed
notifying students until Jan. 20.  The lawsuit characterizes that
as a shocking and gross delay.

"I think there's a lot of people feeling very anxious, feeling
very angry, about their children and their families and being
concerned and being let down," said Mr. Olcott.

The suit seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages and medical
monitoring of those affected by drinking the lead in the water.

"First to get questions answered because there are a lot of
questions, a lot more than there are answers so far provided to
the parents of all of these children," Mr. Lupetin said.  "Are
they safe now? What is the long-term impact going to be? How much
testing and future medical care is going to be necessary?"

"Find out what sort of monitoring should be done, what type of
medical care, if any, needs to be given. And do we need to track
this three months from now, three years from now, six years from
now? What do we need to do? And is the school better advised?
Because apparently they weren't getting very good advice about
water quality early on," Mr. Olcott said.

The Butler Area School District and its solicitor declined to
comment on the lawsuit.


BUY-LOW: Arbitration Policy Is Illegal, NLRB Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a National Labor
Relations Board judge ruled on Feb. 3 that Buy-Low markets, which
operates grocery stores throughout Southern California, maintained
an illegal arbitration policy that forced employees to sign away
their right to pursue class action claims.
Administrative Law Judge Amita B. Tracy found that Anaheim,
California-based retail grocery chain Buy-Low Market Inc. violated
the National Labor Relations Act and ordered the chain to cease
and desist from enforcing an arbitration agreement that requires
employees to waive the right to file employment-related class or
collective actions in all forums.

"Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the act by implementing,
maintaining and enforcing a mutual arbitration agreement which
required employees to resolve employment-related disputes
exclusively through individual arbitration and, though not
expressly, but in practice, required them to relinquish any right
they have to resolve such disputes through collective or class
action," Judge Tracy said.

Nesked Palacios, a Buy-Low employee who worked at the company from
August 2010 to June 2013, filed a wage-and-hour class action
lawsuit against the grocery chain on July 21, 2015, and Buy-Low
responded on Sept. 25 of that year with a demand that Palacios
submit his claims to arbitration and dismiss his class claims,
based on the agreement that Palacios had signed with the company,
the judge said.

On May 2, 2016, Los Angeles County Judge Kenneth R. Freeman of the
Superior Court of the State of California granted Buy-Low's motion
to compel arbitration, struck the class allegations and declined
to enforce the class claims in arbitration.  On April 5, 2016,
Palacios brought his case before the NLRB.

Judge Tracy in an analysis of the case said Buy-Low denied that
signing the agreement was a mandatory condition of employment. But
Palacios signed the agreement along with other on-boarding
documents, and the agreement didn't clarify whether it was
mandatory or optional to sign, according to the judge.

"When being asked to sign the agreement, at the start of
employment, an employee would not likely refuse to sign," Judge
Tracy said.

In addition, the NLRB has previously stated that an employer
violates the National Labor Relations Act whether or not an
arbitration agreement is mandatory or voluntary, the judge said.

The board's reasoning is that even a voluntary arbitration
agreement, or one that has an opt-out provision, requires
employees to prospectively waive their NLRA Section 7 right to
self-organize, which is unlawful, according to Judge Tracy, who
cited earlier board decisions in D. R. Horton Inc. in 2012 and
Murphy Oil USA Inc. in 2014.

"Having found that respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, consistent with the board's decisions in D. R. Horton
and Murphy Oil, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the act," Judge Tracy ruled.

Counsel for Buy-Low and Palacios were not immediately available
for comment on Feb 6.

Buy-Low is represented by Darren D. Daniels and James M. Gilbert.

Mr. Palacios is represented by Matthew J. Matern, Serena Patel,
Dalia Khalili and Daniel Bass of Matern Law Group.

The NLRB general counsel is represented by Alice J. Garfield.

The case is Buy-Low Market Inc. and Nesked Palacios, case number
is 21-CA-173346, before the National Labor Relations Board,
Division of Judges, San Francisco Branch Office.


CALLSMART INC: Status Hearing in "Dolemba" Suit Reset to March 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 26, 2017, in the case
titled Scott Dolemba v. CallSmart, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04863
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge
L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's counsel reported that a settlement has been
      reached;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn;

   -- Status hearing previously set for January 26, 2017, is
      stricken and reset to March 16, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.; and

   -- if a stipulation to dismiss has been submitted in advance
      of that date, no one needs to appear on March 16.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=02dKc5Zf


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Turcot Interchange Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Marandola, writing for CBC News, reports that
Frank Berdah says business has dropped by as much as 60 per cent
since the construction of the new Turcot Interchange started --
and he thinks the government should compensate him, and other
Montrealers, for damages.

The owner of Decors Ora, an upholstery family business on St-
Jacques Street, has launched a request for a class action lawsuit.

"All the pounding, the machines, the pylons on the street . . . we
have lost at least 50 to 60 per cent of our business," said
Mr. Berdah, the owner of Decors Ora, an upholstery business on
St-Jacques Street between Girouard Avenue and Addington Street.

Mr. Berdah said that since work started on the Turcot Interchange
two years ago, his clients can no longer park nearby on the
street.

"They need to walk 300 to 400 metres just to get to the
storefront," he told CBC Radio's Homerun, adding that since most
of his clients have to drop off or pick up furniture, many have
stopped coming to his store altogether.

Mr. Berdah is also having trouble attracting new clients because
the storefront on St-Jacques Street is blocked by a barrier on the
street.

"We used to have thousands of cars that would go along St-Jacques
and would see us.  Now, the front is completely closed so nobody
can see us."

With work slated to go on until 2020, Mr. Berdah is worried his
family business, which he took over from his father five years
ago, won't last that long.

"I'm trying to survive and trying to keep my father's legacy alive
but it's not working out very well."

Since Mr. Berdah launched the class action authorization, the
phones have not stopped ringing at Ticket Legal Inc., the law firm
filing the legal documents.

If approved, the lawsuit would seek to compensate "all those
businesses and individuals affected by the Turcot Interchange
noise, dust, pollution and nuisances," said Joey Zukran, a lawyer
at Ticket Legal Inc., which filed the class action request on
Mr. Berdah's behalf.

"The conclusions being sought are financial compensation, damages
and for the noise to be reduced within the legal level,"
Mr. Zukran said.


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Judge Hears Junior Hockey Players' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that major junior hockey players fighting to earn
at least minimum wage in Canada took their case before a Calgary
judge on Feb. 7 in a hearing to determine whether their
multimillion-dollar claim can proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

The players are seeking $180 million to cover wages, holiday pay
and vacation pay for both current and former players.

They've named the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), as well as the
affiliated Ontario, Western, and Quebec major junior hockey
leagues and the team owners in a series of class-action lawsuits

The first step toward certifying the class-action lawsuits wsa set
to begin on Feb. 7 in Calgary.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Robert Halll will oversee a four-
day hearing pertaining to the Western Hockey League (WHL) -- which
includes the Calgary Hitmen -- before deciding whether the legal
action can proceed.

Warning of bankruptcy

The CHL has argued the franchises would go bankrupt if they had to
pay the players minimum wage.

Justice Hall decided on Feb. 7 that earnings figures of 42 teams
in the WHL and the OHL can be made public for the purposes of the
lawsuit.

In a statement released after the ruling, the CHL said the
documents will support its position.

"These financials and the analysis reinforce that overall the
leagues are not overly profitable and in any given year, the
majority of CHL Clubs either break even or lose money," the
statement said.

CHL vice-president and WHL commissioner Ron Robison wrote in a
newspaper editorial last fall that the leagues cover "all the
necessary expenses needed to compete at the highest level of the
Canadian amateur hockey system, including top-of-the-line
equipment, room and board and travel costs."

Mr. Robison said the CHL provides players with a year of tuition,
textbooks and compulsory fees for each year they play in the WHL.

But former player Lukas Walter, who is one of the complainants,
says strict expiry rules on those benefits left him without any
tuition money because he didn't enrol in time.

The 24-year-old, who played for three years with the Tri-City
Americans and the Saint John Sea Dogs, says he'd just like to see
players treated more fairly.

"I lived the dream, it was fun, I loved playing hockey and all
that.  But you've got to think past hockey sometimes.  And you
don't think about that when you're at the rink," he said.

"I have a little brother who's in the league now.  And it'd be
awesome if the league did some changes . . . who knows, maybe a
little bit more money, maybe he can take his time and decide what
he wants to take in school."

Hearings for the OHL and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League
lawsuits will be held separately


CAREMARK HEALTH: Drug Quality Compromised During Shipping
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen at Law360 reports that a CVS Health unit was hit with
a proposed class action in California federal court on February 2,
alleging that the firm knowingly failed to ensure the arthritis
drug Enbrel and others were kept at a safe temperature during
shipping.

Named plaintiff B. Amburgey alleges in a complaint filed in
California's Central District that pharmacy benefits manager
Caremark Health LLC violated California law by failing to ensure
specialty drugs were kept within refrigerated but liquid state
during shipping.

"Although Caremark is keenly aware of the specific temperature
requirements," the complaint states, "Caremark does not have
adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that the
specialty drugs are maintained within [each] drug's required
temperature range during storage and distribution such that it
reaches end users with quality intact."

The suit, which closely resembles another proposed class action
filed against Caremark and drugmaker Amgen Inc. in California
state court, seeks to represent California residents who obtained
Enbrel and other specialty drugs from California Caremark
pharmacies over the past four years.

It alleges that Caremark breached express warranty, violated
California's Unfair Competition Law by "concealing the material
fact it does not have adequate policies and procedures" for
shipping and storing specialty drugs and violated California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act by misrepresenting drugs as "original
or new though they have deteriorated unreasonably."

Enbrel is an arthritis medication manufactured by Amgen, and one
of the top 10 drugs in the U.S. by total sales, the complaint
states. In 2013, Enbrel's sales topped $4.2 billion nationwide,
with roughly 12 percent of that, or $511 million, coming from
California, the complaint estimates.

Amburgey was prescribed Enbrel in 2015 and was required to obtain
the drug from Caremark by her insurer, Anthem Blue Cross. Enbrel
is supposed to be stored and shipped within a temperature range of
36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit, but Amburgey received several
shipments of the drug in which it was frozen, the complaint
states.

Her monthly copay is roughly $150 per 28-day supply, and the
complaint states that without insurance "the out-of-pocket costs
for Enbrel can reach $50,000 per year.

"The fact that the Enbrel and the other specialty drugs delivered
to plaintiff and class members may have frozen is a material fact
because plaintiff, a reasonable consumer, would have acted
differently" otherwise, by purchasing a competing product, buying
from a different pharmacy or paying less for the drug, the
complaint states.

The complaint further alleges that Caremark uses United Parcel
Service Inc. to ship drugs, which it says does not "utilize
temperature-controlled vehicles" and that Caremark's packaging
does not ensure the drugs are kept at the proper temperature
either.

"Caremark includes a preprinted notice in each specialty drug
shipment that represents that its shipping procedure and/or
process is 'new and improved,' 'does even more' to keep specialty
drugs cold and exceeds 'industry standards.' All of these
affirmative misrepresentations are false," the complaint states.

Amburgey's case mirrors another proposed class action filed in
California state court in October 2014. That case has a different
plaintiff, but brings the same claims against Caremark and also
names Amgen as a defendant. It is currently in the discovery
phase.

Caleb Marker of Zimmerman Reed LLP, an attorney who is working on
both cases, said the first case was brought in California state
court because it names Amgen, which is based in California, and
the second was brought in federal court since Caremark is not
based there.

A representative for CVS declined to comment on February 3.

Amburgey is represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- and Hannah P. Belkin --
hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available on February 3.

The case is B. Amburgey v. CaremarkPCS Health LLC et al., case
number 8:17-cv-00183, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


CARLTON COOKE: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO CARMONA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against CARLTON COOKE METAL
FINISHING LLC, and ROBERT MICELE, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00495 (D.N.J., January 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own, operate and control a metal finishing company.
Mr. Sanchez was primarily employed to polish metals and do minor
welding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq.
     17 Academy Street - Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: 973-642-0885
     Fax: 973-642-0946
     E-mail: bzurofsky@zurofskylaw.com

        - and -

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: 212-317-1200
     Fax: 212-317-1620
     E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com


CELADON: Indiana Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Covington, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that the
Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment against a
prominent trucking company in a class-action lawsuit, holding that
the terms of the company's contract with its independent drivers
require the company to deduct the cost of fuel from their
compensation based only on the lowest discounted price.

When Celadon Trucking Services Inc. hires employee and independent
truck drivers, it provides all drivers with a "Comdata" card,
which functions like a consumer credit or debit card, to pay for
fuel while on the job.  Drivers are encouraged to purchase their
fuel from Pilot Flying J, which reduces the fuel price from the
"credit" price to the "cash" price each time a Comdata card was
swiped, an amount typically equal to about six cents less per
gallon.

However, Celadon only paid Pilot Flying J the equivalent of the
standard fuel cost minus eight cents per gallon, less than the
displayed "cash" price.  For independent contractors, the amount
of Comdata fuel purchases is deducted from the contractor's total
compensation before Celadon pays them.

In the standard contract between Celadon and the members of this
class action lawsuit, who are all independent contractors, a
provision was included that held that contractors had "sole and
complete responsibility" for paying for their fuel.  Additionally,
the contract held that Celadon could "advance" monies to the
contractors at a rate based on whether they purchased discounted
fuel. However, Comdata cards were not mentioned in the contractor
contracts.

When Charles Wilmoth and Kent Vassey signed their contracts with
Celadon, they were told that they would get the same discounts as
Celadon on their fuel purchases.  However, they later discovered
that Celadon received a greater discount than was reflected in
their compensation.

The two contractors filed a class action in 2013 seeking to
recover the difference between the amount Celadon deducted from
contractors' pay and the amount the trucking company actually paid
Pilot Flying J for fuel.  A class of up to 2,495 members was
created, and the Marion Superior Court entered summary judgment in
favor of the class on its breach of contract claim.

The court found that damages totaled roughly $3.3 million, plus
pre- and post-interest judgment and, further, denied Celadon's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The trucking company
appealed in Celadon Trucking Services, Inc. v. Charles Wilmoth and
Kent Vassey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, 49A04-1512-PL-2104.

In its affirmation of summary judgment in favor of the class, the
Indiana Court of Appeals first noted on Feb. 7 that the language
of the contract is ambiguous with respect to how much Celadon was
allowed to deduct from contractors' compensation for Comdata fuel
purchases.

While the contract does permit Celadon to deduct the pump price
from compensation, there is no definition of an "advance" or
"Comdata cards" in the contractual language, and, further, there
is no explanation of how to calculate the amount for fuel costs,
Judge Michael Barnes wrote.  Because of that ambiguous language,
Celadon's motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly
denied, Barnes said.

Further, the appellate panel defined the "advance" promised to
contractors as the fuel itself, not the specific pump price of the
fuel, because "Celadon never parted with the cash pump price as
opposed to the lesser discount price and cannot be said to have
ever 'advanced' or  'furnished' a fuel purchase at the pump
price."

"In sum, we agree with the Class and the trial court that the
proper interpretation of the contract, construing its ambiguities
against Celadon as its drafter, is that when making deductions
from a trucker's compensation for fuel purchases made at Pilot
Flying Js using a Comdata card, Celadon could only make those
deductions based on the lower discounted price and not the
displayed pump price," Barnes wrote.


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Suit Over Wrongly Issued Parking Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that the city of
Chicago and the vendor to which the city paid $1.2 billion to
install and run Chicago's street parking meter system have been
hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging the vendor and the city
should be made to pay up for parking tickets wrongly issued to
motorists who were actually legally parked after paying for their
parking using the ParkChicago smartphone app.

On Jan. 27, plaintiff Edward Sanchez filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against City Hall and the vendor, identified as
Chicago Parking Meters LLC (CPM), as well as LAZ Parking, the
company hired by CPM to administer its network of parking meters
throughout the city.

Sanchez is represented in the action by attorneys Phillip A. Bock
-- phil@classlawyers.com -- and Jonathan B. Piper --
jon@classlawyers.com --, of the firm of Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim LLC, of Chicago.

The lawsuit centered on the rollout of the ParkChicago app in
2014. Introduced by CPM and LAZ Parking in the aftermath of the
signing of CPM's $1.2 billion, 75-year lease of the city's 36,000
metered parking spaces, the app was promoted as a way of helping
busy commuters and others parking on the city's streets to quickly
and easily pay for parking without having to take the time to
visit the associated curbside parking payment kiosk.

According to the lawsuit, the city and its vendors had pledged the
app could help prevent them from getting parking tickets. While
those who pay for parking at the kiosk must return to their
vehicle and put a receipt on their dashboard to prove they had
paid to park, those using the app were told parking enforcement
officers would need only run their license plate number to see
they were legally parked.

The app has been downloaded by "hundreds of thousands" of users,
the lawsuit said, all of whom set up a parking payment account
through ParkChicago, allowing the vendors to deduct payment
automatically. The account is funded through an initial $20
deposit, and the ParkChicago vendors replenish the account each
time a customer's balance drops below $10.

However, the lawsuit asserts the city and parking vendors have
known since 2014 the system is flawed. For instance, in published
reports about the system, officials have acknowledged the system
can take up to 15 minutes to update, meaning some who used the app
to pay to park within 15 minutes of a parking enforcement
officer's arrival could receive a ticket.

And in other cases, the lawsuit indicated, parking enforcement
officers may simply not run license plates through the parking
enforcement system, issuing tickets to all who don't have a
receipt displayed in their cars' windshields.

In his complaint, Sanchez said he had been issued a ticket in
November 2016 for $65 for allegedly being illegally parked in the
200 block of N. Franklin Street, even though he had used
ParkChicago to pay for parking for two hours at that location, and
was still within his allotted time window. Sanchez said he has
contested the ticket.

However, plaintiffs said they suspect many people have simply paid
the tickets, not wishing to contest the ticket.

The lawsuit has asked the court to expand the action to include
all others who paid for parking using the app, yet have similarly
received improperly issued parking tickets. The complaint does not
estimate how many people this may include.

The lawsuit alleges the city, CPM and LAZ Parking's actions
surrounding ParkChicago violated Illinois' consumer fraud law and
breach implied warranty and the city's and vendors' fiduciary
duty, as keepers of the funds deposited by ParkChicago's
customers.

The lawsuit asks the court to award unspecified "appropriate
damages," punitive damages and attorney fees. The plaintiffs have
also asked the court to order the city and parking vendors to
"disclose the scope of known defects" with the ParkChicago system;
to stop issuing tickets to those who paid to park using
ParkChicago; and to stop prosecuting parking tickets without first
checking to see if the parking had actually been legally paid
using the app.


COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Johnson Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eneida Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit titled ENEIDA JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. COLLECTION ASSOCIATES, LTD., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00124-LA (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=fUVT6jKn

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


DAN WYANT: Lawyers Plan to Appeal Dismissed Suit
------------------------------------------------
Jiquanda Johnson at MLive reports attorneys for plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit regarding Flint's water crisis say they are
going to appeal a federal judge's dismissal of one of four cases.

"This is really just a temporary setback," said Michael Pitt, with
Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, an attorney representing Flint
community activist Melissa Mays and other Flint residents in the
class action lawsuits. "We are going to take an appeal to the
sixth circuit."

Mays along with filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Rick
Snyder and other political leaders including former mayor Dayne
Walling and the city of Flint saying they were responsible for
replacing water in Flint with water that was "dangerous, unsafe
and . . . . inadequately treated."

Class action lawsuit claims Snyder, Flint put water cost above
safety U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara dismissed the
class-action lawsuit on Februay 2 saying it would bypass the Safe
Drinking Water Act's procedures.

"What Judge O'Meara believed is that the way the Safe Drinking
Water Act was written by congress the appropriate forum (for this
case) should be Genesee County Circuit Court or Michigan Court of
Claims. Not in federal court," Pitt said. "We disagree with that."
Pitt said they are appealing O'Meara's decision in 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit declared the conduct of the 14 officials
unconstitutional.

In addition to Snyder, Walling and the emergency managers, the
lawsuit names defendants Dan Wyant, director of the state
Department of Environmental Quality; Liane Shekter, Adam
Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby and Brad
Wurfel, all of the DEQ; Flint Department of Public Works Director
Howard Croft, Flint Utilities Administrator Michael Glasgow and
Daughtery Johnson, former city utilities administrator.

State officials say they are pleased with the recent dismissal.

"We are pleased to see this matter has been resolved through the
judicial process," said Anna Heaton, press secretary for Snyder,
said in an email statement to MLive-The Flint Journal. "We will
continue working each day to provide resources for Flint's full
recovery, just as we have been for the last year."

They are still facing the potential appeal and three other
lawsuits.

"This is one of four cases that have been filed on behalf of the
Flint citizens by Mays' legal team," Pitt said. "The other cases
are proceeding and we are proceeding very aggressively on the
other cases. Everybody's legal rights are still intact. Nobody's
lost anything as a result of this decision this is more procedural
than substantive."

On Jan. 3 they filed a case against the Environmental Protection
Agency, there are also lawsuits pending in the Genesee County
Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Claims.

On January 29, we filed a case against the (Environmental
Protection Agency), we have class action pending in the Genesee
County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Claims.


DISH NETWORK: Jury Awards $20MM Verdict on TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury at West Virginia Record reports a North Carolina jury
awarded a $20 million verdict in a class action lawsuit against
Dish Network for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The trial lasted five days. Dr. Thomas Krakauer, the lead
plaintiff, alleged that Dish was liable for more than 51,00
telemarketing calls placed by a Dish dealer to persons whose
numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The jury found Dish liable for all calls and awarded $400 per
violation of the TCPA.

"This case has always been about enforcing the Do Not Call law and
protecting people from nuisance telemarketing calls," Krakauer
said in a press release. "I am thrilled with the jury's verdict,
and thrilled we were able to win this enforcement action."

John W. Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- and Brian A.
Glasser -- bglasser@baileyglasser.com --, of Bailey & Glasser, led
the trial team representing the class in the lawsuit. Edward A.
Broderick and Anthony Paronich of Broderick & Paronich; and John
Roddy of Bailey & Glasser's Boston office also represented the
class.

"We won this case through the testimony of Dish witnesses
themselves," Glasser said.

Glasser argued in court that Dish's order entry retailer program
was a corporate shell game, developed so Dish could have all the
benefits of illegal telemarketing -- the customers -- but shoulder
none of the responsibility for violating the law.

Barrett said they believe this was the first and only jury trial
for a certified class of consumers alleging Do Not Call violations

"This was a strength-in-numbers case, one we could only bring as a
class action, where we tried 51,000 claims in a single, five-day
trial," Barrett said. "We're particularly pleased with the message
this verdict sends about the importance of the Do Not Call laws,
the most popular consumer protection law in U.S. history."

More than 220 million Americans have opted out of receiving home
telemarketing calls by registering their telephone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

The registry was established through the TCPA, which was enacted
in 1991 and regulates live, prerecorded and "robocall"
telemarketing.

The case was presided over by U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles
of the Middle District of North Carolina.

Peter Bicks -- pbicks@orrick.com -- Elyse Echtmann --
eechtmann@orrick.com --, and John Ewald -- jewald@orrick.com -- of
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York represented Dish.


DOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Minnis, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California man has slapped Dole Foods with a class action lawsuit
alleging its foods fraudulently contain excessive amounts of sugar
while being advertised as health-conscious options.

Alfredo Ramirez of Orange County formally filed suit in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

Naming Dole Packaged Foods LLC and Does 1 through 25 as
defendants, Mr. Ramirez seeks trial by jury, compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, restitution, injunctive relief, court
costs and all further relief the court grants.

Mr. Ramirez is represented by the California-based legal team of
Nathan & Associates APC in Newport Beach and by Ross Cornell of
Long Beach.

Through his attorneys, Ramirez contends he was tricked into buying
Dole Food products by misleading advertisements that billed them
as being healthy.  Dole Packaged Foods is a subsidiary of Dole,
the world's largest producer of fruits and vegetables, employing
more than 74,000 workers worldwide.

The company sells such health-oriented advertised snack products
as DPF Fruit & Oatmeal, DPF Parfait and DPF Mixations.

"He wasn't aware of the deceit initially, but after he was able to
confirm the contents didn't have the nutritional benefits they
claim they do, he came to us," attorney Reuben Nathan --
rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- told Legal Newsline, though he
declined to say how his client uncovered the discrepancy between
what's advertised and what's allegedly actually used in the snack
products.

Mr. Ramirez's suit contends at some point and time he has
purchased all of the aforementioned products, largely based on
their "no trans fat" and "no cholesterol" labels, only to later
realize they weren't what they were billed to be.

The suit adds that based on the large and excessive amounts of
sugar used in all of the items, the risk of such ailments as heart
disease, diabetes, liver disease and other forms of illnesses are
greatly enhanced.

Attorneys for Mr. Ramirez add in some instances, Dole products
contain as much as 17 percent sugar by weight, accounting for more
than 35 percent of the product's calories, amounting to better
than 45 percent of the American Heart Association's recommendation
for men's daily sugar intake.

The suit also charges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
prohibiting "advertising goods or services with intent not to sell
them as advertised," breach of express warranty and negligent
representation.

In addition, Mr. Ramirez is hoping to have all consumers of Dole
products for personal use and not for resale over the four-year
period in question step forward as plaintiffs in his action.

"The next phase in the process will be for the defendant to
formally respond," said Mr. Nathan.  "It's pretty clear to us what
their course should be.  This isn't rocket science and the claims
made about their products are pretty clear.  We're hoping they
will now agree to remove many off those claims."

Dole has previously faced similar claims, including a California
suit filed in October alleging that the company routinely uses
deception in the marketing of such products as its Dole Fruit &
Oatmeal.

In that case, plaintiff Salvador Amaya alleged that the company
benefits from the use of misleading advertisements labeling its
food products, all as part of a plan to make them appear more
enticing to health-conscious consumers.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Smith Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Dollar
General Corporation securities between March 10, 2016 and November
30, 2016, inclusive. Dollar General investors have until March 20,
2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Dollar General investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Dollar General is a discount retailer that provides various
merchandise products in the Southern, Southwestern, Midwestern and
Eastern United States. A large portion of the Company's revenues
are derived through customers use of welfare benefits to purchase
merchandise.

According to the Complaint filed in this Class Action, throughout
the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements regarding the impact of limitations on welfare benefits
announced by various states. Notably, throughout the Class Period,
the Company downplayed analyst concerns regarding the
implementation of the SNAP restrictions and its impact on the
Company's performance. However, unbeknownst to investors, a
majority of Dollar General's stores are located in states that re-
implemented time limitations on SNAP benefits in 2016, and
therefore the impact of SNAP reductions would be disproportionate
to the percentage of the Company's overall sales comprised of SNAP
payments.

If you purchased shares of Dollar General during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than March 20, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to --
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com -- or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


ELECTROLUX: Faces Suit Over Unethical Shipping Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports a California consumer is
suing Electrolux, alleging unethical practices.

Jim Reider of Orange County filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Jan. 8
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., and Does 1-10,
alleging they charged an unethical shipping/handling charge.

According to the complaint, Reider purchased a product that
included a number of shipping/handling charges that were many
times the amount of the actual product. The plaintiff alleges the
defendants charge customers unethical charges for delivery.

Reider seeks trial by jury, compensatory damages, full refund of
the shipping and delivery charges, restitution, injunctive relief,
court costs and all further relief the court grants. He is
represented by attorneys Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles
of Pacific Trial Attorneys in Newport Beach, California.


ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Endologix, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 17-cv-00061, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Endologix securities between August 2, 2016 and
November 16, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Endologix securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 6, 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.

Endologix develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.

Endologix's products are intended for the minimally invasive
endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. One of the
Company's products is built on the platform of endovascular
sealing. Endologix's current EVAS product is the Nellix (R)
EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System ("Nellix EVAS System").

The Nellix EVAS System is currently engaged in the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") premarket approval process (the "PMA
process"), which requires Endologix to collect and submit
nonclinical and human clinical data on Nellix EVAS System for its
intended use to demonstrate that it is safe and effective. In the
PMA process, the FDA will approve the medical device and thereby
authorize its commercial distribution in the U.S. if it determines
that the probable benefits outweigh the risks for the intended
patient population, and, therefore, makes a determination of
reasonable assurances of safety and effectiveness.

In December 2013, Endologix received Investigational Device
Exemption ("IDE") approval in the United States to begin a
clinical trial for the Nellix EVAS System, which commenced in
January 2014 (the "IDE Study"). Enrollment in the IDE study was
completed in November 2014. In the third quarter of 2015,
Endologix obtained IDE continued access approval for additional
patients.

On May 26, 2016, Endologix reported purportedly positive clinical
data from the IDE Study and submitted the results to the FDA as
part of the PMA process for the Nellix EVAS System.

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:
(1) Endologix did not have the requisite clinical data for FDA
premarket approval of its NellixAr EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing
System; and (2) as a result, Endologix's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 16, 2016, before market hours, Endologix issued a
press release entitled, "Endologix Provides Update on Nellix PMA
Process," revealing "that the U.S Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has requested the Company provide 2-year patient follow-up
data from the EVAS-FORWARD IDE Study of the Nellix(R) EndoVascular
Aneurysm Sealing System (Nellix EVAS System)."

On this news, Endologix's share price fell $2.02, or over 20.5%,
from its previous closing price, to close at $7.82 on November 16,
2016, damaging investors.

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


EPIC SYSTEMS: Judge Approves Settlement for Overtime Pay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison.com reported that a federal district judge officially
signed off on a settlement on February 2 between Epic Systems and
a group of workers who sued the company for overtime pay.

The case, Long v. Epic, was one of three class action lawsuits
that the Verona electronic health records company has faced over
its overtime policies. Now that one of them has ended, two remain
-- including one currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys have not disclosed the terms of the settlement in the
Long case. After the parties indicated that they'd reached a
settlement in January, Judge William Conley asked for briefs with
details about the agreement. Epic responded with an assertion that
because of the "companion case" before the Supreme Court, the
settlement terms need to remain confidential.

The case before the Supreme Court is Lewis v. Epic. The high court
will rule on a specific aspect of the lawsuit: whether such class
action lawsuits are legal if the class of workers signed
agreements to take wage issues up individually with their employer
in a private setting.

Epic has pointed to the "individual arbitration" agreement it had
workers sign in an attempt to get lawsuits against it dismissed.

The various lawsuits are similar, but differ based on the kinds of
employees represented in each case and the period of time for
which overtime pay is sought.

In the newly settled Long case, the plaintiffs were technical
writers -- employees who made documentation for Epic's complex web
of software -- who worked for the company prior to April 2014.

In the Lewis case before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs are
technical writers who worked at Epic after April 2014.

Meanwhile, a federal judge agreed earlier this week to place the
other ongoing lawsuit against Epic on hold, pending the Supreme
Court's decision.


FXCM INC: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against FXCM Inc. and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired FXCM securities, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased FXCM securities between
March 15, 2012 and February 6, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until April 10, 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.

FXCM is an agency that provides online foreign exchange (FX)
trading and related services to retail and institutional
customers.  The Company acts as a credit intermediary,
simultaneously entering into trades with the customer and the FX
market maker, which allows customers to trade currency pairs on
the over-the-counter foreign exchange markets.

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) between September 4, 2009 through at least 2014, FXCM's
U.S. subsidiary engaged in false and misleading solicitations of
its foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with
its most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its
"No Dealing Desk" platform had no inherent conflicts of interest
with the Company's customers; (ii) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made
false statements to the National Futures Association regarding the
Company's relationship with the market maker; (iii) accordingly,
FXCM had misled investors with respect to the Company's adverse
position to its retail customers; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, FXCM's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On February 6, 2017, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") issued an order, fining FXCM and its founding partners,
Dror Niv and William Ahdout $7 million for defrauding retail forex
customers.

On that same day, FXCM issued a press release, filed on Form 8-K
with the SEC on February 7, 2017, entitled "FXCM US Reaches
Settlement with NFA and CFTC," announcing the Company's withdrawal
from U.S. markets.

On this news, FXCM's share price fell $3.40, or 49.64%, to close
at $3.45 on February 7, 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. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com


GENWORTH FINC'L: Suit Hinders Acquisition of China Oceanwide
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial can't shut the door on being purchased by one
of China's largest companies just yet, as it possibly faces
another class action lawsuit from disgruntled shareholders and
customers.

China Oceanwide Holdings Group announced last year that it plans
to buy Genworth Financial, one of the U.S.'s largest mortgage
insurers, for $2.7 billion, but the deal isn't closed quite yet.

At the time of the announcement, Genworth noted that the
transaction is subject to approval by its stockholders as well as
other closing conditions, including the receipt of required
regulatory approvals.

However, it's important to note that both lawsuits are asking for
class action status, with the cases following similar lawsuits in
the past.

According to an article in Richmond BizSense by Michael Schwartz:

Genworth Financial was sued twice in the last four weeks in
Richmond federal court: once by a group of shareholders who argue
its deal with suitor China Oceanwide isn't in their favor; and the
other by a group of customers from its long-term care insurance
business, which has caused significant financial losses for the
firm in recent years.

A main factor behind the Genworth acquisition was to address the
company's long-term care financial issues.

As part of the purchase, the companies said that China Oceanwide
plans to contribute $600 million of cash to Genworth to address
the company's debt maturing in 2018, on or before its maturity, as
well as $525 million of cash to the U.S. life insurance
businesses.

Genworth said that the China Oceanwide deal is expected to
"mitigate the negative impact" of these charges on Genworth's
financial flexibility and facilitate it's ability to complete its
previously announced U.S. life insurance restructuring plan.

Genworth told Richmond BizSense that it does not comment on
litigation.


GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tepfer at CT Post reports a judge has refused to throw out
a class action lawsuit against Griffin Hospital on behalf of more
than 3,100 former patients who may face HIV or other blood-borne
diseases as a result of hospital employees using the same insulin
injection pens on patient after patient.

In an 18-page decision, Superior Court Judge Linda Lager ruled
that it will be up to a jury to decide whether the Derby hospital
is liable for the alleged negligent actions of its staff in the
case.

"(The complaint) alleges that over a lengthy period of time
Griffin improperly administered insulin to its insulin dependent
diabetic patients by using single patient multidose insulin pens
in a manner that violated the standard of care," the judge wrote.
"A central question to all the putative claims is the applicable
standard of care."

Stamford lawyer Ernest Teitell, who filed the lawsuit, declined
comment on the judge's decision.

"In accordance with our hospital policy, we respectfully decline
to comment on ongoing litigation," said hospital Spokesman
Christian Meagher.

No trial has yet been set in the case.

On May 16, 2014, Griffin Hospital CEO Patrick Charmel sent a
letter to 3,149 former patients stating: "It has identified the
possibility that insulin pens ordered for patients hospitalized
between Sept. 1, 2008 and May 7, 2014, may have been misused."
Insulin pens are injector devices that contain a multidose vial of
insulin. The pens are intended for single person use only and are
designed to allow for the delivery of multiple doses. The hospital
offered free testing encouraging former patients to come in within
the next 30 days.


FXCM: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following US Market Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Saks-McLeod, writing for FinanceFeeds, reports that
just half a day after FXCM's ban from the US market for trading
against its customers, sending confidence tumbling, the class
action law suits begin, instigated by New York investor rights
lawyer Rosen Law Firm on behalf of shareholders.

Senior Cyprus lawyers found guilty of 7 charges of bribery
The abrupt end that has been brought to FXCM's standing as one of
the largest and most widely recognized retail FX brokerages in its
own domestic market, the United States, has begun to take further
turns.

The US authorities have banned FXCM along with its CEO Drew Niv
and senior Managing Director William Adhout from operating in the
United States on a permanent basis for having traded against its
customers for several years whilst all the while maintaining that
execution took place on an agency (A-book) basis.  This may now
become a matter of scrutiny for other regulators in which FXCM has
operations and licenses because the execution model is global.

FinanceFeeds explained in an editorial analysis on Feb. 7 that
there may well be a deluge of litigation from two particular
camps, one being the direct shareholders of FXCM, the other being
shareholders of Leucadia who are now lumbered with the aftermath
of a decision that was made with no due diligence having taken
place and no recourse.

FinanceFeeds pointed out that the two sets of shareholders that
currently may have cause to seek retribution in court would be
either shareholders of FXCM itself, a publicly listed company
which has had the finger pointed at it by the New York Stock
Exchange for maintaining a share price lower than $1 for a six
month period after the Swiss National Bank event, $1 being the
minimum share value to maintain listing on the New York Stock
Exchange.

Shareholders had witnessed their stock diminish in price from $17
prior to January 2015 to just a few cents thereafter, however
FXCM's reverse stock split revitalized the prices and shareholders
did not rush away in droves.  FXCM eventually delisted from the
NYSE and is now listed on NASDAQ, a very rare venue for stock of
electronic trading companies, alluding to confidence even by
NASDAQ that the company would be credible enough for its strict
listing criteria.

The second possible route of discourse could come from Leucadia
which is a giant North American holdings company that, through
various subsidiaries, engages in telecommunications, healthcare,
banking, investment services including Jefferies, which is 28%
owned by Leucadia.

Leucadia has a market capitalization of over $10 billion and is
known as a smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway and its
shareholders and directors are absolutely nobody's fool.

The backlash from any potential action taken by Leucadia
shareholders against Leucadia for granting a $300 million
emergency funding deal to FXCM without doing any due diligence, on
a handshake, trusting that the structure of FXCM and its senior
management team were transparent and bona fide, could be far worse
than any court room tantrums from speculative FXCM shareholders.

Whilst FXCM has paid down a large proportion of the loan, Leucadia
has recently taken an ownership position in FXCM, In September
2016, Leucadia took a 49.9% interest in FXCM's operating
companies, with FXCM retaining the remainder.  Should this be the
end of FXCM, the cost to Leucadia will be far higher than its
initial interest in the firm, which will not be palatable to
shareholders, who could hold the company accountable for making a
reckless decision to lend $300 million in the first place, which
paved the way for an interest to be taken in a firm which is now
completely on its uppers, with share prices collapsing and an
announcement made earlier on Feb. 7 that 150 staff are to be made
redundant.

Just half a day has passed since FXCM's operations have begun to
unravel, with trust in tatters globally, and with the end looking
to be nigh, Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights litigation
specialist based in New York, has begun investigating potential
securities claims on behalf of shareholders of FXCM.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by FXCM investors and has currently gathered a
series of parties wishing to be included in the claim, and is
appealing for individuals or entities who purchased shares before
February 6, 2017 to contact its offices.

Currently, the law firm itself is leading the claim, however it is
our opinion that this will be a prevalent direction as the fate of
the company spirals toward extinction.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Rosenfeld Sues Over Sale to China Oceanwide
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSENFELD FAMILY TRUST, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., THOMAS
J. MCINERNEY, JAMES S. RIEPE, WILLIAM H. BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD,
MELINA E. HIGGINS, DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY, and JAMES
A. PARKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00073-UNA (D. Del., January
25, 2017), alleges that the Defendants' Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A for the sale of Genworth to China
Oceanwide Holdings Group Co., Ltd. omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Genworth
management's projections utilized by the Company's financial
advisors, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC in
their financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Goldman Sachs and Lazard in connection with the rendering of their
fairness opinions; and (iii) the sale process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $2.7 billion.

China Oceanwide is a privately held, family-owned international
financial holding group headquartered in Beijing, China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
     O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
     901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 778-4000
     E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
             dmurray@oelegal.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025


GOOGLE INC: $5.5MM Cookie Class Action Settlement Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that a Delaware
federal judge on Feb. 2 gave final approval to a $5.5 million
settlement between Google Inc. and a nationwide class of
plaintiffs that had challenged the tech giant's practice of
overriding cookie blockers to access users' internet history
information.

The payout, preliminarily approved in August, will be distributed
among six cy pres recipients -- all leaders in researching and
advocating for online privacy, according to court documents.

The Feb. 2 approval came over the sole objection of Theodore H.
Frank, who has opposed similar settlements in other cases
involving Subway, Red Bull and Gillette.  In the Google case,
Frank again argued that the settlement should be rejected because
it did not directly compensate class plaintiffs for their claims
under California's privacy laws.

But U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District of
Delaware said that complex nature of the case -- as well as the
sheer volume and diversity of class members -- justified the
indirect benefit.

"The court concludes that the realities of the litigation at bar
demonstrate that direct monetary payments to absent class members
would be logistically burdensome, impractical and economically
infeasible, resulting (at best) with direct compensation of a de
minimis amount," she said in a 12-page memorandum and order.

The parties agreed to settle the case, captioned In Re: Google
Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, after the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in part Judge
Robinson's decision to dismiss the case in its entirety back in
2013.

The three-judge panel in November 2015 found that allegations of
Google's "broad" and "surreptitious" efforts to circumvent privacy
settings on Apple Safari and Microsoft Internet Explorer web
browsers raised serious concerns under California law.

Allegedly, the company had exploited loopholes in both browsers'
cookie blockers, despite public assurances to the contrary.
Cookies enable websites and advertisers to track users' internet
history, allowing them to create detailed user profiles and
deliver highly targeted advertisements.

The revelation, first discovered by Stanford University graduate
student Jonathan Mayer, led to a $22.5 million settlement with the
Federal Trade Commission and a separate agreement to resolve
claims by 38 state attorneys general for $17 million.

It also sparked filings in district courts across the country from
plaintiffs who used the two browsers.   The cases were ultimately
consolidated in the district of Delaware and assigned to Judge
Robinson.

As a part of the settlement each of the three class
representatives will receive $1,000 in incentive rewards, and
Google will pay for more than $90,900 in expenses.

Judge Robinson did, however, slash the plaintiffs' attorney fees
from the requested $2.4 million to $1.9 million.   The reduction,
she said, reflected the nature of the benefit that the settlement
conferred.

"In other words, the court concludes that it is appropriate to
adjust attorney fees to reflect the fact that it is only the
attorneys who have directly benefitted from the settlement," she
wrote.  "In this case, given that the settlement fund is
relatively modest and the resolution at bar follows that of the
FTC investigation, attorney fees approaching 50 percent of the
settlement fund is not acceptable."

The cy pres contributions will be made to the Berkeley Center for
Law & Technology; the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society
at Harvard University; the Center for Democracy & Technology;
Public Counsel; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; and the Center for
Internet and Society at Stanford University.


HARRIS & HARRIS: Judge Cleared Skip Tracing Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan at Cook County Record reports a Cook County judge has
cleared a California woman to continue her class action lawsuit
against a Chicago-based debt collector who she accused of breaking
federal law in using so-called "skip tracing" to call her on her
mobile phone to collect unpaid traffic tickets.

On Jan. 13, Cook County Judge Michael T. Mullen denied a request
from debt collection firm Harris & Harris to dismiss the lawsuit
brought by plaintiff Keisha Newsom.

The judge's order did not explain why he refused to dismiss the
action.

Newsom, through her attorneys with the firm of Edelson P.C., of
Chicago, had filed suit in April in Cook County Circuit Court,
centering her complaint on Harris & Harris' allegedly improper
tactics in attempting to collect debts by calling her mobile phone
using automated phone dialing systems and prerecorded messages.

The original complaint accused Harris of improperly using so-
called "skip tracing" to acquire debtors' mobile phone numbers.
The method essentially mines public databases and other records to
locate someone believed to have "skipped" out on unpaid bills and
other debts.

Harris would then use the techniques to "surreptitiously" acquire
mobile numbers, and then repeatedly call those numbers using
automated dialing systems and prerecorded messages.

Court documents indicated Harris & Harris contacted Newsom to
attempt to collect on unpaid Las Vegas traffic tickets dating
backing to 2007.

Newsom claimed in her complaint she had gotten a new phone number
in 2014 or 2015 and did not provide that information to the Harris
firm.

However, in a motion to dismiss filed Oct. 26, the Harris firm
said Newsom had provided her number to the Las Vegas Municipal
Court, and told a court employee the court could call her on that
number using an automated phone dialing system and pre-recorded
messages. Harris provided a transcript of a recording of that
conversation in its motion, and the debt collector argued Newsom's
consent to use the number was transferred to them when the Las
Vegas court hired Harris & Harris to pursue collection of Newsom's
debt.

Newsom's attorneys, however, on Nov. 16, countered she had
provided that consent only to the Las Vegas court, and she had
expressly demanded in an email written to Harris & Harris in June
2015 to "'cease and desist all communications' with her." This,
she said, amounted to Newsom retracting her authorization for the
collector to contact her on that number using an automated dialing
system.

However, Newsom's filing alleges she received at least one more
call from Harris on her mobile phone after that letter had been
received and logged by Harris.

"Plaintiff's consent (to the extent it existed at all) had already
been revoked, Defendant (Harris) knew that it had been revoked,
and it called her again despite that," Newsom's lawyers said in
their response to Harris' dismissal motion.

This meant Newsom should have standing to pursue the lawsuit, her
lawyers argued.

The judge ordered Harris to respond to the allegations of the
lawsuit by Feb. 10.

Harris & Harris is defended by the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, of Chicago.


IKO ORGANIC: Agrees to Pay CDN$7.5-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
CNW reports that a proposed settlement has been reached in the
national class action regarding IKO/CRC/Canroof Organic Shingles
(collectively, "IKO Organic Shingles").

"IKO Organic Shingles" means all asphalt organic shingles
manufactured by or on behalf of IKO Industries Ltd., Canroof
Corporation Inc., or I.G. Machine (the "defendants"). The class
action relates only to organic shingles. The class action does not
relate to fiberglass shingles (some of which have been sold under
the same brand names as IKO Organic Shingles). IKO Organic
Shingles were sold under the following brand names: Chateau,
Renaissance XL, Aristocrat, Total, Armour Seal, Superplus, Armour
Lock, Royal Victorian, Cathedral XL, Ultralock 25, Armour Plus 20,
Armour Tite, Cambridge Ultra Shadow (laminated organic), Crowne
30. IKO Organic Shingles have not been manufactured since 2008 and
have not been sold since 2010.

The Class Action:  The class action alleges, among other things,
that IKO Organic Shingles were negligently designed and
manufactured in a manner that, under normal conditions and usage,
would result in premature failure. The defendants deny these
allegations and assert that IKO Organic Shingles are free of any
defect, and in fact, are good quality roofing materials.

The class action affects current or former owners or lessees of
buildings located in Canada that contain or contained IKO Organic
Shingles.

The Proposed Settlement: The defendants have agreed to pay
CDN$7,500,000 to resolve class member claims. The proposed
settlement agreement sets out who is eligible for compensation,
how the settlement funds will be distributed, and how class
members can apply to receive benefits. A copy of the proposed
settlement can be viewed at www.classaction.ca/iko.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability. The
defendants agreed to settle the action to avoid the costs of
litigation and achieve finality in its obligations to class
members.

Settlement approval hearing: The settlement agreement is
conditional on approval by the Ontario Court. A hearing to approve
the settlement will be heard on May 9, 2017, in Brampton, Ontario.
Class members have the right to object to or otherwise make
submissions about the settlement. Objections must be made in
accordance with the process outlined in Part 10 of the long-form
notice of the settlement approval hearing. This notice is
available online at www.classaction.ca/iko.

Siskinds LLP is counsel for the class. Siskinds is a law firm
based in London, Ontario, with an office in Toronto and affiliate
offices in Montreal and Quebec City.


IMAGE LINE: Thomas Seeks Certification of Truck Pushers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA THOMAS v. IMAGE LINE,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-DBP (D. Utah), files with the
Court an amended unopposed motion for conditional certification.

Joshua Thomas sued Image Line, LLC and others alleging violations
of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
wage and hour laws of North Dakota.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants paid him a day rate with no overtime
pay for hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Parties have agreed to stipulate to conditional certification
of an FLSA class consisting of:

     Truck Pushers employed by Wind River Trucking, LLC during
     the last three years.

The Parties also agreed to the distribution of a notice to the
potential FLSA class and to its contents and to the contents of a
cover e-mail and a telephone script to be used only in case of
returned mail.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks authorization to
send his proposed notice and consent form to the potential class
members and approval of the cover e-mail and phone script.

The Parties further propose a schedule relating to deadlines in
the sending and mailing of the notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RPLm568G

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          M. Paige Benjamin, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1464
          Provo, UT 84603
          Telephone: (801) 822-9210
          E-mail: paigebenjamin@mac.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Stanger, Esq.
          Ashley Leonard, Esq.
          STRONG & HANNI
          102 South 200 East, Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7080
          Facsimile: (801) 596-1508
          E-mail: mstanger@strongandhanni.com
                  aleonard@strongandhanni.com


IOWA METHODIST: Faces Class Action Over Drug Switching
------------------------------------------------------
Tommie Clark at KCCI reports an Iowa hospital system has been the
target of an incoming flood of lawsuits after a former pharmacy
technician at Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines was
found to have been replacing a powerful pain medication with
saline.

The lawsuit accuses the hospital of being negligent in its
supervision of the pharmacy tech who stole fentanyl and Dilaudid
during a six-week period last year.

The hospital contacted more than 700 patients last October after
learning of the tampering, fearing the patients might not have
received full doses of the drugs.

Not only were they receiving salt water instead of a powerful
painkiller called fentanyl, they were also possibly exposed to
dirty needles and dirty intravenous fluids injected into them.

Ten civil lawsuits were filed on January 3 by former patients who
want the hospital to explain -- and pay -- for what happened.

"People going through surgery, going through delivery, going
through C-sections, having epidurals going into their spine, and
when they're supposed to be getting pain medicine, they're getting
nothing," said Nick Rowley, of The Rowley Law Firm.

One patient, Dusty Chapline, gave birth at Methodist and believes
she delivered her baby after 16 hours in labor with no pain
medication.

"Some of the worst pain I've ever felt in my life, and I thought
that it was me because they made it seem like I was just
complaining like what they had given me I should be fine and feel
something," Chapline said. "But you don't understand. This is bad.
It was excruciating."

Attorneys said 175 more patients have signed paperwork indicating
that they are willing to initiate their own separate lawsuits.

"It's time for this corporation to pay that money back, and we're
going to find out how many more people this happened to," Rowley
said.

Hospital spokeswoman Amy Varcoe denied several allegations in the
lawsuit on January 3.

The Hope Law Firm represents more than 100 clients who have filed
a lawsuit against UnityPoint over a drug-switching case at
Methodist Hospital that KCCI first reported in October.

The lawsuit alleges UnityPoint patients were exposed to a risk of
intravenous HIV and hepatitis C through an employee who tampered
with narcotic medications.

The lawsuit claims two patients have tested positive for hepatitis
C, and more are in fear.

According to the lawsuit, hundreds of Iowa patients endured
"excruciating pain and torture by being given intravenous placebo
in place of the intravenous narcotic pain medicines that were
prescribed, and which the patients were charged for; patients who
were given the placebo and complained of the pain medicine 'not
working' were accused of drug seeking behavior."

The lawsuit alleges that UnityPoint was negligent in the hiring,
training and supervision of the employee.

Eric Lothe, senior vice president and COO of UnityPoint Health,
told KCCI he could not share specifics concerning a pending
lawsuit but that the organization deeply regrets what he called,
"the unfortunate actions of a former employee."

Lothe said the employee responsible was appropriately vetted
before being hired, including reference checks and criminal-
history and abuse-registry checks.

"We are disappointed and distraught as well," he said. "There's a
sacred trust that exists between the hospitals, the caregivers and
the patients that we take care of, so we deeply regret what has
happened."

Lothe added the employee was new at the hospital and had only
worked 24 shifts when it was realized what he was doing. He said
UnityPoint reached out to all patients on those floors who may
have been affected and offers the deepest of sympathies.

"Everyone who chooses us . . . . That's an honor," Lothe said.
"And when they're here, they are part of our family that we are
taking care of.

"And so anyone who would have an outcome in any way that they are
unhappy about, particularly if they had pain that was
uncontrolled, would be something we would take very seriously and
would want to rectify in any way we can. That's a trust we have
with our patients."

The name of the technician has not been released by the hospital
or police. Lothe said the hospital is taking cues from the police
at this point.

He said they are also looking at all internal policies to make
sure something like this can never happen again.
The patients' attorneys said they will file 10 more lawsuits every
week until UnityPoint releases more information about the
incidents.

            Original Incident Reported in October 2016

A pharmacy tech claims he watered down the opioid prescriptions of
hospital patients and stole the powerful painkillers.

The incident happened at Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines.

Over the course of six weeks, 731 people may have been given the
watered-down drugs.

Instead of patients receiving a prescribed painkiller called
fentanyl, a drug 50 times more potent than heroin, as many as 731
people could have received nothing more than salt water.

Methodist Medical Center officials said the pharmacy tech had
legitimate access to portable medication carts that are placed
throughout the hospital where the fentanyl was stored.

From Aug. 26, 2016 to Oct. 7, 2016, he allegedly used a syringe to
replace the fentanyl with saline in 252 vials.

KCCI first learned these exclusive details from a viewer who is a
patient at Methodist and wondered why the pain killers she was
prescribed after spinal surgery did nothing to help.

Methodist officials said they are not sure where the pharmacy tech
got the syringe and is now offering free HIV tests for anyone who
is affected, though hospital officials said there is virtually no
risk and are only offering the test as a precaution.


JETSUITE INC: Final Hearing on "Ward" Suit Settlement on March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CARLY WARD, ET AL. v. JETSUITE, INC., ET
AL., Case No. 8:16-cv-00584-AG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Andrew J.
Guilford grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion asking the Court
to:

   (1) certify a class for settlement purposes only.  The class,
       for settlement purposes only, consists of:

       "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants
       employed in California from March 22, 2012 through the
       date of the Court's Preliminary Approval of Settlement or
       October 5, 2016, whichever is earlier";

   (2) approve the proposed notice packet;

   (3) preliminarily approve the settlement terms and
       administration costs; and

   (4) schedule a date for a final approval hearing, which is set
       for March 27, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

Plaintiff Carly Ward filed the employment class action against the
Defendants in state court and the Defendants removed the case to
the District Court.  The parties have engaged in mediation and
have come up with a settlement agreement.

The proposed settlement requires the Defendants to pay a total of
$222,000.  A total of $45,000 has already been paid to the
Settlement Offer Releasees, so the remaining $177,000 would then
be divided according to the proposed settlement.

The Court provisionally appoints Carly Ward as the class
representative for settlement purposes only; Richard E. Quintilone
II, Esq., and Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq., of Quintilone & Associates
as class counsel; and CPT Group as the settlement administrator.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SX4sAjGo


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $1.5 Million Attorney Fees Raised Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Fleming at Cook County Record reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson that resulted in a $5 million
settlement, including $1.5 million dollars in attorney fees, has
raised questions of fairness, but not enough to persuade one class
action settlement watchdog organization to get involved.

The members of the class, or the victims in the case, could
receive up to $15 each if they submit claims eligible under the
settlement guidelines.

The settlement was reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute's (CEI) Center for Class Action Fairness, said Senior
CEI Attorney Ted Frank, and the Center considered the possibility
of getting involved. Founded in 2009, the Center says it works to
ensure "fairness" in class action lawsuit settlements between the
amount of money received by attorneys and the benefits garnered by
members of the class.

"We were aware of the case, the fairness hearing was last week. We
decided not to get involved," Frank said.

The center often reviews attorney fees, and did find that in this
case the settlement was unbalanced.

"The fees were a little bit excessive, but it wasn't the worst
case in the world," Frank said. "They asked for $1.65 million in
fees and the class is going to get about $3 million or less, and
that ratio seemed a little bit high to us, but it wasn't worth our
time to come in and get the fees reduced by $200,000-300,000 for
the class."

There are a lot of cases where the disparity between attorney fees
and the awards for class members are much greater, Frank said,
noting the organization sees "a lot of settlements that are a lot
worse than this."

"We have to commit triage and decide where can we do the most good
with our limited resources, so a case like this where we're not
complaining about the settlement as a whole, just the opportunity
cost of going into if we did this case, then we wouldn't be able
to do a case where there is an opportunity to create a precedent
affecting more than just one case," Frank said.

Class members who believe they are victims of unfair settlements
can contact the center directly and the staff attorneys will
review the case and consider becoming involved on behalf of the
class. Each case varies and the deadlines for the center to file
with the courts concerning fairness depend on the notice of each
settlement.

The Johnson & Johnson case class could contain as many as 12.9
million consumers who purchased the company's Johnson & Johnson
Bedtime Products. The products, Bedtime Bath and Bedtime Lotion,
were sold at a what is referred to as a premium price compared to
that of other Johnson & Johnson products. Customers allegedly were
lured into purchases by advertising that claimed the products were
"clinically proven" to help babies sleep when used as a part of a
three-step routine nightly.

Plaintiffs in the case in Chicago federal court argued the
products didn't actually make babies sleepy. The claims deadline
for those who purchased the products is in April 2017, so any
possible class members will have to submit their claim prior to
the deadline. Any settlement money that remains following the
payment of all class members is designated to be donated to the
Nurse-Family Partnership and Newborns in Need.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Could Face Class Action Over Mesh Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
9 Newws reports a potential health scandal of epic proportions has
left thousands of Australian women living in chronic pain and
despite warnings in other countries, the implant in question is
still being used in Australia.

A mesh implant manufactured by Johnson and Johnson and sold under
their subsidiary Ethicon is one of several commonly used for women
who have experienced a prolapse.

The controversial mesh implant products have been implanted in
100,000 Australian women since 2000 and it is believed between
4000 to 10,000 women may be impacted by chronic pain as a result.

There have been bans, withdrawals and warnings on these types of
products in other countries, as well as up to 100,000 pending
lawsuits in the US.

Joanne Mannion was an active, healthy woman until suffering a
prolapse after giving birth.

"I can't exercise, I can't pick things up, I can be with my son,"
Ms Mannion told A Current Affair.

"It's nerve pain, it's like a burning pain. It feels like you've
been cut and doused in petrol."

In Australia, there is no surgery to remove all of the mesh.

Ms Mannion travelled to the US for surgery, but it failed to
remove it all.

"I thought it would be safe, I thought I could have it removed. I
didn't think anything could go wrong," she said

"Financially, I am broke. Financially, all my savings have gone.
I've sold my unit, I was living off the sale proceeds."

Myra Davis also claims to have been scared from the mesh implant.

"It's not right. It's not right that those things are taken away
from someone," Ms Davis said.

"It seems to me that's the bottom line: money. People's lives
don't seem to matter, the impact on people's lives don't seem to
matter."

Professor Stephen Robson, president of the Royal Australian and
New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, says
women should get a second-opinion when one has been recommended.

"Mesh was seen as a real breakthrough when it was introduced
because it was dealing with a problem that was very difficult to
fix surgically. But as years have gone by, it's become clear that
there is an increasing problem," Professor Robson said.

"It probably shouldn't be used as a first-line treatment."

Shine Lawyers has launched a class action against Johnson and
Johnson.

Head lawyer on the class action, Jan Saddler, says that for some
women, their damages may be as high as millions of dollars.

"It erodes within the body, within the body's tissue because of
where it is placed. In some cases, it's been known to cause
perforation to the bowel and to the bladder," Ms Saddler said.

Senator Derryn Hinch has been pushing for a senate inquiry into
safety of these types of mesh products and concerns the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved it without
clinical testing.

"I have seen so many women who . . . . have had their lives ruined
by this," Senator Hinch said.

"They've been using this mesh for years since they first got their
warnings about it. It's a massive scandal and we've got to do
something about it."

"They best thing they could do now is put a hold on it until
there's proof it's not dangerous."

The TGA told A Current Affair it has been monitoring
urogynaecological meshes since 2008.

A review found the reported rate of complication was low and when
it did occur, it was closely linked to the skill and training of
the surgeon, and the patient selection.

Johnson and Johnson said their mesh is "backed by years of
clinical research."

"The use of implantable mesh is often the preferred option to
treat certain female pelvic conditions, including POP and SUI."

"Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research,
development and marketing of its pelvic mesh products."


KALOBIOS PHARMA: April 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California has approved the following
announcement of a proposed partial class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of KaloBios
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCMKTS:KBIO):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO:     ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("KALOBIOS") COMMON STOCK
(STOCK SYMBOL: KBIO) BETWEEN NOVEMBER 18, 2015 AND DECEMBER 16,
2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, that a proposed partial
settlement has been reached in this action.  A hearing will be
held on May 11, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Edward J.
Davila, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Courtroom 4, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st
Street, San Jose, CA 95113.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things:
(1) whether the proposed Partial Settlement of the Class' claims
against the Settling Defendants KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("KaloBios"), Ronald Martell (its former Executive Chairman), and
Herb Cross (its former Chief Financial Officer) for a total of
consideration of one million five hundred thousand dollars
($1,500,000.00) and three hundred thousand (300,000) shares of
KaloBios stock should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (3) whether the application by
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should
be approved; (4) whether Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement
of costs and expenses should be granted; (5) whether Plaintiffs'
request for a compensatory award should be granted; and (6)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Settling Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") filed with the Court.

The Action is not being settled as against Defendant Martin
Shkreli, against whom Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel will continue to
litigate.  Lead Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class is Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue,
20th Floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired KaloBios common stock
between November 18, 2015 and December 16, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be
affected by this Action and the Partial Settlement thereof.  If
you have not received the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement
of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and
Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim
and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting
the Claims Administrator via the information set forth below.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Partial Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim,
postmarked no later than April 6, 2017, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you
will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of
whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, postmarked no later than April 20, 2017.  Any objections
to the Partial Settlement, Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and
served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
no later than April 20, 2017.

The Settlement Class excludes the Settling Defendants and
immediate family; certain Released Parties; past and present
KaloBios directors, officers, and employees; KaloBios subsidiaries
and affiliates; Defendant Shkreli, his immediate family, his
investor group who acquired 70% of KaloBios stock entering the
Settlement Class Period, and others who acquired KaloBios stock
and/or were appointed as KaloBios officers and directors in
conjunction with Mr. Shkreli's takeover of the company.
Additional details are listed in the Notice and the Stipulation,
which can be obtained upon request.


KING CITY: Supervisor Backed Settlement on Towing Scheme Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Wu at The Californian reports District 1 Monterey County
Supervisor Luis Alejo backed the $1.2 million settlement between
King City and the victims in a class-action lawsuit related to the
2014 King City towing scheme, which targeted undocumented
immigrants.

While an agreement was reached a year ago, it was reported that on
Jan. 25 federal Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S.
Northern District Court in San Francisco gave a final approval to
the settlement of $3,902 for each of the 229 victims.

In 2014, the Monterey County District Attorney's Office charged
numerous King City officers, including former Acting Police Chief
Bruce Miller and Miller's brother and towyard owner Brian Miller.
Since then all have been convicted. Alejo, then an Assemblyman for
District 30, joined community leaders calling for accountability
and reforms in King City.

Alejo commended the lead plaintiffs for standing up.

"It takes a lot of courage for immigrants to speak out and seek
justice when they have been victims of crimes. These plaintiffs
were courageous and were a powerful voice for all those other
victims who were wronged," he said.

Villegas to appoints traffic commissioner John "Tony" Villegas,
the Salinas City Councilmember for District 6, plans to appoint
Larry Tack to the city's Traffic Commission.


KITOV PHARMA: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. ("Kitov" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:KTOV) and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-00917, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Kitov American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
pursuant and/or tradeable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about November 20, 2015 (the "IPO") and/or on the open
market between November 20, 2015 and
February 3, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Kitov securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 10, 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.

Kitov is a clinical development stage biopharmaceutical company
that develops combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of
pain caused by osteoarthritis and hypertension.  The Company's
lead drug candidate is KIT-302, a fixed dosage combination product
based on the generic drugs celecoxib and amlodipine besylate, that
has completed its Phase III clinical study.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") Isaac Israel published misleading
information concerning the conduct of the Company's clinical
trials for its lead drug candidate KIT-302; and (ii) as a result
of the foregoing, Kitov's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 6, 2017, the Israeli publication Calcalist reported
that Kitov's CEO Isaac Israel had been detained and questioned by
the Israeli Securities Authority ("ISA") on suspicion of
publishing misleading information in connection with a clinical
trial of KIT-302.

On this news, Kitov's ADR price fell $0.33, or 11.46%, to close at
$2.55 on February 6, 2017.

On February 7, 2017, the NASDAQ halted trading of Kitov's ADRs.
That same day, Kitov issued a news release, formally advising
investors of the ISA's investigation into the Company's public
disclosures regarding KIT-302.

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


LAKELAND CHOPHOUSE: Faces "Stamps" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zeandrew Stamps and Derrick Arnett, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lakeland
Chophouse, LLC d/b/a Manny's Original Chophouse and Emmanuel
Nikolaidis, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00192-EAK-
TGW (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2017), alleges failure by the
Defendants to pay wage, minimum wage, and overtime wages.

Defendants operate restaurants.  The Plaintiff was employed as a
server.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813 224 0431
     Fax: 813 229 8712
     E-mail: mfenton@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com
             tsoriano@wfclaw.com
             mk@wfclaw.com


LAMI PRODUCTS: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN VAUGHN, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LAMI PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-20326-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendant did not pay its merchandisers for all hours worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant services over 7,000 grocery stores and selling into
20,000 plus retail outlets nationwide.  Plaintiff was a
merchandiser for Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
     Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     333 Vine St. Ste. 1200
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Phone: (859) 219-4529
     Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
            cthomas@forthepeople.com


LAURA CHRISTY: "Zivkovic" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Laura Christy LLC d/b/a Valbella, Laura
Christy Midtown LLC, David Ghatanfard and Genco Luca, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00553 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked and for
overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
     JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway Suite, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 688 5640
     Fax: (212) 688 2548


LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Indigent Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myarklamiss.com reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed on
Feb. 6 against Louisiana officials who oversee the state's
indigent defense services, alleging officials are denying poor
people their constitutional right to counsel by failing to
establish an effective statewide public defense system.

The suit, filed in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton
Rouge Parish, names as defendants Gov. John Bel Edwards and the
current members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, which is
responsible for the oversight of statewide legal services to the
poor in criminal cases.  It also names the state's chief public
defender, who is charged with administering public defense across
the state.

The plaintiffs in the suit are represented by the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC); Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP and Jones Walker LLP.

Eighty-five percent of people accused of a crime in Louisiana are
indigent.  The state's failure to treat them equally under the law
has sweeping ramifications.  Louisiana has the nation's highest
incarceration rate and the second-highest wrongful conviction
rate.  A disproportionate number of those incarcerated are people
of color, particularly black Louisianans, who comprise nearly 70
percent of the state prison population.

The U.S. and Louisiana constitutions guarantee the right to
meaningful and effective assistance of counsel to anyone charged
with a crime punishable by imprisonment.  Lawyers are required to
communicate with their client about strategy, to conduct an
investigation, pursue discovery, research legal issues, file
appropriate pretrial motions and advocate for the client in court.
The attorney also must possess the skill, training and time to
adequately complete these requirements.  In Louisiana, system-wide
defects prevent public defenders from satisfying these basic
obligations to their clients.

The number of public defenders and other professionals needed for
a functioning public defense system in Louisiana falls far below
national standards.  Most criminal defendants in the state receive
attorneys in name only.

Poor people often sit in jail for months before a public defender
is appointed or takes up the case, according to the complaint.
While their cases stagnate, jobs are lost, children are left
without parents and evidence becomes stale.  Without timely
appointment of counsel, the poor are denied any meaningful
investigation of the prosecution's case, advocacy during
arraignments and bond hearings that could result in a reduction or
dismissal of charges or release on bond, access to witnesses and
evidence, and assistance with plea negotiations.

Even when attorneys are finally provided, public defenders in
Louisiana -- who regularly carry two to five times the number of
cases recommended under the already inflated Louisiana Public
Defender Board's standards -- are often so overwhelmed that they
can do little more than recommend a plea agreement.

Louisiana is the only state in the country that relies primarily
on court fees and fines to fund public defender legal services.
Perversely, this includes a fee assessed against convicted
indigent defendants.  Public defender offices receive more funding
for losing cases than for winning them.  Despite critical comment
from the courts and authoritative studies, the system has not
provided adequate representation for decades.

The suit seeks certification of a class of all indigent adults in
the state facing non-capital criminal charges punishable by
imprisonment.  It also seeks a declaration that the plaintiffs and
class have been denied due process, equal protection of the law
and the right to counsel under the U.S. and Louisiana
constitutions.

The suit requests an injunction prohibiting defendants from
maintaining a public defender system that fails to provide
constitutionally adequate representation.  It also asks for a
monitor to be appointed to supervise the public defense system
until statewide reforms are implemented that fix the
constitutional failures.  The suit does not seek the release of
prisoners awaiting trial or to overturn any criminal convictions,
nor is it asking for monetary damages for the plaintiffs.

"The state of Louisiana is the incarceration capital of the world,
jailing more people per capita than any other state in the United
States and more than most countries across the globe," said
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.  "Due to racial disparities
that infect every stage of the criminal justice system, the vast
majority of those impacted are black and minority communities.
While incarcerating people at every turn, many for low-level, non-
violent offenses, the state fails to meet its constitutional
obligation to provide counsel to the poor. This suit seeks to
bring long overdue relief to communities that have literally been
left defenseless for far too long."

"In just the last year, we have seen Louisiana's refusal to
address the catastrophic failings of its indigent defense system
result in the near-closing of defender offices, the laying off of
staff and the indefinite detention of poor people awaiting the
assignment of an attorney," said Lisa Graybill, Deputy Legal
Director at the Southern Poverty Center.  "All Louisianans,
regardless of income, have the right to the assistance of an
attorney if they face the loss of liberty.  State officials and
politicians have looked the other way as the system has fallen
further into crisis.  They've had the chance to fix it and they
have failed, time and again.  The operation of a two-tiered system
of justice degrades our state, violates our state and federal
constitutions and simply cannot continue.  We have asked the court
to intervene because the poor in this state can wait no longer for
justice."

"Among the most pervasive civil rights violations in America is
the nationwide failure of the states to provide effective counsel
for thousands of poor defendants in their criminal cases," said
Daniel F. Kolb, senior counsel at Davis Polk.  "We are focused
here on Louisiana because it has been notorious for years for its
utter failure to provide counsel for those in need and its
resulting extraordinary incarceration and wrongful conviction
rates.  But while our purpose is to bring the unconstitutional
practice of denying counsel to an end in Louisiana, it is also to
seek a holding from the highest courts that will serve as a
critical precedent requiring respect throughout the country for
what is an unquestioned constitutional right."

"Our ability to succeed as a state is directly tied to changing
the misperception that we don't care about the poor or the rule of
law in Louisiana," said Mark A. Cunningham --
mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- a senior partner with Jones Walker
LLP and the immediate past president of the Louisiana State Bar
Association.  "The first step to making that happen is to begin
investing in our public defense system and the courts instead of
continuing to turn a blind eye to injustice."

Plaintiff Michael Carter, 27, has been in jail since August 2015
for firearm and other charges and faces up to 20 years in jail. In
the year and a half he has been jailed, he has never received a
visit from his attorney and has been kept in a jail 3 hours from
Baton Rouge where his family lives.  "My mother lost her home in
the floods in Baton Rouge in August.  It has been stressful to be
behind bars with no way to contact my attorney or move my case
along.  My case keeps getting delayed.  I shouldn't be kept in the
dark just because I don't have the money to pay for an attorney."

In December, the Louisiana Supreme Court's chief justice declared
an "emergency shortfall" in public defense funding.  The state's
reliance on fines and fees is predictably insufficient to fund the
system and has been under fire for more than 50 years.

The state Legislature supplements local funding sources with state
funds, but this discretionary allocation always falls far short of
what is needed.  In 2016, a funding crisis forced as many as 33
out of 42 public defender offices to stop accepting cases or to
place clients, many of whom were in jail, on waiting lists.

This crisis stands in stark contrast to most district attorney
offices in Louisiana, which routinely receive three times more
financial support than their defender counterparts.  In Lafourche
Parish, the public defender reported almost $826,000 in funding
for 2014. The district attorney received $3.5 million and reported
a budget surplus of $500,000 at the end of the year, according to
the lawsuit.  The public defender's office, by comparison, was
several thousand dollars in debt at year's end.

The Louisiana Public Defender Act statutorily requires the state
public defender board to maintain a system for the cost-effective
delivery of legal services at state expense to people entitled to
appointed counsel.  The board must enforce mandatory statewide
public defender standards that require services to be provided in
a uniformly fair and consistent manner statewide.

The Louisiana Public Defender Act also requires the board to
implement and enforce standards to ensure continuity of
representation, substantive and meaningful communications with
client, supervision of the chief defenders in each of Louisiana's
42 judicial districts and effective client representation.

The suit says the court "can remedy the denial of the fundamental
right to counsel by ordering Defendants to comply with their
statutory mandate and by appointing a monitor to ensure
enforcement of the professional and ethical standards applicable
to public defenders."

Economic consulting firms NERA Economic Consulting and Charles
Rivers Associates provided pro bono support for the legal team.


MAPCO EXPRESS: Court Awards $1.9MM in Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gordon, Esq. -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that last month, a Tennessee
Federal court ordered Mapco Express, Inc. ("Mapco") to pay
approximately $1.9 million to settle class action claims arising
from a 2013 data breach of its retail computer systems.  The
lawsuit was brought in 2014 by Winsouth Credit Union and First
National Community bank and alleged that Mapco failed to
adequately protect consumer financial information at its retail
locations.

The settlement requires Mapco to pay $700,000 into a consumer
settlement fund in addition to the $1.2 million that the company
has paid to Visa and MasterCard, in furtherance of payouts
associated with their data breach recovery procedures, while also
certifying a class of the two companies' card holders.

Takeaway: Federal courts are not shying away from awarding large
settlements against companies who expose consumer data to
potential breaches.  Entities who handle large quantities of
consumer financial information should ensure that adequate
security measures are in place to prevent breaches as well as
clear data breach response plans.


MCDONALD'S: Misled Customers About Value Meals, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones at Law360 reports that a putative class of
Illinois McDonald's customers is suing the company and one Chicago
restaurant for falsely marketing their Extra Value Meals as
discounted when the same meals are cheaper purchased a la carte.
The class action, which was transferred from Cook County Circuit
Court to Illinois federal court on February 2, claims some of the
Extra Value Meals McDonald's markets as a "value" actually have
inflated prices. It names both McDonald's Corp. and a limited
liability company that owns one Chicago-area McDonald's franchise.

"In reality, certain of McDonald's Extra Value Meals are not a
value because they are more expensive than purchasing off the a la
carte menu each of the items that comprise the meals," the suit
claims.

The suit cites the Two Cheeseburger Extra Value Meal and the
Sausage Burrito Extra Value Meal as examples of meal bundles with
prices higher than a la carte. McDonald's advertises the meals
online, on television and in print as a "value," the suit claims,
pointing to an internet ad that tells consumers: "You value food
just as much as you value a good price. Thanks to our delicious
meal bundles, you can have both. A meal with quality ingredients
that's easy on the wallet? That's a great deal."

Representatives for McDonald's did not respond to a request for
comment on February 3.

The suit, which was originally filed Dec. 22, is brought by lead
plaintiff Kelly Killeen on behalf of any consumer who purchased
one of the inflated Extra Value Meals in Illinois and any consumer
who bought an inflated Extra Value Meal at the one Chicago
restaurant named in the suit. The suit alleges violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act against
both McDonald's and the franchisee, among other claims.

Killeen claims she bought a Sausage Burrito Extra Value Meal at
the Chicago restaurant for $5.08, when the combined a la carte
price for the two sausage burritos, hash brown and medium coffee
would have been $4.97.

Using Killeen's example, McDonald's pushed for the suit to be
moved to federal court, arguing that if all of the nearly 300
million Extra Value Meals it sold in Illinois over the act's
three-year statute of limitations were 11 cents more than their a
la carte prices, the amount in dispute could top $32 million.

Killeen is seeking restitution for the class' purchases, as well
as actual, treble and punitive damages, according to her suit.

Killeen and the putative class are represented by Samuel A.
Shelist of Shelist Law Firm LLC.

McDonald's is represented by David Doyle -- ddoyle@freeborn.com --
and David Ogles -- dogles@freeborn.com -- of Freeborn & Peters
LLP.

The case is Killeen v. McDonald's Corporation et al, case number
1:17-cv-00874, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


METLIFE: Sanford Heisler Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., the nation's largest insurance company, knowingly
failed to pay their employees over $50 million over the last three
years.  That's the allegation at the heart of a nationwide class
action lawsuit filed on Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut by the law firms of Sanford Heisler, LLP
and Schneider Law Firm, LLC.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime wages for Claim Specialists who
worked on long term disability insurance claims ("LTD Claim
Specialists") for MetLife and two of its subsidiaries,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Insurance Company
USA.

According to the Complaint, LTD Claim Specialists principally
gather information from disability claimants, collect medical
data, and compile other information required to process disability
claims.  Lead Plaintiff Stephanie McKinney, a former LTD Claim
Specialist, alleges that she and others often had to perform this
work outside of office hours.  "LTD claim specialists regularly
work between 45 and 60 hours per week," says the Complaint. Yet,
Ms. McKinney alleges, for over three years MetLife hasn't
compensated her and other LTD Claim specialists for these overtime
hours.

"Claim Specialists are the foot soldiers of MetLife's long term
disability insurance business," explains Michael Palmer --
mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Co-Chair of Sanford Heisler's Wage &
Hour Practice Group.  "Working long hours, Claim Specialists
perform their duties under the tight control of a company which
refuses to pay them for their many hours of overtime.  Through
this class action lawsuit, Ms. McKinney seeks to recover wages
which rightfully belong to her and other Claim Specialists."

According to the Complaint, MetLife used to pay its LTD Claim
Specialists hourly wages and overtime pay.  But in November of
2013, MetLife "reclassified" LTD Claim Specialists and stopped
paying them overtime, without any change in LTD Claim Specialists'
job duties.  According to the Complaint, MetLife made the change
as a "cost-cutting measure."

"This is impermissible," says Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- Managing Partner of Sanford
Heisler's New York Office.  "Employers can't shirk their overtime
obligations by simply 'reclassifying' hourly employees."

Ms. McKinney seeks to recover damages, including unpaid wages, on
behalf of herself and a class of LTD Claim Specialists. She also
seeks an injunction against MetLife to require the Company to
change its wage practices going forward.

"There are important public interests at stake in this lawsuit,"
explains Mr. Heisler.  "Overtime laws help to prevent companies
from gaining a competitive advantage by underpaying and
overworking their employees.  These protections are profoundly
important, especially in today's difficult economic climate."

                   About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigation
law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco
and San Diego.  The Firm specializes in civil rights and general
public interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employment
discrimination, labor and wage violations, employee benefits,
predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other
claims.  Along with a focus on class actions, the firm also
represents individuals and has achieved particular success in the
representation of executives in employment disputes.


MICHIGAN, USA: Court Denies Bailey's Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Jonker denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, taken from his complaint in the lawsuit captioned
JERRY DOWELL BAILEY, JR. v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00026-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.).

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


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Sells Products With Slack Fill, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye at Legal Newsline reports an unhappy customer has
filed a class action lawsuit against an international snack
company over allegations that it shortchanged her with the amount
of product in its candy packaging.

Tamika Daniel of Brooklyn, New York, has accused Mondelez
International of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Daniel alleges the company has been selling products with too much
slack-fill -- or empty space in the packaging.

She is claiming monetary damages after she bought a box of Swedish
Fish candies that he alleges had about 63 percent of slack-fill.
She claims there was a non-transparent cardboard box that hid the
slack fill for the purpose of deceiving customers.

The court documents accuse Mondelez International Inc. of using
deceptive or improper business practices. The candy is packaged in
a thin cardboard box and can be found at various shops including
grocery stores, supermarkets and convenience stores.

The lawsuit states the amount of slack-fill in the Swedish Fish
product violates the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act and the Code
of Federal Regulations and state laws that prohibit the
misbranding of food.

Part of the problem, according to the filing, is that inside the
box the candies are inside a plastic pouch. The box is non-
transparent so that the slack-fill cannot be seen, the suit
states. The lawsuit claims that double packaging the candies is
unnecessary.

Measurements of the packaging have found that the box is 6 inches
high and the candies inside only fill up 2.25 inches, which leaves
3.75 inches, or 63 percent, slack fill, the suit states.

The court documents indicate that some slack fill may be necessary
but the plaintiff deems Mondelez's as excessive.

The filing compares the Swedish Fish product with other candies,
such as Trolli Sour Brite Crawlers, which were found to have 45
percent slack-fill. Dots candy was found to have only 27 percent
slack-fill, the suit states.

Class-action lawyer Scott Shaffer of Olshan law firm said this was
not a unique case.

"From a manufacturer's point of view, it is serious and these
happen a lot," he told Legal Newsline. "They put a lot of
packaging inside the outside package to make it feel more
substantial and they weigh those. They count those when they
weigh."

Court documents state that Daniels came to her conclusion after
purchasing two Swedish Fish packages in 2016. Initially she
believed that the package had been inadequately filled by
accident, according to the suit.

"She paid $1.08 for the product on the reasonable assumption that
the box was filled to functional capacity. She would not have paid
this sum had she known that the box was more than half empty or
had the box been proportioned to its actual contents," the suit
states.

The documents claim that the deception deprived her of the benefit
of her bargain.

Shaffer said class-action lawsuits are the best ones for
situations like this.

"The class action is a device that was designed so that if people
have small problems that aren't worth bringing the cost of a
lawsuit or problems that occur on a frequent basis the same
problems can be addressed in the same lawsuit," he explained.
"That is also convenient for the court. It makes it worthwhile for
the plaintiff to be able to consolidate her case along with all
the other consumer's cases. It also makes it convenient for the
court because the court doesn't have to face hundreds of identical
lawsuits."

Mondelez produces Chiclets, Trident gum, Oreo cookies, Cadbury,
Christie and Nabisco brands among others. According to its
website, it is a "global snacking powerhouse" and had net revenues
in 2015 around $30 billion. Its products are available in about
165 countries.

Daniel has requested trial by jury and asked for compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, restitution, injunctive relief, all
legal fees and all other relief the court will grant.

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 12 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.


MOUNT REAL: Settles Fraud Scheme Class Action for $43 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that many Quebecers will finally get some
money back after an out-of-court settlement over the Mount Real
fraud scheme.

The investment firm was shut down in 2008 by Quebec's financial
regulator for running a Ponzi scheme, leaving many to lose their
life savings.

In all, about 1,600 investors are believed to have lost about $130
million.

"A lot of lives were destroyed because of this fraud," said victim
Catharine MacDonald.

She and her husband were forced to downsize their lifestyle and
postpone their retirements in the fallout from the scheme.

Now a $43-million out-of-court settlement has been reached with
Mount Real's auditors and security trustees, who have agreed to
the payout with no admission of their liability.

"We're delighted.  We're very happy," said Janet Watson, who also
lost savings and has been working on getting justice since the
beginning.

"It's been 11 years.  A lot of people have moved.  Unfortunately
some victims have died and their estates may be eligible," she
said.

The deadline to file the claim is Feb. 14.  No claims will be
accepted after that date, explained their lawyer Bruce Johnston of
Trudel, Johnston and Lesperance.

"That's a bar date.  A bar date means people will be barred from
claiming after that date," he explained.

The proposed settlement must be voted on, so Ms. Watson is urging
everyone who is eligible to speak up.

"We will be getting approximately somewhere about 50 per cent of
our net capital that we invested.  It's a very good settlement,"
she said.


MYLAN INC: Settles Provigil Antitrust Class Action for $96.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Mylan has agreed to pay $96.5 million to
settle claims by drug purchasers that it delayed launching a
generic version of Cephalon's narcolepsy drug Provigil in exchange
for payment from Cephalon.

The settlement was disclosed in a filing by the drug purchasers in
Pennsylvania federal court on Feb. 3, and must still be approved
by the court.

The money will go to purchasers that bought brand-name Provigil
from Cephalon directly, like wholesalers and distributors.

Mylan said in a statement to CNBC, "Nothing in the settlement
agreement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing by Mylan or any
of its affiliated entities or personnel."

The drugmaker confirmed the settlement amount, adding that the
terms are subject to approval by the district court.

"Mylan believes the proposed settlement is in the best interests
of the company and is an important step in moving forward," the
company said in a statement to CNBC.

A group of direct purchasers sued Mylan, Cephalon and two other
companies -- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy
Laboratories -- in 2006.  They brought their case on behalf of a
nationwide class of direct purchasers.

The purchasers said Cephalon reached settlements in patent
lawsuits it brought against Teva, Mylan and Ranbaxy in which it
paid them to keep generic versions of Provigil off the market
until 2012.  The lawsuit said the settlements, reached in 2005 and
2006, violated federal antitrust law.

Teva bought Cephalon in 2011.  In April 2015, it settled with the
direct purchasers for $512 million.

In May 2015, it agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle similar
claims by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which had separately
sued Cephalon over the Provigil settlements.

The agency has long criticized so-called "pay-for-delay"
settlements in which brand-name drugmakers pay their generic
counterparts to keep drugs off the market.

Ranbaxy is not a party to the settlement announced on Feb. 3.

The case is King Drug Company of Florence Inc, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. Cephalon Inc et al, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:06-cv-
01797.


NATUS MEDICAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Natus Medical
Incorporated common stock during the period between October 16,
2015 and April 3, 2016, inclusive. Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until March 31, 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 Natus common stock 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: the government
of Venezuela failed to make tens of millions of dollars in
prepayments to Natus, which were required to be paid in October
2015; Natus could not effectively enforce its rights under its
supply contract and its revenues related to the supply contract
were dependent on the outcome of Venezuelan elections; and, Natus
could not effectively achieve its guidance.

According to the complaint, following a January 11, 2016
announcement that Venezuela had not made expected payments due to
a delay, a January 27, 2016 announcement reaffirming a revenue
shortfall due to the delay, a February 29, 2016 filing disclosing
that the prepayments were due in October 2015, and an April 4,
2016 announcement that the Company still had not received the
prepayments and the Company missed its guidance, the value of
Natus shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Natus common stock purchased on or after October 16, 2015 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 Companys 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.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Prelim. Approval of $17.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister and Ronald I. Raether Jr. at Mondaq reports
on January 26, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana granted preliminary approval of a $17.5
million Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against
Navient Solutions Inc.

According to the original Complaint, plaintiff Randy Johnson
received multiple telephone calls on his cell phone from Navient,
a student loan servicing and collection company.  The calls were
directed to an individual by the name of Marie Bottoms.  Johnson
claims that on each occasion he was greeted with an artificial or
prerecorded voice, and contends that Navient used an automatic
telephone dialing system to place the calls.  Johnson additionally
claims that on each occasion that he spoke with Navient he
informed the company that he was not Bottoms, the intended
recipient, but that Navient continued to call him.

After almost two years of litigation and following three
mediations, the parties reached a settlement.  The settlement
agreement certifies a nationwide class of persons (a) to whom
Navient placed one or more telephone calls, (b) directed to a
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (c) by
using an ATDS, (d) after Navient designated the telephone number
to which it placed the call(s) as a wrong number, (e) between May
4, 2011 and January 26, 2017.  The 350,000-member settlement class
will split a $17.5 million cash fund.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for July 13, 2017.


NCAA: ETSU Refuses to Share Data on Concussion Numbers
------------------------------------------------------
Tony Casey at Johnson City Press reports while area school systems
provided football-related concussion numbers when asked, East
Tennessee State University officials said federal law blocked them
from releasing numbers.

College officials cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act in declining to provide the information.

Two of ETSU's Southern Conference rivals, Wofford College and The
Citadel, presumably under the same legal obligations, did provide
the approximate non-identifying figures requested on how many
concussions its players suffered in football practice and games.

"FERPA prohibits the disclosure of education records without a
student's consent," said Lisa Williams, who serves as the
university's associate counsel. "The information requested falls
into the education record category. While we can't speak to the
actions of other institutions, FERPA disclosures signed by
students at those institutions may permit the disclosure of the
requested information. The FERPA disclosure signed by ETSU
athletes does not."

All of the area public high school systems contacted did provide
the reported number of concussions sustained by their football
players. None of these publicly-funded entities cited federal law
as a reason they could not be transparent about the concussion
numbers.

At Wofford, Associate Athletic Director for Media Relations Brent
Williamson said his head athletic trainer reported about two to
three concussions every year over the past five years.

Derek Satterfield, assistant athletic director of athletic
communications for The Citadel, reported seven concussions each
for 2016, 2015 and 2014, with only two reported in 2013. That
includes spring football, preseason camp and in-season practice
and games.

When the same question was put to ETSU senior athletic trainer
Brett Lewis about concussions suffered by Buccaneer players, he
did not have an answer.

"I can't really comment on that," he said.

This comes at the time when the university is building an
approximately $23 million football stadium for the team, which is
7-17 in the past two seasons since football's return after a more-
than 10-year hiatus.

It's unknown if ETSU's tight-lipped response to requests about
concussion numbers have anything to do with an email that was
recently sent out to current and former ETSU student-athletes --
many of whom who did not necessarily compete in a contact-heavy
sport.

The email, sent by Edward J. Kelly, with ETSU's office of
university counsel, outlines a class action lawsuit against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, titled "National
Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury
Litigation."

Kelly said ETSU was unofficially contacted by the NCAA for its
list of contacts of current and former student-athletes who
competed for an ETSU athletics team before July 15, 2016.
Mandating a subpoena, which was provided, ETSU tried to get the
notice of this class action to as many of those student-athletes
as possible, though Kelly said many of them have no listed contact
information with the university.

About 3,000 current and former student-athletes received
correspondence about this, Kelly said.

Of those, only two have contacted Kelly -- with one asking if it
was spam, and the other asking what it was. To the latter, Kelly
gave a brief synopsis and sent him to the NCAA's site for more
information.

"If you played a NCAA sport at a member school any time prior to
July 15, 2016, you may be entitled to free medical screening and
may receive free medical testing, known as "medical monitoring,"
up to two times over the next 50 years," the NCAA site reads. "You
do not need to have been diagnosed with a concussion to be a
member of the medical monitoring class."

The cutoff date for being a part of this litigation is May 5,
2017, at 10 a.m.


NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Raisinets Underfilling
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
lovers of chocolate-covered raisins might one day get some cash
back for satisfying their sweet tooth.  Californian
Sandy Hafer recently filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit
against Nestle alleging that approximately 40 percent of a box of
Raisinets she bought was nothing but air.

Ms. Hafer, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people,
argues that by underfilling the box, the company violated the
California civil code.  She is alleging common law fraud, breach
of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, among other
accusations.

Tort reform advocates in California say this is the latest in a
series of "ridiculous" lawsuits that have nothing to do with the
body of law concerning deceptive practices and a lot to do with
lawyers looking to make out like bandits.

Consumer advocates, on the other hand, claim suits like these
shine a light on an important area of law in which companies
engage in deceptive practices to boost profits and muscle out
smaller competitors.  It's about slack-fill, and the plaintiff
might have a case, Consumerist magazine says.

John Doherty, president of the Civil Justice Association of
California (CJAC), an industry-backed group that advocates lawsuit
reform, sees little merit in the Raisinets case.

"There is a body of law around deceptive advertising practices,
but looking at the facts of this case, this one is ridiculous,"
Doherty told the Northern California Record.  "You can tell what
is in there, and it says it on the box, yet the company might end
up spending hundreds of thousands defending the suit."

The Food and Drug Administration regulates this area of law,
including slack-fill.  The FDA allows some slack-fill for
functional purposes, such as if there is a chance a product will
get crushed or otherwise damaged en route to the store, or if
there is unavoidable settling.  But non-functional slack fill is
generally not allowed.

Ms. Hafer said she bought the box of Dark Chocolate Raisinets from
Ralphs in the Central District of California last year.  Relying
on the size and shape of the box packaging, she believed it would
be full of of the candy, according to the federal court complaint.

"Ms. Hafer would not have purchased the Product or would have paid
significantly less for the Product had she known that the package
was only approximately 60% full of Raisinets," the complaint says.
She therefore "suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result
of Defendant's misleading, false, unfair, and fraudulent
practices."

Ms. Hafer argues that there is no functional reason for the space,
and that other Raisinet products are in tight-fitting bags.  She
says the oversized boxes are "inconsistent" with the manufacturing
and packaging practices for Raisinets.

In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, a spokeswoman for
Nestle said the lawsuit has no merit, and that all the company's
products comply with government regulations. Consumers are given
the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions,
the spokeswoman said.

A similar class-action case underway in federal court in Minnesota
is being watched closely.  In it, Watkins, a Minnesota spice
maker, alleges that McCormick, a larger spice manufacturer,
reduced the amount of black pepper in its tin without changing the
size of the tin.  While consumers might not have noticed, the
smaller company says it affects its bottom line and its attempt to
carve out a market share.  A federal judge ruled that the case has
merit.

John Doherty, of the CJAC, said that while there is a body of law
on marketing practices the Raisinets case "flies in the face of
reason and common sense."  He said the lawyers want to upset
settled law and open the way for more lawsuits.

"This is a case revealing we have a very litigious society, and
there is a lot of people unhappy, and it is a very easy to find a
class-action lawyer," he said.


NESTLE WATERS: Must Face Class Action Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader at Law360 reports that Nestle Waters North America
and a debt collection company must face allegations they violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unauthorized and
autodialed calls after a California federal judge concluded on
February 2 it was premature to dismiss the proposed class action.

Jesse Garcia Jr. had accused Nestle Waters and debt collection
company Caine & Weiner Co. Inc. of placing debt collection calls
to his cellphone regarding a delinquent account with Ozarka, a
Nestle Waters brand, despite the fact that he was never their
customer and had asked for the calls to cease. Besides the TCPA,
Garcia also alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In return, the defendants had argued his class was not plausible,
was not supported by sufficient facts, was not ascertainable and
failed the numerosity requirement. However, "notably absent" from
their dismissal motion was any reference to a Ninth Circuit case
that allows or provides for dismissal of class allegations at this
stage of the case, U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw said Thursday.

"Perhaps this is because a number of district courts in the Ninth
Circuit, including this one, do not follow that approach," the
judge wrote. "Although not always explicit, the reasoning ... is
clear: 'A class action is a procedural device, not a claim for
relief.' This court agrees with that reasoning, and thus declines
to dismiss plaintiff's class allegations at this stage of the case
based on the arguments raised in the present motions."

Caine & Weiner had argued separately that Garcia's claims were
inadequate because he failed to specify which defendant made which
debt collection call and when. But Judge Sabraw was unpersuaded,
saying Garcia need not provide that level of detail in the
complaint.

However, the judge did side with the debt collection company on
its argument that Garcia's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
claims failed to the extent they relied on a violation of the
TCPA.

While Garcia alleged that the act of calling him, in violation of
the TCPA, is also a deceptive and illegal practice as provided by
the FDCPA, he failed to cite the specific section of the latter
statute on which that contention relied, and also failed to
counter Caine & Weiner's argument. "[T]thus to the extent his
FDCPA claim is predicated on a violation of the TCPA, the FDCPA
claim is dismissed," Judge Sabraw ruled.

When Garcia originally filed suit, in April, he sought to
represent three classes of consumers, but Judge Sabraw dismissed
the allegations in September and gave him a chance to try again.

Garcia did so, filing an amended complaint at the end of that
month with two proposed classes: one consisting of people who
received debt collection calls from Caine & Weiner and continued
to receive them after informing the company that they didn't owe
the debt in question and weren't customers, and another of people
who received autodialed calls or texts from Nestle Waters or Caine
& Weiner without consent and without being a Nestle Waters
customer.

Nestle Waters then moved to toss the class claim against it in
November, contending that Garcia's class allegations "defy all
logic and common sense, and amount to nothing more than total
speculation."

Even if Garcia did plead a plausible class, Nestle Waters said, he
hasn't satisfied the requirements for invoking the federal court's
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, which
requires a showing that the class claim meets a $5 million
threshold.

But Judge Sabraw was likewise unpersuaded by that argument on
Thursday, pointing out that the case involves an alleged violation
of a federal statute, which provides a basis for the court's
jurisdiction.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately return
requests for comment on February 3.

Garcia is represented by Kira M. Rubel -- krubel@kmrlawfirm.com --
of the Law Offices of Kira M. Rubel, and David P. Schafer and
Brian J. Trenz of the Law Offices of David P. Schafer.

Nestle Waters is represented by Christopher J. Healey --
chris.healy@dentons.com --  and Robert A. Cocchia --
robert.cocchia@dentons.com -- of Dentons U.S. LLP and Jeffrey M.
Garrod -- jmg@olss.com -- of Orloff Lowenbach Stifelman & Siegel
PA.

Caine & Weiner is represented by David J. Kaminski and Stephen A.
Watkins -- cmt@cmtlaw.com -- of Carlson & Messer LLP.

The case is Jesse Garcia Jr. et al. v. Caine & Weiner Co. Inc. et
al., case number 3:16-cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.


NEUSTAR INC: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Neustar, Inc. common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Neustar by Golden Gate
Capital and its affiliates announced on December 14, 2016.  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Neustar, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
Golden Gate, is captioned Parshall v. Neustar, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-00060-LPS (D. Del.).

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

On December 14, 2016, Neustar entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Golden Gate. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, Neustar shareholders will receive $33.50 per
share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on January 17, 2017,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint
asserts that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Neustar
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Neustar's financial
projections, the opinions and analyses of Neustar's financial
advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Neustar common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 10, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


NEW BALANCE: Faces Class Action Over "American-Made" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the day before the Trump Administration initiated its contentious
travel ban against individuals hailing from seven predominantly-
Muslim countries, a move in part in support of the
Administration's mandate to safeguard and promote America and
American workers, New Balance Athletics Inc. (New Balance) was hit
with a putative California labor law class action over its claim
that its shoes are "American-made."

The action represents a California labor code lawsuit of a
different stripe.  While not involving workers directly, the
inference is that New Balance is flaunting standards for domestic
labor that qualify a product as "Made in the USA" and thus
eligible for premium prices appropriate for products bearing a
"Made in America" label.

"Made in the USA labeled shoe models range in price from $164.99
to $369.99, while New Balance sells many shoe models that are not
advertised as Made in the USA for less than $100," the suit said,
further alleging that New Balance is defrauding and misleading
consumers.

According to guidelines enforced by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) as well as state-based guidelines under consumer regulations
and guidelines in the California labor code and the California
Business and Professions Code, goods can only qualify as "Made in
America" if content of any kind does not move above five percent
foreign-made, or 10 percent by way of a declaration from the
manufacturer that it is not possible to source content or parts
domestically.

Provided all hallmarks, protocols and declarations are met, a
manufacturer at best can get away with a "Made in the USA" label
if it is verified that 90 percent, at worst case, of content or
manufacturing is domestic.  Ten percent foreign content /
manufacturing is the absolute limit to qualify as acceptable,
according to both federal regulations as well as California labor
law and consumer law.

In the case of New Balance, according to the California labor
lawsuit, the defendant considers its products domestically-made if
domestic content is at least 70 percent.

"New Balance publicly acknowledges it advertises that its shoes
are Made in the USA (sic) when domestic value is at least 70
percent," the state complaint said.  "Put differently, New Balance
admits that it has a common policy of advertising its shoes are
Made in the USA (sic) even when up to 30 percent of the value of
the shoes is attributable to foreign-made components or labor."

The lead plaintiff in the proposed class action is
Sheila Dashnaw.  The lawsuit is Sheila Dashnaw et al. v. New
Balance Athletics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00159 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of California.


NEW ZEALAND: Could Face Suit Over Stolen Overseas Funds
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Anderson at Stuff reports that the New Zealand Seniors
Party is organising a class action lawsuit to sue the Government
for billions of dollars of what they say is "stolen" money from
overseas pensions.

Under section 70 of the Social Security act expat New Zealanders
or migrants, upon reaching 65, will have their superannuation
docked depending on how much they receive from their overseas
pension.

Figures released under the Official Information Act showed last
year more than 85,000 people were affected by the legislation to a
tune of almost $350 million.

This has grown from 50,000 people and $207 million since 2007. A
total of almost $2.5 billion dollars has gone back to the
Government since 2007.

Party executive member Paul Norfolk said it was organising a law
suit to sue the Ministry of Social Development and get some of
that money back.

"There is a great deal of interest. What we don't want to do is
show our hand. We are looking at this and we are investigating."

He said the lawsuit would seek reparations from the money docked
by the Government under an "unfair" and "fraudulent" policy.

"We could bring the Government down with this because it's
billions."

Section 70 treats all government administered overseas pensions
the same regardless of whether people pay voluntarily into them or
not.

"If you worked in the UK and saved an amount of money and when you
come back to New Zealand it was taken off you, I don't think you
would like that," Norfolk said.

He cited a court decision in 2004 in which a Fijian man challenged
the Ministry of Social Development on section 70 and won. He was
able to keep both his New Zealand pension and Fijian pension.

A recent review by the Commission for Financial Capability
recommends specifying that voluntary contributions to overseas
pensions not be deducted from New Zealand superannuation. It also
calls for an immediate change in a clause in the law that means a
person's pension can be docked if their spouse gets an overseas
pension.

The lawsuit comes on the back Nelson man's case against the
Government being accepted to be heard by the Human Rights Review
Tribunal. Malcolm Larsen's pension is deducted because his
Norwegian wife receives an overseas pension. However, he said that
it was unfair as he had lived and worked in New Zealand all his
life.

A Ministry of Social Development spokesperson would not comment on
any pending legal action but said the aim of the policy was to
ensure that all qualifying New Zealand residents receive an
equitable level of state pension.

"Equitable" meant having regard for the interests of both
pensioners and taxpayers.

"The policy means that New Zealanders who have lived in New
Zealand all their lives are not disadvantaged compared with others
who have worked overseas, or immigrants to New Zealand who have
entitlement to overseas state pensions."

Norfolk said this was "nonsense".

"(The Ministry) talks about us disadvantaging Kiwis but we are the
ones being disadvantaged."

He said the lawsuit was being prepared but would not give a
timeline. He invited those interested in forming part of the class
action to get in contact with the NZ Seniors Party.

Norfolk said he agreed with NZ First MP Denis O'Rorke's Private
Member's Bill which proposed throwing out Section 70 and
offsetting the losses to the Government by increasing the time
required to be eligible for New Zealand Superannuation from 10
years living in New Zealand to 25.

O'Rorke said he was confident that if his bill was drawn it would
have consensus in the house and called on the Government to adopt
as its own.

"Currently the law is an absolute mess. This will make it much
simpler ... It's common sense stuff."

He said 25 years residency before becoming eligible for
superannuation was much more common around the world than 10
years.

"This bill will be much less controversial and more accessible and
has support of academics and experts generally."


NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Fraud Class Action in St. Clair County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Bischel and Brian Brueggemann, writing for News-Democrat,
report that a class-action lawsuit filed on Feb. 6 in St. Clair
County alleges the company that managed Illinois' lottery
defrauded businesses that sold scratch-off lottery tickets as well
as individuals who purchased them.

The suit accuses Northstar Lottery Group of manipulating the
number of winning tickets available for purchase and discontinuing
scratch-off games before large payouts, depriving customers from
jackpots.

The company misrepresented the actual chances of winning jackpots,
the suit alleges, and violated contracts with ticket vendors, who
would have earned commissions and bonuses from sales.

"We allege that when Northstar realized that it was ahead of the
consumer in a particular game, meaning it had sold a number of
tickets that did not include the winner, it would stop the game
and lock in its profits.  The winning ticket never got sold," said
Derek Brandt, one of the attorneys on the case, with Brandt Law of
Edwardsville.

The plaintiff attorneys are asking the court to certify the suit
as a class-action representing two classes of customers: retailers
who sold tickets and customers who bought tickets.

For now, the only named plaintiffs are:

   -- Raqqa Inc., which owns Fairview Lounge in Fairview Heights;
   -- Michael Cairo, of Cook County;
   -- Jason Van Lente, of Cook County; and
   -- John Bean, of St. Clair County.

Retailers buy tickets with their own money, earn back the expense
in commissions on a small percentage of sales, and are commonly
credited when tickets go unsold, according to Brandt, who
represents Raqqa Inc.  The vendors, however, also have the same
incentive as people who buy the games, as they may also receive
bonuses from selling winning high-dollar tickets.

Gov. Bruce Rauner fired Northstar as the state's private lottery
manager in 2015.  Northstar continues to run the Lottery under the
provisions of its contract until a replacement is found.

The suit alleges that Northstar "knew that some grand prizes would
never be awarded and/or that the stated odds of winning were false
or materially misleading."

The suit says Northstar's compensation "was tied to the Lottery's
net income, thus giving Northstar an incentive to generate as much
revenue as possible while paying out as little as possible in
prizes and commissions . In short, Northstar had a profit motive
in the Lottery."

The suit seeks compensatory damages for the plaintiffs, but does
not specify an amount.

A Chicago Tribune investigation in December found that for the
lottery's 17 biggest scratch-off games beginning in 2011 and
ending in 2015 under Northstar's management, the lottery did not
award more than 40 percent of the grand prizes designed into the
games.

The Illinois Lottery declined to comment.

Northstar representatives were not immediately available for
comment.

The law firms filing the suit are Sprague & Urban, of Belleville;
TorHoerman Law, of Edwardsville; and Brandt Law, of Edwardsville.


NOVO NORDISK: Faces "Zaleski" Securities Suit Over Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH R. ZALESKI, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, LARS REBIEN
SORENSEN and JESPER BRANDGAARD, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00506
(D.N.J., January 25, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making materially false and
misleading statements.  According to the suit, some time since or
after February 5, 2015, Novo Nordisk and certain of its officers
and directors have misrepresented the Company's business
prospects, and ability to maintain sustainable revenue.

Novo Nordisk is a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company with
production facilities in eight countries, and affiliates or
offices in 75 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Ophthotech Corporation ("Ophthotech") (NASDAQ:OPHT)
between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016. You are hereby
notified that Levi & Korsinsky has commenced the class action
Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-
00210) in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. To get
more information go to:

                    http://zlk.9nl.com/ophthotech

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Ophthotech made overtly positive representations about the
effectiveness and potential of its treatment Fovista when used in
combination with Lucentis, a commercially available anti-vascular
endothelial growth factor agent, despite awareness that the phase
3 clinical trial of Fovista would fail to achieve its primary
endpoint of change in best corrected visual acuity from baseline
at 12 months over Lucentis alone. The complaint further alleges
that these statements caused Ophthotech stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech announced that the trial had
failed to achieve its primary endpoint, and that Fovista and
Lucentis demonstrated a non-statically significant improvement
over patients only receiving Lucentis. Following this news, shares
of Ophthotech fell approximately 86% to close at $5.29.

Take Action: if you suffered a loss in Ophthotech you have until
March 13, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


OREGON: Benton County Opts to Remain in Timber Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The (Corvallis) Gazette-Times reports that the Benton County Board
of Commissioners, on a 2-1 vote, decided to remain in a lawsuit
over management of some state timber lands.

But maybe we shouldn't have been: When the dust clears, and the
final tallies are taken in Linn County Circuit Court, only about
10 of the 150 or so plaintiffs in the class-action suit will have
chosen to drop out. (The final count won't be known until the
court receives documents from all the jurisdictions that intend to
opt out.  The deadline to have the documents postmarked was 5 p.m.
February 8, so it's possible that the number might grow slightly.)

At issue is a $1.4 billion lawsuit filed by Linn County on behalf
of 15 Oregon counties, including Benton, and dozens of smaller
taxing districts.  It argues that the State of Oregon and the
Oregon Department of Forestry have failed to maximize logging
revenues from 650,000 acres of state forest trust lands scattered
among the 15 counties.

Although the lawsuit raises important issues about the management
of state lands, at its heart it is a reasonably straightforward
breach-of-contract case: The claim is that state managers failed
in their duty to generate as much revenue as possible from the
state forest lands, mainly logged-over or fire-damaged properties
that were acquired by counties through tax foreclosures starting
in the 1920s and then turned over to the state for management.

A 1939 law says these lands must be managed for "the greatest
permanent value to the state."  At the time, the assumption was
that "greatest permanent value" meant maximizing timber harvests
from the lands, and therefore maximizing revenue flowing to the
counties from those harvests.

But over the years, the state broadened the definition of
"greatest permanent value" so that it included other goals as
well, such as clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational
opportunities and carbon storage.  As those goals came on line,
the money flowing to the counties started to erode, hence the
claim that the state has breached its contract with the counties.

That idea of revenue "erosion" likely prompted Benton County
Commissioner Xan Augerot to vote to stay in the lawsuit.
Ms. Augerot, the newest commissioner on the board, comes from an
environmental background, so her vote was surprising -- and she
said it was a difficult decision for her.

But listen carefully to what she said on Jan. 31 during
deliberations: "I feel it is appropriate for counties to fire a
shot across the bow of the state and say no more of this erosion."

When Linn County filed the lawsuit back in March of last year, it
might have been tempting for Oregon's elected statewide officials
(at the time, all Democrats) to write it off as the work of a
bunch of cranky Republicans from one of the state's most reliably
red counties.

They might need to reassess that now that one of the state's most
reliably Democratic counties has elected to remain in the lawsuit.
Maybe it's not so much a shot across the bow as it is friendly
fire, but there's a message there.

This lawsuit still is in the early stages: It's still in Linn
County Circuit Court, and you can be sure any verdict in the case
will be appealed.

But it's clear this suit is about more than timber management:
It's also about the tattered relationships between the state of
Oregon and many of its counties.

When the lawsuit was filed, Roger Nyquist, the chairman of the
Linn County Commission, said the county was prepared to pursue the
case by itself, even if every other plaintiff dropped out. Now it
seems Linn County has plenty of company.


OREGON: Clatsop County Opts Out of Timber Revenue Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Stratton, writing for The Daily Astorian, reports that
Clatsop County contains nearly one-quarter of state-run
forestlands involved in a lawsuit brought by Linn County against
the state over timber revenue.  But Clatsop was the only one of
the 15 counties covered by class action to opt out.

Linn County's lawsuit claims the state violated a contract to
maximize sustainable harvests on land deeded by counties in the
1930s and '40s.  The lawsuit claims state polices from emphasizing
recreation and conservation have cost the counties a total of $35
million a year in timber revenue since 2000.  It also seeks future
payments of $35 million a year to account for the lost revenue.

Deemed a class action by a Linn County Circuit Court judge, the
lawsuit grew to include 15 counties and approximately 130 taxing
districts, all of which stood to gain sizable settlements were the
lawsuit successful.

The governing bodies of the affected counties and taxing districts
had until Jan. 25 to let the court know if they wanted out.  Most
did nothing, by default staying in the lawsuit.

An outlier

According to a filing by lawyers for Linn County, five of the nine
taxing districts that opted out were in Clatsop County.

Four -- County Rural Law Enforcement, Road District No. 1, the
county affiliate of Oregon State University's 4-H and Extension
Service programs and the Clatsop County Fair -- were automatically
removed as plaintiffs by the county Board of Commissioners'
decision.  The board of directors for Sunset Empire Parks and
Recreation District voted last month to opt out.

Michael Hinton, chairman of Sunset Empire's board, said the group
didn't agree with the change in forest practices that might result
from the lawsuit, and that the district's budget doesn't rely on
timber revenue.

"I think we made the right decision," Board of Commissioners
Chairman Scott Lee said about the county's decision last month to
opt out.  "And of course I'm disappointed other taxing districts
didn't opt out.  I still think I made a right decision."

The county will still potentially be a big recipient of any
settlement from the lawsuit.  Of the 30 taxing districts in the
county receiving timber tax revenues, 25 remained involved.

The board of Jewell School District, a timber tax-funded K-12
school in the middle of the Clatsop State Forest, took no action.
The Port of Astoria Commission was the only major taxing district
to vote publicly to stay in.

Clatsop Community College's board voted 4-3 the day before the
deadline to opt out.  But board member Esther Moberg's vote to opt
out, submitted via email after she declined to attend the meeting
and vote via teleconference, was rescinded as a violation of
voting rules.  The vote was ruled a tie, and the college was left
in the lawsuit.

No sense in opt-out

John DiLorenzo, the lead lawyer for Linn County in the case, said
all Clatsop County did was give up money and any influence over
the outcome of the $1.4 billion lawsuit.

"It just makes no logical sense to me," he said.  "But hey; you
know what? It's their right to do it."

Mr. DiLorenzo said there's a misconception that the case is about
changing timber policies, which he said would ultimately involve
an extensive rule-making process or legislative action requiring
public input.

"I know that passions are . . . very much present as part of this
debate," Mr. DiLorenzo said.  "But believe me; this case is all
about money."

Mr. DiLorenzo said environmental and timber policies are created
by and seen as beneficial to the entire state.  But the costs of
such policies not maximizing timber revenues, he said, fall more
on rural counties that can least afford it.

"It's a matter of cost-sharing," he said.  "Should rural
Oregonians be the only ones who pay for the cost of a policy that
benefits all?"


PARTY CITY: New York Court Tosses Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Party City Holdco Inc. (PRTY), a vertically integrated party goods
company in North America, on Feb. 7 disclosed that the
Roy Jones v. Party City Holdco lawsuit has been dismissed by the
U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

The class action lawsuit was commenced on November 18, 2015
against the company and certain of its officers in connection with
the Company's IPO on April 16, 2015.

On February 1, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion in
full and dismissed the case against all of the defendants for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs may seek to appeal the Court's decision.

"We are pleased with the Court's dismissal of the action," said
Jim Harrison, Chief Executive Officer.  "We believe the ruling
supports our position that the lawsuit was without merit.  We will
continue to focus our efforts on executing our vertical growth
strategy, increasing our market share, expanding our global
footprint and delivering meaningful value to all our
stakeholders."


PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Appeals Del. Ch. Opinion in "Solak" Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paylocity Holding Corporation took an appeal to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware from an interlocutory opinion and order
entered by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in Civil
Action No. 12299-CB.

The party against whom the appeal is taken is John Solak, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
Paylocity.

Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of payroll
and human capital management (HCM), software solutions for medium-
sized organizations.

The appeal case is captioned "Paylocity Holding Corporation vs.
John Solak, On Behalf Of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated
Stockholders of Paylocity Holding Corporation."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David Sborz, Esq.
     Phone: (302) 504-4957
     Fax: (302) 397-2681

The Defendant is represented by:

     John L. Reed, Esq.
     Ethan H. Townsend, Esq.
     Harrison S. Carpenter, Esq.
     DLA PIPER LLP (US)
     1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 468-5700
     E-mail: john.reed@dlapiper.com
             ethan.townsend@dlapiper.com
             harrison.carpenter@dlapiper.com


PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Pyschemedics
Corporation securities between February 28, 2014 and January 30,
2017.

The lawsuit alleges that Pyschemedics issued certain false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose that the Company's
Brazilian affiliate, Psychemedics Brasil Exames Toxicologicos,
engaged in improper business practices. According to the
complaint, Pyschemedics' financial results issued during that time
were misleading as a result.

If you purchased Pyschemedics securities between February 28, 2014
and January 30, 2017 and suffered a loss on your investment, you
are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at --
cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at --
mdees@holzerlaw.com -- or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-
6832.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff is
April 3, 2017.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Settles Chicago Redlight-Camera Suit for $20MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a red-light camera company whose
former chief executive pleaded guilty to a federal bribery charge
will pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit with Chicago, Mayor Rahm
Emanuel announced on Feb. 6.

The deal ends a lawsuit the city filed against Phoenix-based
Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. and its Australian parent company
Redflex Holdings Ltd, accusing Redflex of fraud and making false
statements when it contracted in 2003 to run Chicago's red-light
camera enforcement program.

The system, much-vilified by drivers, automatically ticketed
motorists. Chicago canceled Redflex's contract in 2013 following
Chicago Tribune reports about the scheme.

Former Redflex CEO Karen Finley and former Chicago transportation
official John Bills were convicted in a $100 million kickback
scheme.  Ms. Finley was given a 2 1/2-year prison term and Bills
received a 10-year sentence.

Mr. Bills was the former second-in-command at Chicago's Department
of Transportation.  He was accused of accepting envelopes stuffed
with cash, along with gifts -- including condominiums in two
states and a Mercedes -- to help Redflex obtain contracts in a
decadelong scheme.  Prosecutors said the cash and gifts were worth
a total of up to $2 million.

"I hope that this serves as a warning to other companies that do
business or hope to business with the city that we will hold those
who try to take advantage of taxpayers accountable," Emanuel said
in a statement.

The settlement money is to be paid installments over the next six
years, city officials said.  In January, the company made a deal
with federal prosecutors ensuring that others at Redflex won't be
prosecuted if it continues to cooperate.

"[Mon day marks a new beginning for Redflex," Redflex Traffic
Systems President and CEO Michael Finn said in a statement on Feb.
6, noting that the company has enhanced compliance management,
training and oversight.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Revance Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Case No. 1-15-CV-287794
CLASS ACTION
Judge:  Hon. Brian C. Walsh
Dept:  1
Date Action Filed: 05/01/15

CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED OR
OTHERWISE ACQUIRED REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("REVANCE" OR THE
"COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON JUNE 19,
2014 AND ENDING ON MAY 1, 2015, AND PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO
THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S JUNE
19, 2014 PUBLIC OFFERING (THE "CLASS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 19,
2017, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Brian C. Walsh at the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North
First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
dated October 31, 2016 ("Stipulation") of the above-captioned
action ("Litigation") for $6,400,000 in cash should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; and (3) to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is
discussed below).

This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Revance pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus ("Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Revance's June 19, 2014 public offering ("Offering") during
the period beginning on June 19, 2014 and ending on May 1, 2015,
against Revance and certain of its executives and the Underwriters
of the Offering for allegedly misstating and omitting material
facts from the Registration Statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
Offering.  Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED REVANCE COMMON STOCK DURING
THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON JUNE 19, 2014 AND ENDING ON MAY 1, 2015,
AND PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED
WITH THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S JUNE 19, 2014
OFFERING, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than June 5, 2017)
or submitted electronically no later than June 5, 2017.  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by June 5, 2017, will
subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation.  If you are a Member of the Class and do not
request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.  Plaintiff's Counsel represent you and other Members of the
Class.  If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may
hire one at your own expense.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain
these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which,
among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms
used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents,
online at www.revancesecuritiessettlement.com, or by writing to:

          Revance Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 30249
          College Station, TX 77842-3249
          Phone:  1-888-279-2322
          www.revancesecuritiessettlement.com

Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Lead Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          Shareholder Relations
          Rick Nelson
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 1-800-449-4900

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
APRIL 19, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.
ANY WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MAY BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
LEAD COUNSEL PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING.  HOWEVER,
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION IN ORDER TO APPEAR
AT THE HEARING TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTION TO THE COURT.

DATED:  January 6, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
HONORABLE BRIAN C. WALSH


REWALK ROBOTICS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP on Feb. 6 disclosed that it has
filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in federal court in
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased ReWalk Robotics
Ltd. ("ReWalk") (NASDAQ: RWLK) common stock traceable to ReWalk's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about
September 14, 2014.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the IPO did not disclose material
information, including that ReWalk was unprepared and/or unable to
comply with "special controls" requirements or to provide the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration with a post-market surveillance study
as required by the FDA to maintain ongoing sales of its products.

If you purchased ReWalk common stock in connection with ReWalk's
IPO on or about September 14, 2014 and you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than March 27, 2017.
Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.  The lawsuit
is called Deng, et al. v. ReWalk Robotics, Ltd., et al. (Case No.
1:17-cv-10169) filed in the federal district court for the
District of Massachusetts.

To learn more about the lawsuit and your rights, please contact
Jennifer Sarnelli at jsarnelli@gardylaw.com.

Gardy & Notis, LLP specializes in large, complex litigation in the
fields of securities, corporate governance, and mergers and
acquisitions.  The attorneys at Gardy & Notis, LLP have served as
plaintiffs' lead counsel in some of the largest securities fraud
class action recoveries.


REX ENERGY: Pa. Court Overturns Refusal to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg, Creehan & Gerace LLP disclosed a panel of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court on January 17, 2017, unanimously overturned a trial
court's refusal to certify a class action brought by landowners
against Rex Energy Corporation and R.E. Gas Development, LLC
("Rex"). Cardinale v. R.E. Gas Development, LLC and Rex Energy
Corporation, 2017 Pa.Super. 13. The appellate court remanded the
landowners' claims against Rex to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The landowners' claims against Rex arise out of roughly 112 oil
and gas leases signed in 2008 covering approximately 4,000 acres
of Marcellus Shale. Rex did not pay the bonus payments under those
leases. According to court records, the claims against Rex
aggregate more than $8 million plus 8 years of interest. Rex on
January 31, 2017, requested that the appellate court grant
reargument en banc and/or reconsideration by the panel. The
landowners will oppose Rex' request for reargument or
reconsideration.


ROSALIA'S INC: "Roncancio" Suit Seeks OT Wages for Waiting Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME AUGUSTO RONCANCIO, CESAR AUGUSTO VARGAS GONZALEZ, ARMANDO
TRINIDAD CANO MIRANDA, and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, vs. ROSALIA'S, INC., a Florida Corporation, and MANUEL
PAUCAR, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20313-UU (S.D.
Fla., January 25, 2017), was filed by Plaintiffs who were employed
by the Defendants as part of the waiting staff, and who were
allegedly not paid overtime wages when they worked more than 40
hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant ROSALIA'S operates a restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Must Face New York PFOA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, report
that a New York federal judge on Feb. 6 refused to let Saint-
Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc.
escape a proposed class action accusing them of contaminating a
city's groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid.

Residents of the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York, allege the
groundwater contamination came from one or more Saint-Gobain or
Honeywell manufacturing facilities that were operated at various
times within the village.  Their lawsuit claims the village's
drinking water became nonpotable, causing loss of property value
and other damages, and that PFOA has accumulated in their blood
serum and bodies.

The companies filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of
negligence and strict liability, nuisance, trespass and medical
monitoring damages, but U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn only
tossed the nuisance claim.

Judge Kahn said the companies successfully argued that the alleged
nuisance injury was too widespread to constitute a "private
nuisance."  He said private nuisance is limited to "that which
threatens one person or a relatively few."

"Since plaintiffs here claim a harm suffered by 'all renters and
owners in Hoosick Falls,' these allegations fail to state a claim
for private nuisance and instead constitute a public nuisance, for
which only the state or one of its subdivisions has standing to
bring suit," the judge said.

Allowing the negligence and strict liability claims to proceed,
the judge rejected Saint-Gobain and Honeywell's argument that the
complaint failed to allege a clearly identifiable injury to
property.

"Here, where plaintiffs allege that the water supply for their
property has been contaminated by the acts of defendants and that
the contaminant in question causes negative health consequences,
the stigma causing a decline in plaintiffs' property values is
directly traceable to defendants' conduct," Judge Kahn said.

As to the trespass claims, the judge said the companies' argument
was basically the same as their argument on negligence and strict
liability: that the plaintiffs' property was not injured by the
PFOA contamination.

The companies had argued that groundwater does not belong to
property owners, but rather is managed by the state, and thus
cannot form the basis of a private trespass claim.  But the judge
said New York courts have indicated trespass actions are available
to property owners to remedy the contamination of a plaintiff's
private well, "demonstrating that it is the possessory interest in
the well itself that is invaded."

"Defendants' reference to . . . the theory that groundwater is not
private property sufficient to sustain a trespass claim does not
undo this conclusion, since the groundwater in this case was
simply the medium through which the private well plaintiffs'
property was invaded; the property in question is in fact the
well," Judge Kahn said.

Finally, he allowed the plaintiffs claim for damages related to
medical monitoring to advance.  The Hoosick Falls residents claim
that they ingested PFOA-laced water as a result of the
contamination, and several of them have elevated levels of PFOA in
their blood.  He said prior case law has established that a
plaintiff may show an injury sufficient to seek medical monitoring
damages through the accumulation of a toxic substance within her
body.

And he said that case law appears to allow medical monitoring
damages even if the only tort with a present "injury" involves
harm to property.

However, the judge said he recognizes that the questions he
resolved in his decision are debatable, and, anticipating a
request for interlocutory appeal, preemptively authorized it.

The residents are represented by Robin L. Greenwald, Ellen Relkin,
James J. Bilsborrow, Paul J. Pennock, and William Walsh of Weitz
Luxenberg Law Firm, Stephen Schwarz and Hadley L. Matarazzo of
Faraci Lang Law Firm, and Hunter J. Shkolnik and Paul J. Napoli of
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

Saint-Gobain is represented by Michael Koenig --
mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com -- and Christopher Fenlon --
cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com -- of Hinckley Allen, and Sheila L.
Birnbaum -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Mark S. Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Douglas E. Fleming II, Patrick
Curran and Lincoln Davis Wilson -- lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com
-- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Honeywell is represented by Dale Desnoyers --
dale@allendesnoyers.com -- of Allen & Desnoyers LLP, and Michael
D. Daneker -- michael.daneker@apks.com -- Elissa J. Preheim --
elissa.preheim@apks.com -- Allyson Himelfarb --
allyson.himelfarb@apks.com -- and Tal Machnes --
tal.machnes@apks.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Baker et al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp
et al., case number 1:16-cv-00917, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Blood Tests Result Released Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports
that Priscilla Sepessy is one of nearly 150 area residents
struggling to understand the results of blood tests showing
elevated levels of perfluorooctanoic acid.

"Right now I am healthy, but what does this mean down the line --
that is my concern," Ms. Sepessy said of test results released by
the state.

Her results showed a PFOA level of 64.3 micrograms per liter. It
is her understanding that the national average range is up to 43
micrograms per liter.

"I don't know the scope of this, and I don't know how dangerous
the levels are.  It is confusing."

Ms. Sepessy, 58, lives in Merrimack, down the road from
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, the facility identified as the
likely source of water and ground contamination in the region.

Initial test results from dozens of blood samples taken from
residents in southern New Hampshire with private wells reveal more
than double the amount of PFOA contamination in the blood stream
compared to the average U.S. population.

The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services released
a summary of the preliminary test results, which were mailed to
147 participants who had their blood tested in Merrimack,
Litchfield and surrounding communities.

According to the summary of results using a more specific range
(the 95th percentile), residents tested in southern New Hampshire
reveal an average of 32.1 micrograms per liter compared to a
national average of 5.7 micrograms per liter.

"There is no interpretation of the results," said Laurene Allen,
who is spearheading efforts to gather experts to help citizens
understand their individual blood test results.

"We have to know how to handle this within our own bodies -- we
need a support network for these people to help reduce anxiety and
get answers," said Ms. Allen, who has lived in Merrimack since
1995.

Ms. Allen uses Merrimack Village District water, the municipal
water supply, and has not had the opportunity to get her blood
tested.

She was hoping to participate in a separate blood test study for
MVD customers, but did not receive a letter inviting her to be one
of the 200 residents to participate.

An area of uncertainty

Chronic exposure to PFOA, a man-made chemical once used to make
Teflon, has been linked to a myriad of medical problems, including
kidney cancer, testicular cancer and other illnesses.

The state epidemiologist, Dr. Benjamin Chan, said that there is no
abnormal or normal cutoff for PFOA exposure, and that the blood
test numbers don't necessarily help a person or their health care
provider understand whether they will have any health effects.

"We still don't know how to interpret these levels relative to
someone's health," admitted Dr. Chan.  "This is an area of
uncertainty."

He said that the elevated PFOA levels detected in local blood
tests are not as high as in other states where water contamination
has become a problem, specifically in Bennington, Vt., and Hoosick
Falls, N.Y.

Testing and treating

Efforts are ongoing in Merrimack, Litchfield, Amherst and Bedford
to provide water treatment options to areas that have detected
contamination, including the construction of public water mains to
residents with private wells, and point-of-use treatment systems.

PFOA contamination was discovered last year around the Saint-
Gobain Performance Plastics facility in Merrimack, prompting the
distribution of bottled water to hundreds of residents living
within a certain vicinity around the site.

Legislation is pending in Concord to address some of the water
quality issues in southern New Hampshire and near the Pease
Tradeport.

"People are concerned about their children, who may be much more
vulnerable to contamination and health issues," state Rep.
Chris Christensen of Merrimack said.

While more data is being gathered on the contamination problem, he
said it is important to receive ambient levels of PFOA to fully
understand the extent of the situation.

Although blood testing is being conducted in areas where
contamination is already known, he said blood testing should also
take place in regions where there is not believed to be any PFOA.

"Unfortunately, there isn't a lot known about it," said
Mr. Christensen.  "I am sympathetic to those people that have been
drinking contaminated water, or perhaps contaminated, and for
their children."

He praised the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
and DHHS for promptly addressing the contamination situation when
Saint-Gobain reported its findings last March.

Mr. Christensen said it might be beneficial for Chan to meet with
some of the residents to help them understand the numbers.

Lawsuits filed

In December, a second class-action lawsuit was filed against
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics -- this time from several
Merrimack residents who say they have been exposed to high levels
of perfluorinated chemicals.

The class-action lawsuit includes about 15 adults and seven
children, including a couple whose child has developed leukemia,
and on behalf of other local residents dealing with contaminants
in their water.

All of the plaintiffs argue that they have a legitimate fear of
developing cancer or other diseases as a result of the
contamination allegedly caused when Saint-Gobain released PFOA
into the environment and it was ultimately detected in local water
sources in 2016.

James Volner and his wife, Beverly, are two of the plaintiffs
included in the lawsuit.

"I did have my blood tested on Nov. 2, but I haven't gotten back
the results," said James Volner.  "It is the government, what
would you expect?"

They were told that it could take three months to receive the
results.

James Volner has lived in Merrimack since 1971, and says he really
isn't too concerned about his health.

"I haven't died from it yet," he added.

Health concerns

Not everyone has the same optimism, including Johanna Jones, who
lives in a condominium development across the street from two
municipal wells taken off-line because of elevated levels of PFOA.

"I am concerned about my health -- there are a lot of people that
are. I have had cancer twice, and doctors told me that one of my
cancers in 2001 was likely caused by an environmental concern,"
said Ms. Jones, a survivor of thyroid cancer and a form of sarcoma
cancer.

As residents with private wells are receiving their blood test
results, she said residents utilizing Merrimack Village District
water are also anxious to get their blood tested.

"There is just no way they are not going to be on the higher
side," Ms. Jones predicts of the results.  "We have people that
are sick and have been sick."

The newest test results are alarming, said Ms. Jones, who fears
that the contamination began long before Saint-Gobain took over
the plant, but instead when ChemFab occupied the site.

Although the facility is housed in Merrimack, there are dozens of
residents who live in Litchfield who are also affected.

A new water main along Route 3A and adjacent roads has been
constructed, which will eventually provide public water to several
residences with private wells.

In addition, Pennichuck Corp. is currently designing pump station
upgrades and a new water line for the Darrah Pond Pump Station in
Litchfield.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Washing Machine Recall
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a Fort
Polk consumer alleges a Samsung washing machine she purchased at a
Lowe's store in Leesville was subject to a recall and that Samsung
has not repaired the machine.

Malori Soria filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on
Jan. 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana against Samsung Electronics Co. LTD and Samsung
Electronics America Inc. alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and other counts.

According to the complaint, the defendants announced a recall in
November 2016 regarding 34 models of their top-load washing
machines because the machine's top can detach during use.  The
plaintiff alleges that on Oct. 3, 2015, she purchased a Samsung
washing machine that was a subject for recall by Samsung.  She
alleges she contacted the defendants more than 15 times regarding
the recall's option of repairing the machine to fix the defect,
but the defendants have yet to repair the machine.

The plaintiff holds Samsung Electronics Co. LTD and Samsung
Electronics America Inc. responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally withheld repair of the washing machine so
that she would be forced to use the rebate or to purchase another
Samsung washing machine.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a class action, appointing plaintiff and
her counsel as representatives, award for damages in an amount to
be determined by jury, restitution, litigation costs and all other
relief that are just and equitable.  She is represented by Stephen
H. Kupperman of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC in
New Orleans and William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-00195


SANDIA NATIONAL: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
and David Lopez of Outten & Golden LLP on Feb. 7 announced the
filing of a federal class action lawsuit in New Mexico alleging
that Sandia National Laboratories has engaged in systemic and
pervasive discrimination against its female employees.

The lawsuit, Kennicott v. Sandia National Laboratories, filed by
three current and former employees, accuses Sandia of engaging in
a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female
employees.  Sandia National Laboratories, a Department of Energy
research and development contractor, is operated by a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.  In addition to its work devoted to
the United States' nuclear weapons systems, Sandia performs
national security research in such fields as computer science,
engineering, biology, and mathematics. In 2015, Sandia employed
approximately 11,700 individuals, with nearly all employees
working at its Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Francisco Bay Area
laboratories.  Sandia's operating budget was $2.8 billion in 2015,
and it is the third-largest employer in Albuquerque.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state laws,
including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New
Mexico Human Rights Act.  The plaintiff class is represented by
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Outten & Golden LLP.

The plaintiffs allege that "[a]s a result of Sandia's policies,
patterns, and practices, female employees receive less
compensation and are promoted less frequently than their male
counterparts."  Furthermore, "Sandia's company-wide policies and
practices systematically violate female employees' rights and
operate in a corporate culture infected with gender bias."

"These brave plaintiffs have taken the difficult step of filing a
lawsuit that is intended not merely to help themselves but to
change the playing field for women at Sandia," plaintiffs'
attorney Kelly Dermody said.  "Together, it is our hope that cases
like this will ensure that future generations of young women will
see a great career path in science, technology, and national
security."

The complaint further alleges that Sandia employs a performance
evaluation system that systemically rates female employees less
favorably compared to equally or worse-performing male peers.

"These plaintiffs had the courage to come forward to address
barriers to the advancement of women in a male-dominated field,"
David Lopez said.  "With this action we hope to change broad-based
patterns of sex discrimination in compensation, promotion, and
performance systems, so that qualified female employees will be
judged by their talents and skill without regard to their gender."

Attorneys Kelly Dermody, Lin Chan, Anne Shaver, and Michael Levin-
Gesundheit of Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP and David
Lopez, Adam Klein, and Elizabeth Stork of Outten & Golden LLP
represent the plaintiffs.  David Lopez served as general counsel
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 2010 to 2016.
The case is Kennicott v. Sandia National Laboratories, Case No.
17-cv-188 (D.N.M.).

People interested in the lawsuit may provide information by
visiting sandiagendercase.com or by calling 1-800-541-7358 to
leave a message for plaintiffs' counsel.  Members of the media can
also obtain a copy of the complaint and this press release at
sandiagendercase.com.

                      About the Plaintiffs

Lisa Kennicott worked at Sandia from 1995 to 1998 and has been
continuously employed at Sandia from 1999 to the present.  Her
current title is Principal Member of Technical Staff.  She holds a
master's degree in computer science.

Lisa A. Garcia has worked at Sandia since 1988. Her current title
is Principal Technologist.  She holds a bachelor's degree in
business and a certificate in electronics.

Sue Phelps worked at Sandia from 1989 until her retirement in
2016. She holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, a master's
computer science, and a Ph.D. in computer science.  She is an
author of several published, peer-reviewed articles in the field
of computer science.

                      About the Law Firms

The plaintiffs are represented by two law firms: national class
action firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
plaintiffs' employment firm Outten & Golden LLP.  These firms also
represented female professionals in the Amochaev v. Smith Barney
gender discrimination case, which resulted in a $33 million
settlement, and they currently represent women in the ongoing
gender discrimination class action against Goldman Sachs, Chen-
Oster v. Goldman Sachs, and Microsoft, Moussouris v. Microsoft.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 74-attorney firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle.
Lieff Cabraser has represented plaintiffs in a wide variety of
class action litigation, including employment discrimination and
civil rights, wage suppression, and pension benefits litigation.
It has represented many plaintiffs in litigation against science
and technology companies, including serving as class counsel in
the Silicon Valley no-poaching case, In re High-Tech Employee
Antitrust Litigation, which resulted in settlements totaling $435
million.  Currently, Lieff Cabraser is lead counsel in the
nationwide consumer fraud class action against Volkswagen, In re:
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Litigation, Case No. MDL 2672 (N.D.
Cal.) More information on the firm can be found at
lieffcabraser.com.

Outten & Golden LLP is a 52-attorney firm with offices in New
York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. O&G represents
plaintiffs in a wide variety of employment law matters, including
national class and impact discrimination cases, major class-based
wage and hour violations, and contract negotiations.  O&G
represented plaintiff-intervenor Allison Schieffelin in a pattern
or practice sex discrimination suit prosecuted with the EEOC
against Morgan Stanley that resulted in a $54 million settlement
and substantial injunctive relief.  O&G was also lead counsel in
Gonzales, et al., v. Pritzker, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Commerce, a landmark class action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of
thousands of African-American and Latino job seekers alleging that
the Census Bureau's criminal background check had a disparate
impact on African-American and Latino applicants for jobs related
to the 2010 census.  That case resulted in an historic settlement
that requires the Census Bureau to replace its discriminatory use
of criminal records with job-related requirements to determine who
is eligible for essential entry-level jobs.  The firm has handled
discrimination claims against numerous Fortune 500 firms. More
information on the firm can be found at outtengolden.com


SECOND ROUND: Certification of Class Sought in "Scifo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Scifo moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned NANCY SCIFO, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SECOND ROUND, LP,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00125 (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, Ms. Scifo 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.  She asserts that she 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, Ms. Scifo contends.

Ms. Scifo 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=EZ1B0NLn

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


SONY: California Judge Rejects PS3 Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Argus Leader, reports that a few months
ago the news agency reported that the "devil was in the details"
about how Sony Playstation 3 owners could go about getting either
$9 or $55 from Sony as part of a class-action settlement over a
2010 software update that removed the ability to run Linux on the
popular gaming consoles.

The California judge presiding over the litigation is now killing
the proposed settlement amid concerns the lawyers representing the
class haven't explained why they should get $2.25 million for
their legal services, especially considering that the deal has
made it burdensome on gamers to get their cash.  Of the gamers who
tried to get their $55 refund, 25 percent have been rejected.

"The Court has concerns, based upon how the notice and claims
process preceded, the results it produced, and the
disproportionality of the attorneys' fees versus the class
recovery, that the settlement agreement is not fair, reasonable,
and adequate," US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in a
decision that reversed her earlier order that tentatively backed
the pact.

Assuming every one of the 11,300 claims were paid at the $55 rate,
that would mean the deal is worth $621,500 to consumers. The suing
attorneys are charging $2.25 million for their services.  The
court said as many as 10 million consoles were affected.

The judge added that the process for gamers to request their money
contained "unnecessary requirements" that "could only serve to
deter claims without any apparent justification."

What's more, the judge ruled the lawyers have not sufficiently
substantiated their fee request.

This lack of evidence is all the more concerning in light of the
fact that the litigation here never progressed beyond a motion to
dismiss and an appeal of that motion.  While some discovery was
apparently conducted, that discovery does not nearly approach the
level that would have been required to take the case to class
certification, or beyond.  Without billing records or some more
detailed explanation of the basis for the fee request, the Court
is without sufficient information to determine whether the request
is reasonable.

The judge ordered the parties to return to court February 13 "to
discuss the next steps in this litigation."

Under the now-dead deal, there were two classes of gamers that
were eligible for payouts.

The $55 "Consumer Class A" category is "All persons in the United
States who purchased a Fat PS3 in the United States between
November 1, 2006 and April 1, 2010 from an authorized retailer for
family, personal and/or household use and who used the Other OS
functionality after installation of a Linux operating system on
their Fat PS3."

The $9 Consumer Class B category is "All persons in the United
States who purchased a Fat PS3 in the United States between
November 1, 2006 and April 1, 2010 from an authorized retailer for
family, personal, and/or household use."

Here are some of the hoops that were required for both groups to
get the refund: proof of purchase, a console serial number, and
the Playstation Network Sign-in ID used with the Fat PS3 between
November 1, 2006 and April 1, 2010.  Class A members were also
required to prove use of the Other OS functionality and a
statement under the penalty of perjury that the Linux operating
system was installed and used.  Consumer Class B members had to
provide a statement under the penalty of perjury that they knew
about the Other OS functionality and relied upon the Other OS
functionality in making the decision to purchase a Fat PS3, "and
intended at the time of your purchase to use the Other OS
functionality."

There were also other hurdles, including forcing gamers to obtain
a "temporary ID" from the settlement administrator that Sony would
use to check against its own records to verify purchase of a Fat
PS3.  The judge scoffed at that idea:

The purpose of the temporary serial number remains obscure.
Indeed, the process appears to be completely circular: notices
were emailed to potential class members based on the information
in Sony's Playstation Network ID database, but then class members
were required to provide their Playstation Network ID to Sony to
look up the associated Fat PS3 serial number in the database. This
"remedial" process begs the question of why the claimants were
required to provide receipts or serial numbers in the first place,
i.e. if Sony already had that information in its database and
could simply confirm the claim by using the claimant's Playstation
Network ID.  Given the relatively small amount Consumer Class B
members would receive, imposing unnecessary requirements could
only serve to deter claims without any apparent justification.

About seven million e-mails were delivered on September 28 to
consumers who had purchased the box.  They had to make a claim by
December 22.  In all, there were only 11,300 claims made during
the 10-week claims period -- a statistic that did not please the
court.

However, no evidence of these limiting considerations is offered
to justify estimating the class to be less than one percent of the
total purchasers.  Counsel's failure to provide more than argument
about the basis for its estimate of the class size, and thus the
claims rate, leaves the Court without a basis for any confidence
that the class settlement fairly and adequately compensates the
number of people who were using the Other OS functionality before
Sony introduced Firmware Update 3.21 and were injured by the loss
of that functionality.

The lead attorneys representing console owners, James Pizzirusso
and Rebecca Coll, did not immediately respond for comment.


SONY: Settled Suit Over Optical Drives
--------------------------------------
Today could be your lucky day, writes Alex Hernandez at Techaeris.
You could be claiming at least $10USD -- maybe more -- from a
recently settled class-action lawsuit involving DVD optical
drives. That's right. If you've ever owned a laptop or external
DVD optical drive between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2008,
this class-action lawsuit has won you $10USD. If you happen to own
multiple laptops or external drives during that time, then you're
eligible to claim those as well. Sony, NEC, Panasonic, and
Hitachi-LG finally settled a class-action lawsuit that has been
going on for seven years and it's a doozie.

These fine companies were accused of working together to inflate
the price of DVD optical drives sold to computer makers and
retailers. When big computer makers such as Dell and HP would put
out a bid for optical drives, the four companies would share their
bids with each other to drive prices up. The process for making
your claim is easy, just head over to Optical Disk Drive Antitrust
and fill out the form. The one odd thing is they do not ask for
any proof when you fill out the form, but in the terms and
conditions, it does state the following.

"The Settlement Administrator has the right to request
verification or more information regarding the claimed purchase(s)
of Optical Disk Drive products for purposes of preventing fraud."

I submitted my own form for several laptops I owned during that
time, but I no longer have the laptops or receipts, so it's likely
I won't be able to claim the money. We highly suggest you read the
entirety of the fine print as not all states are eligible and of
course, there is that receipt thing that could come back to get
you.


SONY: July 1 Deadline Set for DVD Drive Settlement Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hollister, writing for CNET, reports that this past December,
Sony, NEC, Panasonic and Hitachi-LG settled a class-action lawsuit
that's been in the works for over seven years.  The companies were
accused of colluding to inflate the prices of optical drives sold
to big computer companies and retailers.

When HP and Dell placed orders for lots of optical discs, the
lawsuit alleged, competing drive makers would share their bids
with each other to keep prices high.  When the US Department of
Justice investigated the issue, at least one Hitachi-LG executive
was sentenced to serve six months in prison after pleading guilty
to the conspiracy.

How to submit your claim

What does this all mean for you? If you bought a computer with a
DVD drive (or a standalone DVD drive for a computer, including
external ones) between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008, you're
eligible to receive $10 for each drive you purchased as a result
of the settlement.  You must submit your claim at
https://www.opticaldiskdriveantitrust.com/#two or by mail before
July 1, 2017.

(Note that while Panasonic DVD drives are covered, Panasonic
computers are not eligible, and half the US is out: you'll need to
be a resident of Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.)

As of right now, Sony, Hitachi-LG, NEC and Panasonic have
contributed $124.5 million to the settlement and lawyers expect to
take about a quarter of that for their trouble.

That could leave roughly enough money to compensate the owners of
some 9.3 million optical drives, but that's not necessarily a lot.
The PC industry shipped some 57 million computers into the US in
2003 alone, according to research firm Gartner.

And don't expect the money anytime soon, because the lawyers are
waiting to see if other optical drive makers settle too.  "Because
other defendants remain in this litigation, the plaintiffs are
proposing that distribution of the settlement funds not occur at
this time," reads the settlement website.

If you're curious what sort of evidence plaintiffs had against
Sony, NEC, Hitachi-LG and Panasonic, take a peek at one of the
amended complaints below.  If you start at page 44, you'll find
snippets of some very suggestive emails.


SOUTH AFRICA: Democratic Alliance Seeks Probe Into Patient Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Times Live reports that the Democratic Alliance wants former
public protector Thuli Madonsela to probe deaths of almost 100
psychiatric patients.

"The Gauteng Provincial Government has suffered a crisis of
credibility over the deaths of 94 mental health patients and needs
to appoint someone of high stature to get redress and compensation
for the relatives," said the party's Jack Bloom on Feb. 6.  He
said he supported that recommendation of Health Ombudsman
Professor Malegapuru Makgoba, to "contact all affected individuals
and families and enter into an alternative dispute resolution
process".

"The DA supports this approach which avoids long, drawn-out legal
proceedings as has occurred with the Marikana deaths," said Bloom.

"It could also be a more satisfactory and speedy alternative to a
class action law suit."

Makgoba's report was scathing of the Gauteng Department of
Health's role in the deaths of 94 mental health patients after
they were transferred to unlicensed NGOs after the cancellation of
a contract with Life Healthcare Esidimeni last year.

"We believe that former public protector advocate Thuli Madonsela
has the necessary moral authority and support to ensure that there
is a fair settlement for the relatives that includes financial
compensation, while bearing in mind that no amount of money can
recompense for the loss of a loved one," said Bloom.

"Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi and Premier David Makhura should
approach Madonsela as their top choice for this purpose. "We hope
that she can spare some time from her current sabbatical at
Harvard University, otherwise someone else with a similar
reputation for integrity and independence should be appointed."


SOUTH AFRICA: Group to Sue Over Life Esidimeni Patient Deaths
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicolson, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that Solidarity
Helping Hand, an arm of trade union Solidarity, on Feb. 8 planned
to announce a class action lawsuit against the Gauteng department
of health on behalf of relatives of the 94 patients who died after
being transferred out of Life Esidimeni last year.  The class
action will seek compensation for the pain and suffering endured
by the families of those who died. Helping Hand said the deaths
occurred due to the gross negligence of the department and the
class action would ensure the department is held responsible and
the families find some relief.

Health Ombudsman Professor Malegapuru Makgoba's report blamed top
officials in the Gauteng health department for the deaths, causing
public outrage and the resignation of Health MEC Qedani Mahlangu.
A number of criminal charges have been laid against those
involved, but Solidarity Helping Hand's planned class action will
be the first civil action.

Those who have been involved in the case since the beginning,
however, say the organisation, which through Solidarity is linked
to the Afrikaner-interest group AfriForum, has not consulted the
families and may be trying to take advantage of the tragedy.

"We want to give a voice to these 94 victims.  Their deaths have
become a beacon of proof of a state that is failing in its duties.
Helping Hand knows that this lawsuit won't bring back the deceased
but we can't allow their deaths to go unnoticed. The department of
health's failure to react to the numerous cries for help and
warnings is testimony of blatant arrogance.  The department has to
be held responsible," said Dirk Hermann, chairman of Solidarity
Helping Hand's board in a statement on Feb. 7.

The organisation told Daily Maverick it started working with
relatives of the Life Esidimeni patients last July when
Siyabadinga, one of the NGOs involved in challenging the ill-fated
decision to transfer patients, requested its help.  Helping Hand
said it had also distributed "bedding, food and even washing
machines" to the under-resourced NGOs where patients were moved
last year.

Riaan du Plooy, Solidarity Helping Hand's deputy chief executive
of national structures, said that according to legal advisors the
class action would be unique.  "This is the first time there is a
class action of loss of life on such a large scale where the MEC
made a decision but the department was not directly involved with
seeing the decision through."

The groups who have been representing family members since 2015
and the Life Esidimeni family committee on Feb. 7 said it's the
first they have heard of the class action.  Ivan Lukhele, who is a
part of the family committee and actively resisted the Gauteng
health department's efforts to send patients from Life Esidimeni
to NGOs, said relatives had been working with Section27 and the
South African Depression and Anxiety Group (Sadag). "Any structure
outside of that I'm not aware of."  He described Solidarity
Helping Hand's plan to launch a class action case as "very sad".

"[Relatives] have already gone through traumatic experiences of
loved ones dying," said Mr. Lukhele. "At least [Solidarity Helping
Hand] can respect the process."  The families' committee has been
working with the Gauteng provincial government as it attempts to
inspect NGOs and ensure patients are soon safely moved to
government facilities.  Both Premier David Makhura and Health
Minister Aaron Motsoaledi have expressed regret and pain over the
issue and committed to preventing further deaths at the NGOs.  The
said the tragedy must never be repeated.

"Do they know where we come from?" asked Mr. Lukhele, speaking of
the planned class action and the multiple cases the families and
the organisations representing them have already brought to court.

Sadag operations director Cassey Chambers said she only heard
about the class action on Feb. 7.  Section27 also only heard of
the issue on the same day.  Sadag has been involved in the Life
Esidimeni case since it first went to court in 2015. Clearly
Solidarity was not representing all the families, said Chambers,
as many had only just heard about the civil action. "I think there
might be maybe a confusion," she said.

Solidarity Helping Hand is said to have represented families of
patients who died at Cullinan Care and Rehabilitation Centre
(CCRC) before the Esidimeni move.  "We're finding out more
information.  The families and the stakeholders knew nothing about
[the class action].  It's the first we're hearing about it.
Clearly it shows they're not representing all of the families,"
said Chambers.

Andrew Pieterson, who chairs the Life Esidimeni family committee
set up to challenge the move that resulted in almost 100 deaths,
said his group was unaware of the process.  Section27, which has
had a long-standing legal relationship with the families, on
Feb. 7 said it was also not aware of Solidarity Helping Hand's
legal action but continues to engage its clients' in their best
interest.

Ernst Vorster, Solidarity Helping Hand's head of communication,
said his organisation had been involved in a case regarding the
Cullinan care centre and had appointed a curator to handle R70,000
in donations to assist patients -- money which was handed over but
the NGO never unaccounted for, he said.

"We were approached by a group of family members who lost their
loved ones at the CCRC under these circumstances seeking fair
compensation for their loss and have agreed to assist them with
this class action suit.  I am not at liberty to divulge any
particulars at this stage, but we will be extending an invitation
to others to join this suit."

Vorster also condemned those trying to capitalise on the tragedy
and said Solidarity Helping Hand cares deeply about those affected
by the Life Esidimeni tragedy.

Premier Makhura's spokesperson Masebe on Feb. 7 said government
was still conducting inspections on the NGOs where patients have
been moved, which should be completed by Feb. 10.


SPECTRUM: Faces Suit Over "Illegitimate" $9.99 Wifi Activation Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Levesque at Tampa Bay Times reports a Spectrum customer
has filed a lawsuit in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court accusing the
broadband company of attempting to charge customers an
"illegitimate" $9.99 wifi activation fee.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed Jan. 31 by
Sharon Memmer, 58, of St. Petersburg and names Spectrum's parent
company, Charter Communications, as a defendant.

Memmer is one of more than a million former Bright House Networks
customers Spectrum acquired when Charter bought the company in a
deal finalized in May. The suit said Spectrum "illegitimately
asserted" that Memmer "had newly enrolled in WiFi service" when
she had, in fact, done no such thing.

Spectrum's "false assertions" to Memmer and other customers, the
lawsuit said, "regarding their WiFi services and subsequent
invoicing regarding the illegitimate WiFi Activation Fee is
collectively an unfair method of competition, an unconscionable
act or practice and/or an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

The suit, filed by the firm of LeavenLaw in St. Petersburg, seeks
$1,000 for each affected customer and reasonable attorney fees. A
Spectrum spokesman said he could not comment on pending
litigation.

The Tampa Bay Times first reported last month that numerous Tampa
Bay residents were charged the fee despite being long-standing
Bright House network customers. Spectrum initially downplayed the
complaints and said they had no evidence of a widespread problem.


STATE STREET: March 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased State Street
Corporation (STT) securities between February 27, 2012 and January
18, 2017.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/state-street-corporation.There is no
cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) State Street engaged in a scheme to defraud a number of
its clients by secretly applying commissions to billions of
dollars of securities trades; (2) State Street's billing practices
relied on unsustainable methodologies; (3) over a 18-year period,
approximately $240 million or more of expenses may have been
incorrectly invoiced to State Street's asset servicing clients;
(4) from June 2010 until September 2011, State Street charged
clients "substantial" mark-ups without their consent; and (5) 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 suffered a loss in State Street you have until March 28,
2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email -- vw@wongesq.com --, by
telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/state-street-corporation.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.


STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Faces "Schur" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SCHUR, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and
STRATEGIC CONSULTING, LLC, RYAN SASSON and KIM CELIC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00546 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for all overtime work rendered
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Strategic Financial Solutions provides short and long term
strategies for paying off clients' credit card debt.

Mr. Schur was employed by Defendants as a sales consultant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560
     E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
     Web site: http://www.stephanzouras.com

        - and -

     Jonathan I. Nirenberg, Esq.
     RABNER BAUMGART BEN-ASHER & NIRENBERG, PC
     52 Upper Montclair Plaza
     Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
     Phone: (973) 744-4000
     E-mail: jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com


SYNGENTA: June 5 Trial Set for Viptera Corn Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Todd Neeley, writing for DTN, reports that the first trial in a
number of class-action lawsuits against Syngenta over the release
of Viptera corn, has been set for June 5 in a federal court in
Kansas City, Kansas.

A court order was issued on Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.

Syngenta genetically engineered MIR162 corn under the brand name
Agrisure Viptera to control above-ground pests.

Syngenta is dealing with multiple lawsuits claiming the company
should have inspected and prevented harvested Viptera (MIR 162)
corn from being shipped to China in 2013 and 2014.  Plaintiffs in
the case allege Syngenta sold Agrisure Viptera and Duracade (a
separate trait to control corn rootworm), causing significant
losses to corn farmers across the country.

All farmers in the United States who priced corn for sale after
Nov. 18, 2013, were approved last fall as a major class in the
ongoing lawsuit.

Omaha attorney Donald Swanson told DTN the scheduling of the first
trial is "significant because it shows that Judge (John) Lungstrum
is serious about moving the Syngenta case along expeditiously."
Mr. Swanson is an attorney with Omaha-based Koley Jessen PC, who
has followed and written about the case for Iowa State's Center
for Agricultural Law and Taxation.

The claims by this particular class of Kansas farmers is they are
entitled to recover damages because Syngenta violated the false
advertising sections of the Lanham Act by misrepresenting the
status, timing and importance of Chinese approval of MIR162,
according to the court order.

Further, they allege Syngenta was "negligent in the timing, scope
and manner" in which it commercialized Viptera and Duracade.

"Based upon data available to plaintiffs' damages experts as of
the date of their most recent reports, those damages are up to
$5.77 billion for the nationwide class and up to $235.4 million
for the Kansas class," the court order said.

Numerous other Syngenta trials also will be scheduled in the
Kansas court, in a Minnesota state court and in other courts as
well.

In an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
last year, Syngenta argued the lower court judge erred in setting
a nationwide class of farmers because that would include farmers
not actually harmed by the release.

The court fights began for Syngenta after developing MIR162
genetic traits marketed under the brand name Viptera. USDA
deregulated Viptera in 2010.  Syngenta moved ahead to commercially
sell the seeds even though they have not been approved in China.
In November 2013, China began rejecting any U.S. corn exports that
tested positive for MIR162.

The official lawsuits filed on behalf of corn producers include
cases in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.


TAKEDA PHARMA: 2d Cir. Partly Reverses Antitrust Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News reports the Second Circuit
revived claims on February 8 that Takeda Pharmaceuticals delayed a
competitor from releasing a generic version of its diabetes drug
Actos.

Unions and municipalities that purchase drugs for their employees
brought the underlying class action in Manhattan. They claimed in
a federal complaint that Takeda's monopolization of the market for
Actos forced them to pay inflated prices from at least January
2011, when Takeda's patent on the active ingredient in Actos
expired, to at least February 2013, when generic competitors began
to flood the market.

The case hinged on a claim that Takeda used false patent
descriptions to force generic competitors into an approval process
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that gives first filers a
180-day exclusivity periods and bottlenecks subsequent filers.

Of the 10 drugmakers that wanted to market generic versions of
Actos, nine took the bottlenecked route and faced patent-
infringement suits from Takeda.

Though the first three reached settlements that allowed them to
start marketing their versions on August 17, 2012, the latter six
had to wait until February 2013.

Teva was the only generic drugmaker that sought approval of its
drug through another regulatory scheme, but it wound up in the
bottlenecked route anyway because of an FDA announcement.

Though a federal judge dismissed the class action, the Second
Circuit reversed in part on February 8, saying the claims
regarding Teva's market entry may have merit since they do not
require any knowledge of Takeda's allegedly false patent
descriptions.

"Teva's application received preliminary approval from the FDA in
2006, and if Teva had been granted final approval, then it would
not have been subject to the first-filers' 180-day exclusivity
period, and could have begun marketing generic Actos for non-
patented uses," the 18-page ruling states.

Sitting by designation from the Southern District of New York,
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote the opinion for a three-
person panel.

The class's unsuccessful theory "posits a delay in the marketing
of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants
other than Teva," according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs claim that but for the false patent descriptions,
applicants would not have been forced to make Paragraph IV
certifications, no bottleneck would have arisen, and one or more
generics would have entered the market as early as January 2011,"
Rakoff wrote.

The court called this theory implausible Wednesday, however,
because it "presupposes that the generic manufacturers knew that
Takeda had described them as drug product patents when they filed
their ANDAs [abbreviated new drug applications]."

Rakoff said it was "incumbent upon plaintiffs to allege that the
generic applicants were aware of the descriptions when they filed
their ANDAs in 2003 and 2004."

"The complaint is bereft of any such allegations," he added.

Seeing the claims involving Teva in a different light, however,
Rakoff noted that "this second theory does not depend on Teva's
knowledge of Takeda's description of its patents as drug product
patents, because the FDA's 2010 announcement was itself expressly
based on Takeda's repeated and allegedly false patent
descriptions."

Rakoff said the FDA made no attempt to evaluate whether the
descriptions of the patents were true.

"While Teva thereafter sought to challenge the truthfulness of
these descriptions in its litigation with Takeda (but settled
before the issue was resolved), the damage had been done," Rakoff
wrote (parentheses in original). "A plaintiff could hardly ask for
a clearer causal connection."

U.S. Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Debra Ann Livingston joined
the opinion.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve Shadowden with Hilliard &
Shadowden of Austin, Texas. Teva is represented by Rohit Singla of
Munger, Tolles & Olson in San Francisco. Neither firm has returned
emails seeking comment sent outside business hours.


TARGET CORP: Amin Talati Attorneys Comment on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Abhishek Gurnani, Esq., and Amit Sharma, Esq., of Amin Talati
Upadhye, in an article for Natural Products Insider, report that
many people of all ages are incorporating joint health products
into their diet.  Younger people are using them more as a
precautionary measure, while older generations are more active
than ever, hoping to support their joints as best they can.  The
demand for these products is real, and the global bone and joint
health supplements market is projected to surpass US$9 billion
this year in 2017.  As a steadily growing market, and its
sensitive target population of the elderly class, bone and joint
health supplements continue to remain on the radar of regulators
and members of the plaintiff's bar.  To remain a sustainable
product in this ever-growing category of products, it is
imperative that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines are adhered to, but also
it is just as important to consider the current litigious climate
and recent class action matters in this space.

In 2013, a class action complaint was filed against NBTY Inc.,
Rexall Sundown and Target Corp. concerning certain joint health
products that were marketed as dietary supplements.  These
products were marketed, among other things, to help rebuild
cartilage or support renewal of cartilage, help maintain the
structural integrity of joints, maintain healthy connective
tissue, lubricate joints and maintain joint comfort, or support
mobility and flexibility.  To avoid risk, expense and delay of
trial, the companies entered a nationwide class settlement, while
also standing by the efficacy of its glucosamine joint health
products.  In asserting its position, the plaintiffs cited to 2006
GAIT Study that concluded, "The analysis of the primary outcome
measure did not show that either [glucosamine or chondroitin],
alone or in combination, was efficacious. . ." (Ann Rheum Dis.
2010 Aug;69(8):1459-64). (As part of the settlement, the companies
agreed to remove any claims relating to the fixing, mending,
reconditioning, rehabilitating, increasing, developing, building,
repairing, rebuilding, renewing, regrowing, adding, regenerating,
revitalizing, or rejuvenating cartilage. The injunctive relief did
not extend to any other structure/function claims such as claims
that the products support, protect, or promote joint comfort,
mobility or health.

This case is significant.  First, it serves as ample evidence that
even ingredients, such as glucosamine and chondroitin, that are
well-studied and historically known to provide benefit, are open
to being challenged.  It is a product of the litigious culture the
supplement, food, and beverage industry now lives within.  Second,
it reinforces the long-standing principle that marketing claims
must be narrowly tailored to the science that serves as its
support.  If a study measures levels of joint comfort only, then
claims beyond joint comfort, such as to rebuild or renew, cannot
be gleaned from that study.

Finally, this matter evidences the nature of class action
settlements and the intricacies involved in such type of
litigation.  An initial settlement had been proposed in the matter
whereby members of the class who submitted a claim would be
eligible to receive $3.00 for proof of purchase of up to four
bottles, or $5.00 for proof of purchase of up to 10 bottles.
Certain class members objected to the settlement, arguing that the
settlement agreement was not fair, adequate and reasonable given
that the setup would result in the class receiving less than $1
million dollars while counsel for the class would receive $4.5
million dollars.  However, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of objectors to the
settlement, while also calling out the Plaintiff's bar: "Class
counsel could have done much better by the class had they been
willing to accept lower fees," further noting that "but realism
requires recognition that probably all that class counsel really
care about is their fees -- for $865,284 spread over 12 million
class members is only 7 cents apiece."  This case brought to light
the disparity between plaintiffs' attorneys' fees awards and
actual benefit to class members.  A second settlement agreement
presented to the Court, giving consumers up to $104 per household
and class counsel up to $1.5 million in fees, was recently
approved in August 2016.

As you can see, defending a class action, even with good facts on
your side, is an expensive undertaking.  The question becomes then
is how to avoid becoming a defendant in a class action.  The
answer is simple and yet not so simple: do not give them a reason
to sue you.  Thus, compliance is key and undergoing a labeling and
substantiation review as early in the process of marketing a
product is one way to mitigate this risk.  When bringing an
innovative product to market, companies often forego labeling and
substantiation reviews, expecting that this can be done at a later
point in time when revenue starts to generate.  However, a pre-
emptive compliance review is without a doubt less costly to
companies than dealing with a demand letter or potential class
action lawsuit.  In fact, a minor FDA labeling violation such as
an improperly formatted Supplement Facts or an improper net weight
statement may be the reason a plaintiff's attorney chooses to dig
further into a product and its advertising claims.  Thus, the goal
is to spot a potential regulatory or advertising issue with a
product before a member of the plaintiffs' bar does.

With that said, just the nature alone of being in the supplement,
food, or beverage industry presents class action and litigation
risks.  Now, more than ever, is the time to review advertising,
assess areas of risk exposure, and develop strategies to mitigate
such risk or plan for receipt of that impending demand letter from
the plaintiff's bar.

Abhishek Gurnani is an associate attorney at Amin Talati Upadhye.
Gurnani provides regulatory, transactional and litigation services
to food, drug, dietary supplement, medical device and cosmetic
companies.

With a background in both biology and chemistry, Amit Sharma
advises on laws and related legal strategies for companies in the
food, beverage, supplement, drug and cosmetic industries.  Sharma,
as associate at Amin Talati Upadhye, primarily helps clients with
compliance and disputes before FDA, FTC, USDA, NAD and U.S.
Customs.  Amit also reviews product labels and packaging for
compliance and advises on claim substantiation for websites and
other advertising such as social media, print, radio television
and internet.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Responds to Class Action Over Foul Odor
-----------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Toyota has made it clear it is not standing for the
complaints that owners have filed against it.

"We do not believe plaintiffs have put forth any credible
allegations to the support the lawsuit," Aaron Fowles, the
company's corporate communications manager, recently told the
Northern California Record.

The company's response came after some Toyota and Lexus owners
took legal action after trying to cool off in their vehicles only
to allegedly be met with an unusual, pungent odor.

Six consumers -- Paul Stockinger, Elizabeth Stockinger, Gailyn
Kennedy, Basudeb Dey, Brenda Flinn and Eliezer Casper -- filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Lexus and Toyota brands with the
claim that their cars have faulty heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning systems that put out unappealing odors because of
particles such as microbes, which includes mold, the Northern
California Record reported previously.

The consumers, who filed the lawsuit on Jan. 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, blame
Toyota Motor Sales because they allege that the company did not
release information regarding the malfunctioned HVAC system when
the customers purchased the vehicles.  The plaintiffs want the
trial to go before a jury and are seeking damages including
punitive, statutory and compensatory, plus legal fees

Still, Mr. Fowles said that Toyota prides itself on the service it
has offered its clients despite the allegations against it.

"We continue to stand firmly behind the integrity and performance
of our vehicles and believe that these claims are meritless," he
said.

When it comes to the opportunity and legal options that Toyota
could possibly take toward the plaintiffs, one factor could be
federal pre-emption.

Class-action attorney Scott Cooper, who is not representing any of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, wrote a detailed article about
federal pre-emption.  It is possible that it could be a benefit to
automotive companies in cases like the one against Toyota under
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The law
permits the Department of Transportation to give automotive
companies "minimum safety requirements" to fulfill when they are
making vehicles. If the nature of the complaint interferes with
these standards, the defendant could have a good case and federal
pre-emption could come into play.

Mr. Fowles said he could not speak on the details of the case or
if Toyota plans to move forward with federal pre-emption or any
other legal processes.  The statement comes after Mr. Fowles said
he looked into details of the case and Toyota's statistics and
recent reports.

Toyota has been no stranger to having recalls filed against it.
From airbag defects to electrical ignition issues and acceleration
fatalities, an entire website is dedicated to informing consumers
on Toyota's alleged manufacturing problems.

Mr. Cooper was unavailable to comment on the case.  Lawyers
representing the plaintiffs -- Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kbla.com -
- Helen E. Zukin -- zukin@kbla.com -- Jeffrey A. Koncius and
Nicole Ramirez of Kiesel Law LLP in Beverly Hills -- did not
return calls seeking comment.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Huffman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 24, 2017, in the case
styled Richard Huffman, et al. v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03418 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Fairness hearing was held on January 24, 2017;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted;

   -- Final Approval Order was entered; and

   -- Civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4yP4opfl


TYSON FOODS: Former Chicken Farmers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
David Pitt, writing for The Associated Press, reports that former
chicken farmers in five states have filed a federal lawsuit
accusing a handful of giant poultry processing companies that
dominate the industry of treating farmers who raise the chickens
like indentured servants and colluding to fix prices paid to them.

The farmers located in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma and Texas allege that the contract grower system created
by Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, Perdue Farms, Koch Foods, and
Sanderson Farms pushed them deep into debt to build and maintain
chicken barns to meet company demands.

They say the companies colluded to fix farmer compensation at low
levels to boost corporate profits, making it difficult for the
farmers to survive financially.  They are seeking class action
status for the suit filed in federal court in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

The scheme keeps farmers in a state of indebted servitude "living
like modern-day sharecroppers on the ragged edge of bankruptcy,"
the lawsuit filed on Jan. 27 says, quoting from the 2014
Christopher Leonard book "The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of
America's Food Business."

Under the contract system, farmers provide the barns and labor to
raise the chickens and the company provides chicks, feed and
expertise to raise birds to slaughter weight.

The companies named haven't yet responded to the lawsuit in court,
but one denied the allegations.

"We want our contract farmers to succeed and don't consult
competitors about how our farmers are paid. These are false
claims," said Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson.

He said the average contract farmer has been raising chickens for
the company for 15 years and the compensation paid is clearly
outlined in contracts farmers voluntarily sign.

The five farmers who filed the lawsuit have quit raising chickens,
and some of them say they are tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

The farmers and their attorney declined to comment beyond the
details in the lawsuit.  But other chicken farmers who could be
represented if the case is certified as class-action, spoke of
going deep into debt to build modern chicken barns as long as two
football fields with the promise of generous profit.

"The farmers put their homes and their farms in hock to borrow the
money to build these things.  Once they do, the companies have
control over them period," said Mike Weaver, 62, of Fort Seybert,
West Virginia, who's is in his 16th year of raising chickens for
Pilgrim's Pride.  "We're hoping to bring about a change in this
system.  It has to be done.  If not, the American family farmer is
going to disappear."

While Mr. Weaver said he does not have debt, he said that he knows
farmers who have lost their farms.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to find the contractual scheme
and the alleged agreements to fix payments to chicken growers
unlawful under two sections of federal law, the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act. Farmers are seeking
damages, costs and interest.

The farmers said in the lawsuit their net incomes ranged between
$12,000 and year and $40,000 a year despite working 12 to 16 hours
a day every day of the year.

"Meanwhile, integrators like Pilgrim's Pride and Tyson rake in
more than $1 billion and $3.9 billion a year, respectively, in
profits," they said.

The lawsuit said it expects tens of thousands of farmers to
qualify as members of the class.

The farmers are Haff Poultry in Oklahoma; Craig Watts, North
Carolina; Johnny Upchurch, Alabama; Johnathan Walters, Mississippi
and Brad Carr of Texas.

The National Chicken Council, an industry trade group representing
the companies, said with any contracting situation there will
always be a disgruntled minority.

"The way that the system is set up, it's a performance-based and
incentive system that rewards those farmers who invest who put in
the most work and raise the healthiest birds," said Tom Super, the
group's spokesman.

He said the contract system has worked for nearly six decades
because it benefits companies and farmers.

Per capita chicken consumption has grown 9 percent from 2010 and
is expected to reach 91.7 pounds per person this year, according
to the National Chicken Council.  U.S. consumers spend more than
$90 billion a year on chicken, making it the number one meat
protein consumed.

On Feb. 7, Tyson Foods said it has been subpoenaed by the
Securities and Exchange Commission for an investigation it
believes is tied to allegations that it violated antitrust laws,
issues raised in two other lawsuits.  Both of those lawsuits
related to alleged price fixing and collusion.

Some issues brought up by the farmers' lawsuit were addressed by
USDA in the last month of the Barack Obama administration but the
new administration of President Donald Trump delayed
implementation of the rules until March or April.  The rules would
make it easier for farmers to sue and protect the legal rights of
growers.

The rules could "open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits," said
Super, the industry trade group representative.
2017-02-09 02:10:47 GMT


TYSON FOODS: Says SEC Subpoena Related to Poultry Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Tyson
Foods says it's been subpoenaed by federal regulators, likely
related to an investigation in connection with allegations that
the company and others colluded to fix poultry prices.

The Springdale, Arkansas-based meat producer said in a regulatory
filing it received the subpoena Jan. 20 from the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  It said it is cooperating with the
investigation, which is in an "early stage."

Tyson says it believes the investigation is tied to allegations
that it violated antitrust laws.  In September, a class-action
lawsuit had said Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride and other poultry
producers conspired to "fix, raise, maintain and stabilize" the
price of broiler chickens since at least 2008. It said the primary
method to do so was "limiting their production."

Late last month, Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Sanderson Farms and the
other chicken companies named in the suit filed a motion to
dismiss the actions.  The motion said production of broiler
chickens grew during the period named in the lawsuit.

The suit by New York-based Maplevale Farms had said the limiting
of production by the companies included an "unprecedented"
destruction of breeder hens in 2008, and a second wave of
"coordinated production cuts" in 2011 and 2012.

In addition, the suit said the companies exchanged competitively
sensitive, non-public information about prices, sales volume and
demand.

Subsequently, another lawsuit by a Tyson shareholder said the
company's regulatory filings were misleading and did not make
proper disclosures, repeating the allegations of collusion in the
previous suit.

Tyson and Sanderson Farms declined to comment beyond their public
filings. A representative for Pilgrim's Pride did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

A representative for the Securities and Exchange Commission
declined to comment.  The agency investigates potential violations
of securities laws, such as whether companies are complying with
disclosure rules.  A representative for the Justice Department,
which investigates civil and criminal antitrust violations, did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.

William Sawyer, executive director of animal protein research at
Rabobank, said that the prices consumers pay at supermarkets is
often tied to price indexes provided by third parties such as
Urner Barry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The indexes
are determined by factoring in data from buyers, traders,
distributors and suppliers such as Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride.

Historically, Mr. Sawyer said the chicken industry has been
cyclical.  Since 2012, however, Mr. Sawyer said the industry has
been profitable and that margins reached historic highs in 2015.
Rabobank provides financial services to the food and agriculture
companies, including chicken companies.




UNITED STATES: Seeks Stay of Judge Robart's Travel Ban TRO
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
on Feb. 3, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle entered a
temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump's
executive order and setting up an accelerated appellate showdown
over the sudden suspension of immigration from seven predominantly
Muslim nations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
government's request for an immediate stay and set an expedited
briefing schedule.  Lawyers representing the states of Washington
and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, must respond during
predawn hours on Feb. 6 and the Justice Department must file its
reply evening of Feb. 6.

Here are some key exchanges from the hearing that will shape the
court fight ahead.

On the motivation for the executive order:

Statements that President Trump made during the campaign about
banning Muslims from entering the United States may have bearing
on the states' likelihood of prevailing on claims that the
executive order impermissibly targets individuals based on
religion.  At the Feb. 3 hearing, Judge Robart asked Washington
Solicitor General Noah Purcell whether the campaign trail promises
should be considered.

JUDGE JAMES ROBART: It seems to me that it's a bit of a reach to
say: The President is clearly anti-Muslim or anti-Islam, based on
what he said in New Hampshire in June.

NOAH PURCELL: Well, Your Honor, it might go to the weight to give
the evidence, I suppose.  But I don't think it's sort of off the
table, especially given that we're only a week into -- well, two
weeks now, I suppose, but the order was issued a week after the
campaign -- well, after the President took office.

ROBART: Inauguration.

PURCELL: After the inauguration, I'm sorry.  So it's not as though
those are completely irrelevant.  And moreover -- and, again, this
is before any discovery -- we have the President's advisor saying
on national television that, you know, the President asked him to
come up with a Muslim ban -- this was after the election -- asked
him to come up with a Muslim ban in a way that would make it
legal. And that that's what they did.

ROBART: Does the executive order mention the word "Islamic" or
"Muslim?" Let's stay on religious grounds.

PURCELL: No, it does not, Your Honor.
On deference to the executive branch:

A key issue in the argument over Trump's executive order is how
deeply federal judges can dig into determinations made by the
president in the area of national security.  In this exchange with
the government's lawyer, Michelle Bennett, Judge Robart indicated
he would not blindly accept the administration's statements and
said there was "no support" for assertions that individuals from
the seven banned nations pose a grave national security threat.

ROBART: You're here arguing on behalf of someone that says: We
have to protect the United States from these individuals coming
from these countries, and there's no support for that.

MICHELLE BENNETT: Your Honor, I think the point is that because
this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area
where Congress has delegated authority to the President to make
these determinations, it's the President that gets to make the
determinations.  And the court doesn't have authority to look
behind those determinations.  They're essentially like
determinations that are committed to agency discretion. . . . And
if the four corners of the executive order offer a facially
legitimate and bona fide reason for it, which they do here, that
the court can't look behind that.

ROBART: Well, counsel, I understand that from your papers, and you
very forcefully presented that argument.  But I'm also asked to
look and determine if the executive order is rationally based. And
rationally based to me implies that to some extent I have to find
it grounded in facts as opposed to fiction.
On the proper role for the court:

At the core of the government's appeal is a broad view of
executive branch power in the area of immigration and border
control.  In their motion to the Ninth Circuit, the Justice
Department lawyers write that the president has "unreviewable
authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens" and
that Judge Robart's intervention violates the Constitution's
separation of powers.  Judge Robart, who ruled from the bench,
began with a discussion of the court's role.

ROBART: The role assigned to the court is not to create policy,
and it's not to judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted
by the other two branches.  That is the work of the legislative
and executive branches and the citizens who ultimately, by
exercising their rights to vote, exercise democratic control over
those branches.  The work of the judiciary is limited to ensuring
that the actions taken by those two branches comport with our
laws, and most importantly, our constitution.

On state standing to challenge the travel ban

A key issue for the Ninth Circuit to address is whether the state
of Washington has a right to challenge the president's executive
order.  Washington, which has been joined in the litigation by
Minnesota, asserts that it has standing to sue to protect its
residents, businesses and educational institutions.  The states
rely in part on a 2015 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit which allowed a coalition of states to challenge
President Barack Obama's executive order giving lawful status to 4
million immigrants.  Judge Robart acknowledged that it's a sticky
area.

ROBART: It is an interesting question in regards to the standing
of the states to bring this action.  I'm sure the one item that
all counsel would agree on is that the standing law is a little
murky.  I find, however, that the state does have standing in
regards to this matter, and therefore they are properly here.  And
I probed with both counsel my reasons for finding that, which have
to do with direct, immediate harm going to the states, as
institutions, in addition to harm to their citizens, which they
are not able to represent as directly.
On nationwide application of TRO

In its motion for a stay, the Justice Department argues that Judge
Robart overstepped by issuing a nationwide injunction.  In
particular, the government complains that Judge Robart's
nationwide order impermissibly overrides a district judge's
decision in Massachusetts, issued the same day, that allowed the
travel ban to remain in place.  Judge Robart did not address that
decision in Louhghalam v. Trump as he ruled from the bench.

ROBART: I considered the question of the government's request that
the order should be limited to Minnesota and Washington, but I
find that such partial implementation of the executive order would
undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform rule of
naturalization and Congress's instruction that immigration laws of
the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.


UNITED STATES: UW Students File Class Suit Over Trump Travel Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vernal Coleman, writing for Seattle Times, reports that two
University of Washington students filed a class-action lawsuit on
Feb. 7, saying an executive order temporarily blocking immigrants
from seven predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees from
entering the country is unconstitutional.

According to the complaint, the executive order invalidated non-
immigrant visas obtained by the two unnamed students, who both are
pursuing advanced degrees.

"They [students] came to Washington state lawfully and have
already been subjected to rigorous screening and vetting by the
U.S. before their entry," said Emily Chiang, legal director for
the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.  The order is
causing them unnecessary hardships, she said.

One of the plaintiffs, identified only as "John Doe," is a
doctoral candidate, studying aeronautical and astronautic
engineering.  A resident of Iran, he first arrived in the United
States in 2012.  As a result of the executive order, he is no
longer able to travel outside of the country to pursue academic
work, the documents state.

The second student, identified in court documents as "Jane Doe,"
is an Iranian national who came to the United States in September
2016 after obtaining a student visa.  As a result of the executive
order, she may not be able to pursue internships outside of the
United States for fear that she would not be able to return to
Seattle, according to the lawsuit.

Both plaintiffs are pursuing the lawsuit anonymously for fear of
retaliation, the documents state.

They are joined in the lawsuit by the Episcopal Diocese of
Olympia, which is providing resettlement support to nearly two
dozen refugee families, the documents state.  According to the
suit, the families were already approved for travel to the United
States when the executive order was signed.

The students are represented by the ACLU of Washington, which is
seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.

The suit comes as federal authorities have called for the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the controversial travel
ban.

In a 20-page brief filed with the court, Department of Justice
lawyers argue that President Donald Trump was acting within his
authority when he signed the executive order late last month.

A federal judge in Seattle placed a temporary hold on the
execution of the order, as a result of a lawsuit filed by
Washington state and Minnesota.

The appeal is being considered by a panel of three 9th Circuit
judges based in Phoenix, Honolulu and the Bay Area, according to
the court's website.

Oral arguments were set for 3 p.m. PST Tuesday, Feb. 7.


VALLEY VIEW: Farmington Residents File Sewage System Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Johnson, writing for 4029tv.com, reports that lawyers
representing many residents of the Valley View Estates in
Farmington filed a class action lawsuit on Feb. 7 against the
owners of Valley View Golf, LLC.

The suit alleges the three owners of the course: John Lipsmeyer
and husband-and-wife Joe and Jennifer Stewart, conspired to use
the money residents were paying for sewage service, for the
benefit of themselves and their personal endeavors instead of for
the maintenance, operation, upkeep and repair of the community
sewer system.

Beginning in 2004, Mr. Lipsmeyer and the Stewarts assumed control
of what is known as Washington County Property Owners Improvement
District #5, created by order of County Judge Charles Johnson in
1998.

WCPOID#5's main purpose is the construction, permitting,
operation, and maintenance of a sewage system.

The sewage system at Valley View was uniquely designed in that it
was supposed to collect raw household wastewater discharge from
residences within the district, treat it, and use the resulting
"gray water" effluent to water the golf course, pursuant to a
permit with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants improperly maintained the
system during their time overseeing it.  The ADEQ permit allowing
WCPOID#5 the right to land apply effluent expired on January 31,
2016. The permit has not and cannot be renewed because of the
dilapidated state of the sewer system, according to the lawsuit.

After February 1, 2011, there have been no fewer than twelve
complaints registered with ADEQ against WCPOID#5 related to the
maintenance of the sewer system.  ADEQ field inspections found the
system to be non-operational, spilling raw sewage onto the golf
course- often during times when the course was open and in use.

On August 14, 2015 ADEQ filed a lawsuit against WCPOID#5 (Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality v. Washington County Property
Owners' Improvement District No. 5).

The suit claims while the defendants were in control of the sewer
system, customers were charged $40.00/month to WCPOID#5. It claims
there 492 active taps, making WCPOID#5's monthly income $20,000.

The plaintiffs allege that money was not used to maintain the
sewer system, and was instead converted to the defendants for
management fees, labor for unspecified work performed, and other
expenditures unrelated to the maintenance and operation of the
sewer system.  As the current system sits, it is unpermitted and
neither Prairie Grove nor Farmington will permit new building upon
vacant lots that would be served by the sewage system.

In May, a judge ordered a receiver company 'Communities Unlimited'
to take over the operations of WCPOID#5.  Jerry Kopke, a
representative of Communities Unlimited told 40/29 News the system
was in disrepair.  "Some parts were broken. Some parts were
missing and some parts were just not used," Mr. Kopke said.  "I
can't say years.  I don't want to say years.  But for a number of
months, it (the sewage system) has not been working."

Communities Unlimited hauled millions of gallons of effluent out
of an aeration holding pond, as a temporary solution while it
works to fix the system.  A cost, Mr. Kopke says, will eventually
fall on the shoulders of the residents.  "The cost of all of this
is being born by the customers.  But we're keeping records.  And
at this point we're advising that we don't see a need to increase
their monthly sewer charge.  It should be adequate.  Now if we
have to seek out additional financing, then at that point we might
need to make an adjustment in the rates but not now."

John Peiserich, an attorney for the defendants, told 40/29 News
while the defendants were overseeing WCPOID#5, they kept up with
required maintenance, adequately treated all effluent before it
was applied to the golf course, and says no raw sewage ever
spilled onto the golf course as alleged in the lawsuit.

"There was not any water that passed through the treatment system
. . . into the irrigation ponds without it being treated," said
Mr. Peiserich.  "When ADEQ went out and tested the irrigation
ponds they found that it's all within the acceptable limits.  When
we then did follow up testing, to confirm it for ourselves, we
found the same thing.  And so the concern that the water being
used to irrigate the golf course is somehow, the latest thing I
heard is 'raw sewage,' is just factually inaccurate."


VERITAS: Judge Grants Certs on Class Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
The National Review reports an Eastern District of Missouri court
recently issued an opinion in Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC
granting class certification that adds it to the list of district
courts holding that calls violating the TCPA establish concrete
injuries under Spokeo. 2007 WL 193560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 18, 2017).

In Golan, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants engaged in an
advertising campaign for the movie "Last Ounce of Courage" that
included calls to approximately four million residential phone
numbers throughout the United States using the prerecorded voice
of Governor Mike Huckabee. The calls, according to plaintiffs,
violated section 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA, which prohibits the
initiation of calls to residential telephone lines using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without the called party's prior
express consent. The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide
class defined as:

     All persons within the United States to whom Defendants (or
some person on Defendant's behalf), within four years of October
3, 2012, initiated one or more telephone calls to such persons'
residential telephone lines using the recorded voice of Mike
Huckabee to deliver a message as part of the above-mentioned
campaign regarding the movie Last Ounce of Courage.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires a court to find (1) the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and (2) that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy. There has been much
discussion as to whether Spokeo, which directs that a plaintiff
must suffer an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized
to satisfy Article III standing, could provide a basis for an
argument against certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically,
the Spokeo court held that although "intangible" injuries and
"violation(s) of a procedural right" can suffice in some
situations, "a bare procedural violation, divorced from any
concrete harm" cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
Applying this holding in the TCPA context, there is a compelling
argument that each class member in a TCPA case is required to show
individualized harm beyond just the statutory violation, thereby
resulting in individual questions predominating over common
issues, precluding certification.

This is not what the court thought in Golan. The defendants
challenged certification on many grounds, including an argument
that the plaintiffs could not prove injury with class-wide proof
because they lacked standing under Spokeo. The court rejected this
argument and instead held that "unwanted calls cause a risk of
injury due to interruption, distraction, and invasion of privacy"
and that these amount to concrete injuries sufficient to confer
constitutional standing. The court seemed to paint this conclusion
with a wide brush, adopting the reasoning expressed in another
case, Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 168 F. Supp. 3d 843 (M.D.
N.C. 2016), which held that even when plaintiffs/class members did
not pick up or hear the phone, concrete injuries occurred "because
each call creates, at a minimum, a risk of an invasion of a class
member's privacy." The reasoning in Golan, if adopted by other
courts, could make it more difficult to challenge certification in
a TCPA case under 23(b)(3) based on Article III standing.


VIRGINIA: Local NAACP Looks at DMV Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
CBS 19 reports that the local chapter of the NAACP plans to look
at criminal justice reform in Virginia at its monthly meeting on
Feb. 13.

Specifically, the organization says it will look at Virginia's
automatic license suspension program.

Members will hear from Angela Ciolfi, an attorney at the Legal Aid
Justice Center who is part of a class action lawsuit against the
state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Several people, including a homeless man in Charlottesville, are
suing the DMV because they believe their constitutional rights are
being violated by the license suspension program.

According to the suit, the program unfairly punishes people who
are too poor to pay court fines and fees.

The NAACP meeting starts at 7 p.m. at the Jefferson City School.


VISTA OUTDOOR: "Lentsch" Securities Suit Assigned to Judge Shelby
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Patrick Lentsch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VISTA OUTDOOR INC.,
MARK W. DEYOUNG, STEPHEN M. NOLAN AND KELLY T. GRINDLE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00012-RJS (D. Utah, January 25, 2017)
is assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby, according to a case docket
entry dated January 25, 2017.

The suit alleges that Vista violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act by failing to disclose that it is experiencing an
acceleration in the softening of the retail environment and
acceleration in its own promotional activity and as such it would
need to asses an impairment charge earlier in its reporting in the
range of $400 million to $450 million.

Vista is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of consumer
products in the outdoor sports and recreation markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Heidi G. Goebel, Esq.
     GOEBEL ANDERSON PC
     405 South Main Street, Suite 200
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111
     Phone: (801) 441-9393
     E-mail: HGoebel@GAPClaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Canadian Owners Excluded in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Colbert at CBC News reports a year and a half after it was
first revealed Volkswagen had fitted many of its vehicles with
software to fool emissions tests, one Nova Scotia owner is still
not sure if his car will be fixed and what compensation he might
receive.

In December, the car manufacturer reached a proposed class-action
lawsuit settlement that would compensate 105,000 Canadian owners
and includes an offer to buy back vehicles, make repairs or allow
trade-ins for new models.

But Ketch Harbour, N.S., resident Alex McLellan is not among those
owners, even though his 2010 Jetta diesel wagon is one of the
vehicles caught up in the scandal.

The sticking point faced by McLellan, and others in his particular
situation, is that he purchased his car in the United States.
"There weren't many used Volkswagen diesels available in Nova
Scotia," McLellan told CBC News.

The settlement involves 2.0-litre TDI-equipped vehicles from
certain make and model years.

McLellan said he initially thought he would be covered by the
$14.7-billion settlement Volkswagen made in the U.S. as his Jetta
had been initially registered there and sold to him by a dealer in
Vermont.

Instead, McLellan was told he didn't qualify as the vehicle was
now registered in Canada. He then assumed he would be included in
the Canadian deal, but subsequently found out he was not.

"I didn't have to change the vehicle in any way when I brought it
across the border," McLellan said. "It was on a list of pre-
approved vehicles which are accepted from the United States into
Canada."

McLellan approached CBC News out of frustration after waiting
weeks for several law firms involved in the Canadian class-action
to return his messages once he learned he, and others like him,
were not included in the settlement.

McLellan was contacted by one of the law firms almost immediately
after CBC News emailed one of the lead lawyers.

Claims remain part of class action, lawyer says

Luciana Brasil, with the Vancouver firm Branch MacMaster, is
another lawyer who is part of a team across the country working on
behalf of owners as part of the Canadian class action.

She said while people who bought their vehicles in the U.S. are
not part of the proposed Canadian settlement, they are part of the
class action and her firm wants to hear from them.

She said law firms are keeping track of those who bought their
vehicles stateside so that after the current settlement approval
process is completed, lawyers can turn their attention to that
group and "see what we can do for them."

"Their claims remain part of our proposed class action to be
prosecuted or settled on their behalf," she said.

She doesn't know why the group was excluded, but said it's the
same situation in the U.S. -- Americans who bought cars in Canada
and took them back across the border were not part of the U.S.
settlement.

No remedy yet

It's unclear how many Canadians own affected Volkswagens purchased
in the U.S. Nova Scotia's registry of motor vehicles says 47 have
been imported since 2009, but it was unable to say how many were
the 2.0-litre vehicles included in the settlement. The federal
government refused to divulge countrywide statistics, citing
privacy considerations.

Keith Hamilton of Midland, Ont., also owns an affected vehicle
that is excluded. He bought his 2012 Jetta wagon TDI 2.0 litre in
Canada, but it was imported from the U.S. He is uncertain about
the future and unhappy with being excluded.

"It doesn't make sense and it's definitely not consumer-friendly,"
he said.

Hamilton drives 60,000 kilometres a year for work and worries
about the value of the vehicle when, and if, a settlement
involving imported vehicles is reached.

For his part, McLellan wonders whether his car will even be fixed:
"I can't see how VW or the environmental agencies can allow this
vehicle to continue to be operated without some kind of remedy as
it applies to the other vehicles."

A spokesman for Environment and Climate Change Canada told CBC
News in an email that Canadians with imported vehicles, like
McLellan, should verify with Volkswagen if they will be included
in the company's efforts to fix the emissions problem.

The department started an investigation into the issue in
September 2015. Spokesman Pierre Manoni said that probe is still
underway in relation to suspected violations of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.

Compensation

Volkswagen Canada, which is saying little about the excluded
group, declined to respond to questions about whether it plans to
further compensate owners like McLellan. It also would not say
whether it plans to address the emissions issue on Canadian-owned
vehicles bought in the U.S.

If approved by the courts in March, the proposed Canadian
settlement will give those owners who qualify the option of
selling their vehicles back to Volkswagen, trading them for new
vehicles or getting them repaired. Owners will also get between
$5,100 and $8,000 in compensation, depending on the make and model
of their vehicle.

McLellan did receive a goodwill package from Volkswagen Canada
that included a $500 prepaid credit card, a $500 VW dealership
card and 24-hour roadside assistance for his vehicle for three
years.

Volkswagen also sent him information on the proposed Canadian
class-action lawsuit.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Truck Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that a Nebraska
federal court has granted Werner Enterprises' motion that they
weren't obligated to pay truck drivers during sleeper berth time
but allowed a class action lawsuit against the company to move
forward.

The class action lawsuit is made up of 50,000 student drivers who
allege that Werner violated federal and state wage and hour laws.

U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp denied the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on sleeper berth compensation on
Thursday, Feb. 2.  Judge Camp, however, denied Werner's motion to
decertify the class.

The lawsuit involves Werner's Student Driver Program, where
students were plaid a flat weekly rate while training with an
experienced driver for about eight weeks.  Werner paid trainees
with the higher of $50 per day or $7.25 per "on duty" hour. Philip
Petrone and the other student drivers in the lawsuit allege that
minimum wage laws were violated because Werner improperly
designated significant amounts of legally compensable time as
"off-duty" leading to under-compensation.

The plaintiffs complained of three separate violations:

A practice of failing to compensate employees for breaks of less
than 20 minutes.

A practice of failing to compensate for time employees spent
communicating with Werner headquarters via the Qualcomm system.

A practice of failing to compensate for sleeping periods in excess
of eight hours.

In August 2015, the court said the plaintiffs were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on their claims for sleeper berth
compensation and compensation for short rest breaks.  In September
2015, Werner filed a motion for reconsideration.

Judge Camp said no reasonable jury could find that Werner
willfully failed to compensate plaintiffs for sleeper-berth time
to which they were entitled.

"Truck drivers are generally not on duty when in a sleeping berth,
and such time is presumed to be non-compensable," Judge Camp
wrote.

The rest of the class action can move forward, the court
concluded.


WHITEPAGES.COM: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that yet
another online people search website has been targeted for
allegedly breaking an Illinois privacy law, as a new class action
alleges WhitePages.com also wrongly uses a web search advertising
technique to use people's names to market their search reports.

On Feb. 1, plaintiff Kevin Klingler, identified only as a resident
of Illinois, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging the
behavior of Seattle-based Whitepages violates the Illinois Right
of Publicity Law.

Mr. Klingler is being represented in the action by attorney
Ryan Sullivan, of the firm of Kozonis & Associates, of Chicago.

The putative class action is the latest in a string of legal
complaints launched in recent weeks in Cook County court against
the online people search companies, which purport to help people
locate and learn information about other particular people.

In January, attorneys with the law firm of Edelson P.C., in
Chicago, filed class actions against the companies the operate the
websites Spokeo, Instant Checkmate and PeopleLooker, alleging
their use of the advertising technique, known as "Dynamic Keyword
Insertion," violates the rights of Illinois residents under the
state law.

WhitePages is accused in Mr. Klingler's complaint of also using
the technique.

Under that practice, when a person inputs the name of a person --
either their own, or that of another -- into a search engine, like
Google or Bing, online advertising purchased by Spokeo or similar
sites seizes on that search to create a web ad specifically
targeted at the person conducting the search.  It does so by
simply inserting the name of the person whose name had been
plugged into the search engine, making the user believe
WhitePages, Spokeo or similar sites can help the searcher find
more information about someone.

In the case of WhitePages, Mr. Klingler contends, after he
conducted a web search of his name, he was invited to purchase a
membership allowing him to access information about himself.

"We Found Kevin Klingler," the advertisement read, according to
the lawsuit.

"WhitePages is exploiting an individual's identity for commercial
purposes," Mr. Klingler's lawsuit said.  "WhitePages induces
Internet users to click on the paid ad and purchase a monthly
membership plan because it purports to have valuable information
on the person they are searching for online."

Mr. Klingler's lawsuit contends WhitePages needed to obtain his
"written consent" to use his name in such a way.

The lawsuit has asked the court to expand Mr. Klingler's action to
include a group of additional plaintiffs, which could "all
Illinois residents whose names were displayed in one or more of
WhitePages' advertisements on Bing or similar search engines and
who have never purchased any products or services from
Whitepages."

The lawsuit seeks damages of $1,000 per violation, as allowed
under the Illinois law, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.


WHL: Lawyers Checked Claims That Firm Can't Afford to Pay Players
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kaufmann at Calgary Heral reports financial numbers divulged
by WHL teams fail to stick handle the clubs' arguments they can't
afford to pay players a minimum wage, lawyers behind a possible
class action suit testified on February 9.

They said disclosures of data were at times incomplete, without
sufficient detail and in other instances cast clear doubt on the
club's insistence paying players would bankrupt them.

"From the Portland Winter Hawks all we received was two tax
returns, we don't have financial statements," said lawyer Ted
Charney.

But from a tax return from the WHL club that listed total income
of just over $5.4 million, and taxable income of minus $192,000,
Charney said some of the expenses listed are questionable.

One detailing $382,000 in payments to team officers "is a good
example of an expense not to justify paying the minimum wage."

The lawyer said it would cost each team about $300,000 to provide
their players a minimum wage.

Charney Lawyers is waging a $180-million suit naming the WHL,
Ontario Hockey League and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League,
its clubs and parent Canadian Hockey League.

But the players must first certify a class action which their
lawyers say has attracted the interest of more than 400 former and
current CHL athletes.

The leagues and their teams say paying a wage would bankrupt some
of its clubs, a third of which they contend lose money.

They also argue the teams pay millions a year for players'
scholarships and serve to prepare them for the NHL.

But Charney said other records provided in a report prepared by
Smith Forensics Inc. show a credibility gap in the teams'
contention they'd lack solvency in compensating players beyond a
weekly stipend that typically amounts to $60 a week.

The Prince George Cougars claim losses of $620,000 in 2012 and
$760,000 in 2014, yet the team was sold in 2014 for $6.4 million.

"There doesn't seem to be a correlation between losing money and
the value of the teams," said Charney.

And he noted the Edmonton Oil Kings claimed to have spent $281,000
on meals and entertainment in 2016, though not any of it on its
players.

"This would go a long ways to paying minimum wage if the team is
having a hard time," he said.

Financial records for all six U.S.-based WHL teams were produced
internally, said Charnley, adding it's not considered as reliable
as an external audit.

Lawyers for the clubs are expected to defend their clients on
Friday.

But they verbally bristled at some of the opponents' claims, and
indicated they'll argue granting minimum wage would bring harm to
players who wouldn't join the class action.

"If the minimum wage has to be paid, other benefits will be
sacrificed," said lawyer Patricia Jackson, adding such a move
would bring conflict between players.

"It is an issue."

Said players' lawyer Steven Barrett: "To say some players do
support and some don't support it has never been seen to be a
conflict."

Charney also argued Alberta should be the venue for a class action
involving the 22 WHL clubs, including those based in the U.S.,
partly because it'd be more legally difficult to do so south of
the border.

"There is nowhere else where these class action members can get
justice," he told court.

The certification hearing is expected to conclude on February 15.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces "Swain" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT J. SWAIN and KENNY L. FIORITO, on behalf of the ISCO
Industries Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to Wilmington Trust
Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00071-UNA (D. Del., January 25, 2017), was brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for alleged losses
suffered by the Plan, and other relief, caused by Wilmington Trust
when it authorized the Plan to buy shares of ISCO in 2012 for more
than fair market value.

On December 20, 2012, ISCO and/or its prior owner(s) sold
4,000,000 shares of common stock in the company to the Plan and in
exchange received a twenty-five year note, accruing 2.40%
interest, of $98,000,000.

Defendant Wilmington Trust is a trust company chartered in
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Felice, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     Red Clay Center at Little Falls 2961
     Centerville Road, Suite 302
     Wilmington, DE 19808
     Phone: (302) 504-6333
     Fax: (302) 504-6334
     E-mail: dfelice@baileyglasser.com

        - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             rjenny@baileyglasser.com


YAHOO INC: Faces New Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
Steven Trader at Law360 reports that a small-business owner who
used Yahoo Inc. services to run his websites and advertise online
launched a proposed class action against the internet giant for
breaching its contract and negligently allowing hackers to make
off with a billion users' data in two breaches disclosed last
year.

Texas resident Brian Neff filed a complaint against Yahoo and its
subsidiary, Aabaco Small Business LLC, in California federal
court, claiming it failed to protect the "treasure trove" of
personal information he handed over to set up and pay for an
account in 2009, the theft of which resulted in a number of
fraudulent charges on his bank accounts, as well as an
unauthorized card being opened in his name.

On Sept. 22, Yahoo announced that information related to 500
million accounts was stolen in late 2014. That breach was deemed
the largest in history, until the company revealed on Dec. 14 that
hackers had stolen one billion users' account data in 2013.

While Yahoo claims that only email addresses and passwords, not
bank account information, were stolen by the hackers, at this
early stage it is unknown whether Yahoo's descriptions of the
breadth of the breaches are accurate, Neff said.

"Given that more than three years elapsed before Yahoo disclosed
the 2013 data breach and more than two years passed before Yahoo
disclosed the 2014 data breach, Mr. Neff is rightfully skeptical
of Yahoo's self-serving statements," the consumer wrote.

Neff says he contracted with Yahoo in September 2009 for two of
its services -- Yahoo! Web Hosting and Yahoo! Business Email -- in
connection with his online insurance agency business, paying Yahoo
$13.94 every month for the services until the filing of his
complaint.

Since September 2009, Neff utilized Yahoo's web hosting services
in connection with another 54 websites, paying anywhere from $3.94
to $15.94 per month for each, as well.

Up until November 2015 the services he purchased were through
Yahoo Small Business, but that name then changed to Aabaco, a
subsidiary of Yahoo. Still, at all times both companies
represented on their website hosting and terms of service pages
that users' data and privacy was being protected, Neff said.

However, the security systems and encryption methods Yahoo used to
protect that information were outdated, and the company refused to
update them despite suffering small-scale breaches in the past,
Neff alleged, a sign of negligence.

In addition to paying Yahoo thousands of dollars "for services
that subjected him to a security breach," Neff said he was also
the victim of actual identity theft as a result of either or both
of the hacks. In May 2015, he incurred fraudulent charges on his
Capital One credit card and his Chase debit card, both of which
were on file with Yahoo to pay for the website services, he said.

Yahoo was the only company to which he'd provided information
about both those accounts, he said.

At the same time he incurred the fraudulent charges, an
unauthorized credit card account was opened at Credit One Bank in
his name, and additional charges were made to that account, Neff
said.

The consumer's complaint included claims for breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, negligence, fraudulent and negligent
inducement, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.
He's seeking to represent a national class of Yahoo and Aabaco
small business customers whose personal identifying information
was disclosed in the 2013 or 2014 data breaches.

Neff's case is one of a slew that poured in after the breaches
were disclosed, all of which were centralized in California's
Northern District by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in December.

A representative for Yahoo did not immediately return a request
for comment Thursday, and counsel information wasn't immediately
available.

Neff is represented by David Azar of Milberg LLP.

The case is Brian Neff v. Yahoo Inc. et al., case number 5:17-cv-
00641, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


* Immigrants Rights Project Launched Following Trump Travel Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
spurred on by President Trump's deportation priorities, a group of
big-firm lawyers and nonprofit attorneys has launched a project to
represent immigrants nationwide who are at risk for deportation
and already has distributed a mass letter to hundreds of large
firms seeking donations and pro bono work.

The American Immigrant Representation Project, formed shortly
after Trump's election, on Feb. 3 wrote to more than 300 lawyers,
mostly at Am Law 200 firms and plaintiff firms, spelling out the
need for resources and volunteers.  The letter asks firms to
commit $10,000 and/or designate a partner and three associates who
will develop an expertise in the field through the initiative's
training and represent those targeted for removal.

"The immigration defense community desperately needs the help of
the private bar," the letter said.  "We expect thousands of people
will need representation, most of whom will be unable to locate or
afford counsel.

The letter noted immigrants with counsel are 14 times more likely
to successfully challenge removal than those without.  "Our vision
is to stand ready to provide representation to all those in need."

The project's steering committee includes former Southern District
Judge Shira Scheindlin, of counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan;
Faith Gay, partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; Michael
Patrick, a retired partner at immigration firm Fragomen Del Rey
Bernsen & Loewy; Marjorie Peerce, a partner at Ballard Spahr;
Lenni Benson, professor at New York Law School; and attorneys from
firms such as Sidley Austin; Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosle;
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton; and Immigrant Law Group LLP.

The steering committee also includes lawyers from the immigration
defense community, the criminal defense community and public
interest groups, including Justice Corps., a Federal Public
Defender office, Immigration Law Resource Center, American
Immigration Council, Immigrant Defense Project , the American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the National Immigration Project
of the National Lawyers Guild, American Immigration Justice and
the American Immigration Law Association.

The initiative aims to recruit a large pool of volunteer lawyers
who can represent immigrants in removal proceedings, even if the
pro bono attorneys initially have no experience in the area.

The steering committee has partnered with public interest groups
that specialize in removal proceedings to help train and supervise
volunteer attorneys from law firms.  The project intends to offer
training through lectures, webinars, a document library and a help
desk.

Although several public interest legal groups and law school
clinics already help immigrants, steering committee members say
these groups are short on resources and funding for training, and
need more volunteer attorneys nationwide.

Citing the need for law firms' contributions, the letter said
"removal cases are extraordinarily difficult."  The law is stacked
against detainees, the steering committee says: Deportation
facilities often are in remote areas under-served by the bar, the
number of detention facilities has grown to more than 200, many
facilities have poor conditions of confinement and are hostile to
lawyers, and detainees have language barriers.

The steering committee anticipates needing an initial budget of $1
million to launch.  Funding will help in training, intake and
monitoring, and allow a project manager to coordinate efforts.

The letter asks lawyers to say whether they can participate by
Feb. 17.

In an interview about the letter, Ms. Gay said many lawyers
already have said they would contribute at least the minimum
request.  She said her firm, Quinn Emanuel, is contributing at
least $150,000.

Ms. Gay said more letters are going out to corporations and
foundations, among others, and she hopes the effort will be up and
running in a week or so.

Judge Scheindlin and Ms. Gay said the initiative was a response to
immigration priorities Trump announced during the campaign, such
as promises to create a special "deportation task force" and to
target "millions of recent illegal arrivals."

The project has taken on new urgency and accelerated after Trump
signed a Jan. 25 executive order that appears to give authorities
wide discretion in deportation, Gay said.

The order -- signed two days before the executive order that
targeted refugees arriving in the U.S. -- said the government can
prioritize for removal immigrants whom agents believe "have
committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense,"
without a conviction, and those who pose a risk to public safety
"in the judgment of an immigration officer."

"It's a very vague standard, it allows a lot of discretion by law
enforcement," Ms. Gay said. "Under those circumstances, it seems
to be that everyone needs counsel. These are deemed civil
proceedings but they have enormous stakes," she said, citing
removal from the country and immigrants' jobs and families.


* Jones Day Joins Legal Fight Against Trump Travel Ban
------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that in case there
was any question whether large law firms would balk at a clash
with President Donald Trump, even Jones Day, a firm that has seen
at least a dozen of its lawyers take key posts in the Trump
administration, joined the legal fight on Feb. 6 against the
president's executive order limiting entry to the U.S. for
citizens of seven predominately Muslim countries.

In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit on behalf of four constitutional scholars, Jones Day
lawyers challenged the administration's position that the
executive branch has "unreviewable authority to suspend the
admission of any class of aliens."

The move spurred acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco and
acting assistant attorney general Chad Readler, both former Jones
Day lawyers, to hold back from signing the Justice Department's
latest brief on Feb. 6.

"The acting solicitor general and acting assistant attorney
general have refrained from signing this brief, out of an
abundance of caution, in light of a last-minute filing of an
amicus brief by their former law firm," the brief stated.

That surprise abstention of two of the Justice Department's
highest-ranking Trump appointees was just one sign of how frenetic
the legal maneuvering has been since U.S. District Judge James
Robart in Seattle entered an order Feb. 3 temporarily blocking
Trump's travel ban and forcing the government to allow individuals
from the seven nations with valid travel documents into the United
States.

A whirlwind of briefing began the morning of Feb. 4, and several
major law firms, including Hogan Lovells, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer, Mayer Brown, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld have not
shied away from rumbling with the Trump administration.

All the Big Law briefs back the states of Washington and Minnesota
in their bid to uphold Judge Robart's ruling.  The amicus campaign
comes as some large-firm lawyers have organized to raise funds and
recruit lawyers to represent those targeted for removal and puts
the firms in alignment with at least some corporate clients;
nearly 100 companies represented by Mayer Brown signed an amicus
brief opposing the travel ban.

In the Ninth Circuit case, a Jones Day team led by New York
appellate specialist Meir Feder weigh in on behalf of professors
from Boston University, Yale Law School, University of Texas
School of Law, and New York University School of Law.

"In this case, the unusual selection of seven countries whose
nationals are precluded from using the valid visas that they have
or from obtaining visas for a period of time, coupled with the
apparently extensive evidence that the seven countries were
selected because of the religion of their citizens, raises a host
of constitutional questions as to the rationality of the executive
order and as to its discriminatory impact," Mr. Feder wrote.

When contacted by email on Feb. 6, Mr. Feder wrote that the firm
would "let the brief speak for itself."

In the underlying case, Ninth Circuit Judges William Canby Jr. and
Michelle Friedland on Feb. 4 denied an emergency government
request to overturn Judge Robart's injunction barring enforcement
of the order.  Circuit Judge Richard Clifton will join Canby and
Friedland in further reviewing Judge Robart's ruling.  Telephonic
argument had been set for 3 p.m. on Feb. 7, and a decision is
expected from the panel this week.

Lawyers who have joined in the amicus campaign said on Feb. 6 that
they welcomed the opportunity to work on a constitutional case of
national significance.

Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
-- who represents the state of Hawaii alongside lawyers from the
state's attorney general's office, filed a motion to intervene in
the Ninth Circuit case. Mr. Katyal said in an email he has been in
around-the-clock meetings dealing with the state's challenge to
the executive order.  "I'm lucky to be at a law firm that sees
this kind of work as part of its core mission -- and to have as a
long-standing client the state of Hawaii, which shares in that
mission," said Mr. Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor
general in the Obama administration.

Plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a brief on
behalf the Service Employees International Union at both the
district court and the Ninth Circuit.  Partner Steve Berman said
about a dozen lawyers at the firm volunteered after the union
approached the firm.

"Personally I think that most people in my firm think the
presidential order has crossed the line and if we can help in that
fight let's do it," Mr. Berman said.  Mr. Berman said that Trump's
Twitter message referring to Judge Robart as a "so-called judge"
has only strengthened his feelings on the matter, since he knows
the judge from his days in private practice in Seattle. "Defending
[Robart's] order brings me a lot of pleasure," Berman said.

Also on Feb. 6, the attorneys general of 15 states and the
District of Columbia filed a separate amicus brief of their own.
In a prepared statement, California Attorney General Xavier
Becerra, who joined the brief, said that the executive order
"threatens to rip apart California families, risks their economic
well-being and defies centuries of our American tradition."
Mr. Becerra said that the state's universities, medical
institutions, business and tax base would all be harmed if the
order is allowed to stand.


* South Carolina Federal Court Rejects Class Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rawl, Jr., at JD Supra reports on February 1, 2017, a
federal district court in South Carolina ruled that a standard
arbitration agreement between a national homebuilder and purchaser
does not permit the purchaser to pursue class arbitration. This
appears to be the first decision in South Carolina ruling that
when an arbitration agreement does not address class arbitration,
class arbitration is not available.

Whether a consumer can force class arbitration has been hotly
contested for the past 15 years. In 2003, the Supreme Court of the
United States took up the issue in Green Tree Financial Corp. v.
Bazzle, but failed to reach a majority decision, instead issuing
an opinion joined by only four of nine justices that an
arbitrator, rather than a judge, should decide whether class
arbitration is available. Since then, many businesses have been
forced to defend class arbitration attempts, even though class
arbitration was never intended or agreed to. Many of these cases
had questionable underlying merits, but resulted in exorbitant
settlements because of the inherent risks involved in class
arbitration. More recently, the Supreme Court has released
opinions recognizing some of the marked differences between
ordinary two-party arbitration and class arbitration, casting
doubt on the validity of the Bazzle plurality opinion.

Following these more recent cases, Del Webb and PulteGroup argued
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the regional
court of appeals hearing cases from South Carolina, that because
arbitration can only be required upon prior consent, a judge not
an arbitrator should decide whether parties agreed to allow for
class arbitration. The Fourth Circuit agreed. In an opinion last
year, Del Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson, the Fourth Circuit
held the Court, not an arbitrator, must decide whether class
arbitration is permitted. Plaintiffs sought review by the Supreme
Court of the United States, which declined to hear the case. The
Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with
specific instructions to decide whether the underlying arbitration
agreement allowed for class arbitration.

On remand, Del Webb and PulteGroup argued to the district court
that the lack of any reference to class arbitration, together with
the agreement's otherwise bilateral language, signaled the parties
did not agree to class arbitration. The Court agreed and held Del
Webb could not be forced to submit to class arbitration. The
Court, therefore, compelled the purchaser to arbitrate
individually with Del Webb, not on a class action basis.

Vic Rawl, Jr. -- vrawl@mcnair.net -- of McNair Attorneys, lead
counsel for Del Webb and chair of McNair Law Firm's Class Action
Practice Group, stated "the Fourth Circuit's opinion and the
district court's decision in Carlson are major victories for
homebuilders and other businesses that regularly contract for
arbitration with consumers because they decline to subject such
businesses to class arbitration unless the businesses clearly
agreed to it." As the Supreme Court has noted, the primary
benefits of arbitration-low-cost, speed, efficiency, and
confidentiality-are lost if consumers are permitted to bring class
actions in arbitration, as class actions are by necessity lengthy,
expensive, and public. Moreover, because arbitrators' decisions
are generally insulated from appellate review, a class action
arbitrator can order staggeringly large arbitration awards without
any effective means of review. Indeed, in the Carlson case, the
plaintiff sought to represent a class of thousands of homeowners
purportedly claiming over five hundred million dollars in damages.
The federal courts' decisions in Carlson firmly reject the notion
that class arbitration can be imposed on a defendant without their
express consent. While these rulings are a victory for businesses
that utilize consumer arbitration provisions, it remains best
practice to update all arbitration clauses to expressly provide
that arbitration may only proceed on a bilateral basis and that
class arbitration is expressly not permitted.

Vic Rawl, Jr., Hal Frampton -- hframpton@mcnair.net -- and Robert
Widener -- rwidener@mcnair.net --  of McNair Law Firm, P.A.
represented Del Webb Communities, Inc. and PulteGroup, Inc. in the
Carlson cases. Mr. Rawl and Mr. Frampton regularly defend large
builders and other businesses in class actions in South Carolina
courts and in arbitration, and they consult regarding class action
strategy nationally. Mr. Widener regularly consults on appellate
matters in South Carolina.




                            *********

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  * * *