CAR_Public/170228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, February 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 42



                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters into Agreement to Settle Class Action
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Wyche" Suit Remains Pending in S.D. New York
AECOM: Faces Stockholder Securities Class Action in C.D. Cal.
ANAVEX LIFE: No Schedule Yet for Briefing on Class Action Appeal
APOLLO EDUCATION: Shareholders Directed to Amend Complaint

ARGENTINA: Petition for Rehearing en Banc Pending
ASTA FUNDING: Has $2.3 Million Class Action Settlement Reserve
BAKER HUGHES: Court Ruled on Plaintiffs' Counsel Fee and Expense
BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating "Williams" Class Suit
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif.

CAREPLUS HEALTH: Class of Field LVNs Certified in "Collier" Suit
CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Discovery Right
CHEMTURA CORP: Defends "Paterson" Suit Over Lanxess Merger
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Ong" Shareholder Class Action Still Pending
CMS ENERGY: Reached Settlement of 3 Kansas and Missouri Cases

COCA-COLA CO: Odwalla Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Hale" Suit Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Addison" Pending
CONWAY, AR: State High Court Affirms Firemen Class Certification
CSRA INC: "Strauch" Parties Explore Settlement

DJM ADVISORY: TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
DURHAM SCHOOL: Shann Appeals C.D. Cal. Ct.'s Decision to 9th Cir.
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Motion for Class Certification Denied in "Davis"
EMCORE CORPORATION: Settles Mirasol Class Action for $300,000
EZCORP INC: April 25 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Action
FORD MOTOR: Suit Over Faulty Electric Steering Systems Tossed
GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defending 9 Class Suits Over Takata Airbag
GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Ignition Switch Recall Suits Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Shareholder Appeal of Case Settlement Pending

GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing Held in Appeals Over Dealers' Claim
GRUBHUB INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Auto-Texting
GULF INTERSTATE: Hughes Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Circuit
GW GJ INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Velarde" Class Suit
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: To Fund $54MM of Class Action Settlement

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Warrants Issued Over Suit Deal Expire
HOMEAWAY INC: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Seim" Class Suit
HRG GROUP: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
HRG GROUP: "Cressy" Case Settlement Now Complete
INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Makover Class Suit Still Pending

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: 2nd Circuit Denies "Lanier" Petition
JOHNSON CONTROLS: April 20 Status Hearing in "Laufer" Case
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Plaintiffs in "Gumm" Case May File Amended Suit
KEURIG GREEN: "Montanio" Dismissed for Failure to State Claim

LABEL HOSPITALITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Weaver" Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear ERISA Suit
LIBRE BY NEXUS: Faces Class Action by Honduran Immigrants
LIFELOCK INC: Defends Two Suits Arising From Symantec Merger
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Defendants' Response Due by March 13

LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Underway
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Defender System
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Faces "Shenk" and "Patel" Lawsuits
MDL 2196: Bassett Furniture Gets $1.4-Mil. from Settlement
MDL 2672: Judge Narrows Calif. Securities Suit

METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces "Bushansky" Shareholder Class Suit
MICHIGAN, USA: Ongori Appeals W.D. Mich. Ruling to Sixth Circuit
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Contests Airbag Case
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Guerrini Case Pending
MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Interlock GPS Tracking Devices

NOODLES & COMPANY: To Defend Against Selco Litigation
NUVASIVE INC: Dec. 18 Trial in Securities Litigation
OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Cir. Wants Bozic to Voluntarily Junk Suit
ORACLE CORP: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk "Troudt"
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Cho" Class Suit

PERFORMANCE FOOD: To Settle "Wilder" Case for $2.3 Million
PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Laumea" Case Settlement Has Final Approval
PHELPS COUNTY, NE: Marsh Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Nodine" Class Action
PRESTIGE DELIVERY: "Watson" Remanded to Pa. State Court

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference for March 29 in "Barahona"
RAMSEY'S MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes
SAFE SECURITY: ICV Wins Bid to Dismiss "Bedient"
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss Securities Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Bag Fee Class Suit Underway

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert. Bid & Discovery Due April 27
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Discontinue Ontario Case Filed
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Half-Priced Mobile Phone Service
TENNESSEE: Judge OKs Request to Expand Solitary Confinement Case
TERRAFORM POWER: Status Report on Mediation by March 17

TILE SHOP: Settlement Reached in Beaver County Employees Suit
TORRANCE REFINING: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Safety Issues
TOYOTA AUTO: Discovery in Calif. Suit vs. Deutsche Bank Ongoing
TOYOTA AUTO: Discovery in N.Y. Suit vs. Deutsche Bank Ongoing
TRANSPORT WORKERS: Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants File Suit

TRUGREEN INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Stevens-Bratton"
UBER TECH: Judge Granted Final Approval of $343,000 Settlement
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed Claims Against UTCFS
VENATOR MATERIALS: Huntsman Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits
WARNER MUSIC: Suit Over Digital Music Downloads Still Ongoing

WASHINGTON GAS: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire
WELLS FARGO: 8th Cir. Affirms Award of $8.5MM in Attorneys' Fees
WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal Pending in Federal Circuit
WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Card Class Action Stayed
WESTERN DIGITAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Denied

WORLD WRESTLING: Moved to Dismiss "Laurinaitis" Amended Complaint
WORLD WRESTLING: Motion to Dismiss "Bagwell" Complaint Pending
WYOMING, OH: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daniels" Class Suit
YADKIN VALLEY: Jury Selection in WARN Act Suit Set for April 3
ZILLOW GROUP: "Freeman" Case Settlement Subject to Court Approval




                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters into Agreement to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, that
on February 6, 2017, ABM Security Services, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated ("ABM") entered into a
Class Action Settlement and Release Agreement with Plaintiffs
Jennifer Augustus, Emanuel Davis, Delores Hall, Carlton Anthony
Waite, and Carlos Villacres, on behalf of themselves and the
settlement class members, to settle Augustus et. al. v. ABM
Security Services, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case
Nos. BC336416, BC345918 & CG544421) (the "Augustus Settlement
Agreement") on a classwide basis for $110 million. The Augustus
Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the approval of the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court").

The previously reported Augustus case is a certified class action
involving alleged violations of certain California state laws
relating to rest breaks. The case centers on whether requiring
security guards to remain on call during rest breaks violated
Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code. On July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the
amount of approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund").
Subsequently, the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million in addition to
approximately 30% of the common fund. Under California law, post-
judgment interest on the judgment accrues at a rate of 10% simple
interest per year from the date the judgment was entered until it
is satisfied. ABM appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate
District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals
Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and
the attorneys' fees award. On December 22, 2016, the California
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court and held
in favor of the plaintiffs. The amount of post-judgment interest
on December 22, 2016, was approximately $41.2 million.

ABM has also entered into a Settlement Term Sheet with plaintiff
in connection with Karapetyan v. ABM Industries Incorporated and
ABM Security Services, Inc. (Central District of California Case
No. CV-15-08313) (the "Karapetyan case") to settle the case on a
classwide basis for $5 million. The Karapetyan case is a putative
class action in which the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
security guards. The putative class primarily consists of guards
who worked during time periods subsequent to the Augustus class
period. Plaintiff alleges 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 long-form settlement agreement with respect to
the Karapetyan case and will be further contingent on the final
approval by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, as well as final approval by the Superior
Court of the Augustus Settlement Agreement.

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.

ABM (NYSE: ABM) 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.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Wyche" Suit Remains Pending in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit filed by Christopher Wyche in
New York remains pending, Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., said in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 20, 2017, for the quarter period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming the Company, along with
Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29,
2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and will vigorously defend against these allegations, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. While it is
reasonably possible that this matter ultimately could be decided
unfavorably to the Company, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the range of the possible losses, but they could be
material.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., is a manufacturer of high
performance thermoplastic corrugated pipe, providing a
comprehensive suite of water management products and superior
drainage solutions for use in the underground construction and
infrastructure marketplace.  The Company's products are used
across a broad range of end markets and applications, including
non-residential, residential, agriculture and infrastructure
applications.


AECOM: Faces Stockholder Securities Class Action in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
AECOM is facing a securities class action by a stockholder, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, an AECOM stockholder, filed a securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that the Company and its
senior executives made materially false and misleading statements
in violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it. While no assurance can be given as
to the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that
the final resolution of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or ability to conduct business.


ANAVEX LIFE: No Schedule Yet for Briefing on Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anavex Life Sciences Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that no schedule for
briefing on a class action appeal has been set.

Kevin Cortina filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Cortina v. Anavex Life Sciences Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
10162, against the Company, Christopher Missling, Sandra Boenisch,
and Athanasios Skarpelos on December 30, 2015.

On December 29, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, with prejudice.

On January 27, 2017 plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  No
schedule for briefing on the appeal has been set.  The Company
intends to continue vigorously defending this matter.

Anavex Life Sciences Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company engaged in the development of differentiated therapeutics
for the treatment of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental
diseases including drug candidates to treat Alzheimer's disease,
other central nervous system (CNS) diseases, pain and various
types of cancer.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Shareholders Directed to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Rameses Te Lomingkit, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Apollo Education Group Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case
No. CV-16-00689-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz.), Judge James A. Teilborg of the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The action is a consolidated class action proceeding against
Apollo Education Group, Inc., and it officials and directors for
violations of: (1) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5; and (2) Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act.  The Plaintiffs premise these claims on allegations that the
Defendants knowingly and recklessly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the rollout of its upgraded online
classroom and compliance with federal regulations involving
military recruitment.  The Plaintiffs allege that these false and
misleading statements artificially inflated stock prices of Apollo
during the Class Period.

The Class Action Complaint alleges two general categories of false
and misleading statements: (1) statements regarding Apollo's
implementation of the online classroom; and (2) statements
regarding Apollo's compliance with various regulations involving
military recruitment.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claims because the CAC fails to adequately plead any actionable
misstatements, scienter, and loss causation.  The Defendants also
move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims on the grounds
that the CAC fails to adequately allege a primary violation under
Section 10(b).

In an Order dated February 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/zEtsAx from Leagle.com, Judge Teilborg found that
the Plaintiffs failed to plead with enough particularity in
alleging that Apollo "misrepresented financial aid issues" to
students.  The Plaintiffs allege that Apollo encouraged students
to accept loans "for consumer spending," and Apollo told students
"they could drop" classes they disliked despite already charging
students for those classes.  Judge Teilborg held that without more
information, such as whether Apollo denied refunds to students who
dropped out of classes based on advice from an employee, the Court
cannot determine whether Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that
the Defendants misrepresented financial aid issues.  Additionally,
the Plaintiffs fail to explain why using financial aid for non-
educational means -- such as room, board, and food -- is a
misrepresentation, Judge Teilborg pointed out.

Accordingly, Judge Teilborg granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and directed the
Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint against the Defendants.
If the Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within the
deadline, the Clerk of the Court will enter judgment, dismissing
the case with prejudice.

Rameses Te Lomingkit is represented by Corey D. Holzer, Esq. --
cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- and -- Marshall P. Dees, Esq. --
mdees@holzerlaw.com -- HOLZER & HOLZER LLC -- Jonah H. Goldstein,
Esq. -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Mary K. Blasy, Esq. --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Esq. --
bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com -- and -- Danielle S. Myers, Esq. --
dmyers@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP -- Carolyn
G. Anderson, Esq. -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- and -- Hart
Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com --
ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP

Apollo Education Group Incorporated, et al. are represented
by Brian Kirk Mosley, Esq. -- bmosley@omlaw.com -- David B.
Rosenbaum, Esq. -- drosenbaum@omlaw.com -- and -- Maureen Beyers,
Esq. -- mbeyers@omlaw.com -- OSBORN MALEDON PA -- Michael Gerald
Bongiorno, Esq. -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- and --
Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. -- peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER
CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP


ARGENTINA: Petition for Rehearing en Banc Pending
-------------------------------------------------
A Plaintiff's petition for rehearing en banc remains pending,
according to the Republic of Argentina's January 13, 2017, Form
18-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the end of last fiscal year of December 31, 2015.

                      Pari passu litigation

On December 22, 2016, in a case involving certain creditors that
had not responded to the February 2016 settlement proposal and
alleged a continued violation of the pari passu clause, the
District Court found that no continued pari passu violation
existed although the plaintiffs' bonds remained unpaid while
Argentina was paying its consenting creditors as well as the newly
issued bonds. In its ruling, the District Court also found that
under New York law claims relating to Untendered Debt governed by
New York law become time-barred after six years.

                         The Settlement

Between the time the Republic published the Settlement Proposal
and the first payment to settling bondholders on April 22, 2016,
it executed numerous settlement agreements involving Untendered
Debt in an aggregate principal amount of approximately U.S.$4.2
billion. As of the date of this Amendment, payments of these
settlement agreements had resulted in the dismissal of claims in
approximately 100 cases with claims for an aggregate principal
amount of approximately U.S.$3 billion, plus interest, and
judgments in the amount of approximately U.S.$5 billion. The
Republic is currently in the process of paying additional
settlement agreements, and processing additional settlement
options, which will result in the dismissal of additional cases in
an amount yet to be determined. Creditors who settled their claims
have agreed, upon payment, to dismiss with prejudice all
litigation against the Republic, including all enforcement
proceedings.

One pending class action, where no agreement in principle has been
reached, sought to enjoin the Republic from communicating and
settling with holders of the bond series at issue. On April 21,
2016 the District Court denied that plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff
appealed and on December 22, 2016 the Court of Appeals dismissed
the appeal.

On January 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en
banc, which remains pending.


ASTA FUNDING: Has $2.3 Million Class Action Settlement Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asta Funding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the $2.3 million
reserve for a class action settlement remains valid.

In June 2015, a punitive class action complaint was filed against
the Company, and one of its third-party law firm servicers,
alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO")
and state law arising from debt collection activities and default
judgments obtained against certain debtors.

The Company filed a motion to strike the class action allegations
and compel arbitration or, to the extent the court declines to
order arbitration, to dismiss the RICO claims. On or about March
31, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion. The Company filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. A mediation session was held in July 2015, at which the
Company agreed to settle the action on an individual basis for a
payment of $13,000 to each named plaintiff, for a total payment of
$39,000. Payment was made on or about July 24, 2015. The third-
party law firm servicer has not yet settled and remains a
defendant in the case.

The plaintiffs' attorneys advised that they are contemplating the
filing of another punitive class action complaint against the
Company alleging substantially the same claims as those that were
asserted in this matter. In anticipation of such an eventuality,
the Company agreed to non-binding mediation in order to reach a
global settlement with other putative class members, which would
avert the possibility of further individual or class actions with
respect to the affected accounts.

Through March 31, 2016, the parties had attended two mediation
sessions and were continuing to discuss a global settlement. In
connection with such discussions, the settlement demand from
plaintiffs was $4 million and the counteroffer from the Company
and its third-party law firm servicer was $3.875 million (which
would be split equally between the Company and the law firm
servicer). The Company and law firm servicer had also offered, as
part of the counteroffer, to cease collection activity on the
affected accounts. Accordingly, the Company set up a reserve for
settlement costs of $2.0 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2016, which was included in general and administrative
expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations.

The Company reassessed the situation as of September 30, 2016 and
deemed that an additional $0.3 million was necessary to account
for legal expenses, which were made during the three month period
ended September 30, 2016. The Company reviewed this case as of
December 31, 2016 and deemed that the $2.3 million reserve remains
valid.

Asta Funding, Inc., together with its wholly owned significant
operating subsidiaries Palisades Collection LLC, Palisades
Acquisition XVI, LLC ("Palisades XVI"), VATIV Recovery Solutions
LLC ("VATIV"), ASFI Pegasus Holdings, LLC ("APH"), Fund Pegasus,
LLC ("Fund Pegasus"), GAR Disability Advocates, LLC ("GAR
Disability Advocates"), CBC Settlement Funding, LLC ("CBC"), Simia
Capital, LLC ("Simia") and other subsidiaries, not all wholly
owned, is engaged in several business segments in the financial
services industry including structured settlements through its
wholly owned subsidiary CBC, funding of personal injury claims,
through our 80% owned subsidiary Pegasus Funding, LLC ("Pegasus"),
social security and disability advocates through its wholly owned
subsidiary GAR Disability Advocates and the business of
purchasing, managing for its own account and servicing distressed
consumer receivables, including charged off receivables, and semi-
performing receivables.


BAKER HUGHES: Court Ruled on Plaintiffs' Counsel Fee and Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Delaware
Chancery Court has ruled on plaintiffs counsel's Fee and Expense
Application in the class action lawsuits related to the
Halliburton merger.

The following lawsuits were filed in Delaware in connection with
the Company's Merger with Halliburton. Subsequent to the filing of
the lawsuits, on April 30, 2016, the Merger Agreement with
Halliburton was terminated:

* On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") against Baker
Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red
Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton ("Red Tiger"
and together with all defendants, "Defendants") styled Gary R.
Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB.

* On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund
and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

* On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.

All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our
shareholders in connection with the Merger negotiations by
entering into the Merger Agreement and by approving the Merger,
and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  More specifically,
the lawsuits allege that the Merger Agreement provides inadequate
consideration to our shareholders, that the process resulting in
the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the Company's directors
engaged in self-dealing, and that certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement improperly favor Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding
or impeding third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, among other things.  The lawsuit filed by Annette Shipp
also alleges that our Board of Directors failed to disclose
material information concerning the proposed Merger in the
preliminary registration statement on Form S-4.

On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding
similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary
registration statement on Form S-4.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, and rescission of
the Merger Agreement, among other relief.

On January 23, 2015, the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under
the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case"). Pursuant
to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except
that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are
asserted against the Company.

On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making
certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement
was made subject to certain conditions, including consummation of
the Merger, final documentation, and court approval. With the
termination of the Merger Agreement with Halliburton, the March
18, 2015 settlement agreement is rendered null and void.

On May 31, 2016, the Consolidated Case and the claims asserted
therein were dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's
Fee and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court.
On October 13, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court ruled on
plaintiffs counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The amount
awarded does not have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating "Williams" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is
evaluating the background facts of the case, Williams et al. v.
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.

The Company said, "On April 30, 2015, a class and collective
action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class
of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker
Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota."

"On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain
subclasses of employees for collective action treatment.

"We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products,
technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation continues to defend a consolidated
federal securities class action in California, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2016.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v.
Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015
(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the
"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many
legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The Kinney
Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements
were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and
were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.  The Kinney
Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting
irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.  The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and
claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney
Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an
undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations
and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action.  The putative
class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12,
2014 to November 5, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed July
29, 2016, and Defendants' reply was filed September 23, 2016. The
Company has not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2016
since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable
given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration
(combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and
power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical
power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the
Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators
for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was
organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine
generators commercially since 1998.


CAREPLUS HEALTH: Class of Field LVNs Certified in "Collier" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Amos L. Mazzant, III, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification filed in the lawsuit captioned CRISTY
COLLIER, FREDDY RODRIGUEZ, ANGELA WAGNER, v. CAREPLUS HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., ANIL JOSEPH, Case No. 4:16-CV-00178 (E.D. Tex.).

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Mazzant conditionally
certifies a class of the Defendant's current and former employees
that is described and referred to as the "Workers":

     All Field LVNs employed by Careplus Health Services, Inc.
     and Anil Joseph from March 30, 2013 to the Present.

The Plaintiffs are Licensed Vocational Nurses ("Field LVNs"), who
were employed by Careplus.  Anil Joseph is the president of
Careplus.  The Plaintiffs' primary job duties as Field LVNs
included traveling to patients' homes and providing patients with
nursing care.  The Plaintiffs allege that they and other Field
LVNs often worked more than 40 hours in a week and did not receive
overtime compensation for such time.  The Defendants do not allege
that the Plaintiffs were classified as employees exempt from the
overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Mazzant also conditionally approved the Join Form (the
"Notice") to be issued by the Plaintiffs' counsel to the Field
LVNs identified by the Defendants in response to discovery.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/B1OO4Z from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Burton Welmaker, Esq.
          DUNHAM & JONES LAW FIRM
          1800 Guadalupe St
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 777-7777
          E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Edward Fox, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          2950 N. Harwood, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 397-0030
          Facsimile: (214) 397-0033
          E-mail: sfox@polsinelli.com


CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Discovery Right
------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for
the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are debating the Plaintiffs right for
discovery.

On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action,
naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its directors
as defendants, was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv
(Economic Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares,
including those who purchased shares during the period following
the Company's follow on public offering in July 2014.

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the company and its management, by making
false and misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October
2014. The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to
the follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading
guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third
quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate
of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the
Company at the time of such presentation. Although the plaintiff
admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third
quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were
concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much
lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff argues that at the time
such guidance was presented by the defendants, they already knew,
or should have known, that it was incorrect. The plaintiff seeks
specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to $75,000,000, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The motion was received by the Company on January 6, 2015 and the
Company filed its defense on June 21, 2015. The parties are now
debating the Plaintiffs right for discovery. The Company filed its
response to the plaintiff's request for discovery on January 25,
2016 and the plaintiffs submitted their response on February 24,
2016.

Once the court decides in relation to discovery, it is expected
that a date for submission of plaintiff's response to the
Company's defense will be set. The initial procedure, i.e. until
the District Court decides whether to approve the motion or to
deny it, has been conducted for over a year now, and it is
difficult to estimate how long it is expected to last. The Company
believes that the District Court should deny the motion.


CHEMTURA CORP: Defends "Paterson" Suit Over Lanxess Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to defend itself against a putative
class action lawsuit arising from a proposed merger transaction,
according to the Company's January 17, 2017, 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 25, 2016, Chemtura Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Chemtura"), announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Lanxess
Deutschland GmbH, a limited liability company under the laws of
Germany ("Lanxess"), and LANXESS Additives Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Lanxess
("Merger Subsidiary"). The Merger Agreement provides, among other
things, that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Chemtura, with Chemtura surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lanxess (the "Merger").

On December 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Paterson v. Chemtura Corporation, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
06626-ER (the "Merger Litigation") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Chemtura and the members of the Chemtura Board of Directors
pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and against the members of the Chemtura
Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Merger Litigation relates to the Merger, the Merger Agreement
and the definitive proxy statement filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on December 23,
2016 (the "Proxy Statement") in connection with the Merger. The
complaint in the Merger Litigation generally alleges that the
Proxy Statement omitted certain material information regarding the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and also
alleges that the merger consideration is unfair, certain terms of
the Merger Agreement are unfair, and the individual defendants are
financially interested in the Merger. The Merger Litigation seeks,
among other remedies, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, or in the event that an injunction is not
awarded, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and unspecified money damages, costs and attorney's
fees.

Chemtura believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and intends to defend against the
Merger Litigation vigorously. However, in order to alleviate the
costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide
additional information to its stockholders, Chemtura has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as
described in this Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Chemtura
specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that
any additional disclosure was or is required.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Ong" Shareholder Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. continues to defend a shareholder
class action lawsuit filed by Susie Ong, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.  The complaint
purports to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief
Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on
the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to
disclose material information about the Company's quality controls
and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The
complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from the case.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill
restaurants, which serve a focused menu of burritos, tacos,
burrito bowls (a burrito without the tortilla) and salads, made
using fresh ingredients.


CMS ENERGY: Reached Settlement of 3 Kansas and Missouri Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the CMS Energy entities have reached a tentative settlement
with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri Gas Index
Price Reporting Litigation for an amount that was not material to
CMS Energy.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in four class action lawsuits and one individual
lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas
price reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade,
and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. The following provides more detail on the
cases in which CMS Energy or its affiliates were named as parties:

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January
2000 through October 2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiffs are
seeking treble damages, statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by the plaintiffs for
natural gas purchased during the period, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a putative
class action in Missouri state court alleging violations of
Missouri antitrust laws. The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
reporting activities during the period January 2000 through
October 2002. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v.
XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 2000 and October 2002. The defendants, including
CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have
violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking
full consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

   * In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System
v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and
others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages,
treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as
trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001, costs, and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases described were
transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the
multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims
against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court
based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the
cases. The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred
in dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a
release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and
reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action
lawsuits. The order of summary judgment has been appealed.

In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a tentative
settlement with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri
cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy. Notice of
the tentative settlement has been filed in the federal district
court. The settlement will be subject to court approval. Other CMS
Energy entities remain as defendants in the two Wisconsin class
action lawsuits.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably possible
loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested
in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable,
these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COCA-COLA CO: Odwalla Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Brad Avery, writing for BevNET, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit against The Coca-Cola Co. can move forward after a
federal juice in California declined a request to toss the case.
The plaintiffs in the suit allege that the company improperly
labelled the sugar content of its Odwalla brand juices.

According to Law 360, on February 13 U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers sided with the case's plaintiff, Robin Reese, who
argued that Odwalla's use of the term "evaporated cane juice" in
lieu of "cane sugar" on its packaging was in violation of federal
regulations.  The court rejected Odwalla's argument that
regulations properly defining "evaporated cane juice" as sucrose
were not in effect until August, 2016.

The lawsuit was initially filed in March, 2013 and alleged that
consumers were misled into believing the beverages were sugar-
free.

"The 2016 final guidance merely confirmed that [evaporated cane
juice] met the definition for sucrose already in the federal
regulations, and thus had to abide by the labeling requirements
set forth for sucrose," Judge Rogers said.


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Hale" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has not yet
ruled on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
Hale litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of force-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015, CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CONSOL Energy Inc., is an integrated energy company operated
through two primary divisions, oil and natural gas exploration and
production (E&P) and Pennsylvania (PA) Mining Operations. The E&P
division is focused on Appalachian area natural gas and liquids
activities, including production, gathering, processing and
acquisition of natural gas properties in the Appalachian Basin.
The PA Mining Operations division is focused on the extraction and
preparation of coal, also in the Appalachian Basin.


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Addison" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has not yet
ruled on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
Addison litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015, CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CONSOL Energy Inc., is an integrated energy company operated
through two primary divisions, oil and natural gas exploration and
production (E&P) and Pennsylvania (PA) Mining Operations. The E&P
division is focused on Appalachian area natural gas and liquids
activities, including production, gathering, processing and
acquisition of natural gas properties in the Appalachian Basin.
The PA Mining Operations division is focused on the extraction and
preparation of coal, also in the Appalachian Basin.


CONWAY, AR: State High Court Affirms Firemen Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order
certifying the class of represented by Richard Shumate and Damon
Reed in the lawsuit they filed against their employer, the City of
Conway.

The Plaintiffs brought a class-action complaint against the City,
alleging that the City breached its employment contract with them
when it failed to allocate sales-tax revenues to fund salary
increases.  The parties stipulated that the City gave raises
pursuant to the pay grid from 2001 to 2009 but that no increases
have been paid since 2009.

At a hearing on class certification, the circuit court certified
the following class of "All City of Conway Policemen and Fireman
(excluding department heads and elected officials) who were
employed by the City of Conway during the period commencing
December 1, 2001 through December 31, 2012 (the Class Period)."
Shumate and Reed were named the class representatives. Further,
the court found that there were overarching, common questions that
could be efficiently determined on a class-wide basis.

The City has appealed from the order under Arkansas Rule of
Appellate Procedure-Civil 2(a)(9) (2016).  The City challenges the
circuit court's findings on four of the six prerequisites of a
class action.  First, the City argues that there are no common
questions because the mutuality element of a breach-of-contract
claim, which requires a meeting of the minds between the
contracting parties, requires each plaintiff to resolve his or her
individual issues before reaching any common questions.  Second,
and related to the first point, the City argues that the common
questions do not predominate because liability cannot be
established on a class-wide basis because each plaintiff will have
a distinct set of operative facts for his or her breach-of-
contract claim.  Third, the City argues that Reed and Shumate's
claims are atypical of those of the class as a whole. And fourth,
the City argues that a class action is not a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiffs' claims.

In an Opinion penned by Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood dated
February 16, 2017, available at https://is.gd/FRNo4U from
Leagle.com, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the circuit court
was within its discretion when it certified the class.

The associated justice held that, "We agree with the plaintiffs
and, accordingly, affirm the circuit court's finding on
commonality. Based on various affidavits in the record and the
structure of the plaintiffs' complaint, the nature of the dispute
here is not as individualized as the one in Williamson. According
to the affidavit of a former Conway city councilperson, the Conway
Human Resources Department provided potential employees with a
packet containing the benefits, pay, and other terms of
employment. The pay grid was included in this packet. Further,
plaintiffs attached 45 affidavits from current and former city
employees to their motion for class certification. All of the
employees averred that they had been provided the pay grid and
advised by the City that the scale represented the pay they would
receive. In other words, according to these affidavits in the
record, the City treated its employees in a uniform fashion and
made similar oral representations to each one."

The case is CITY OF CONWAY, AN ARKANSAS MUNICIPALITY, Appellant,
v. RICHARD SHUMATE, JR., AND DAMON REED, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS AND ENTITIES, Appellees,
Case No. CV-16-284 (Ark.).

City of Conway is represented by:
`
      Thomas K. Kieklak, Esq.
      R. Justin Eichmann, Esq.
      HARRINGTON, MILLER, KIEKLAK, EICHMANN & BROWN, P.A.
      4710 S. Thompson, Ste. 102
      Springdale, AR 72764
      Tel: (479)751-6464
Richard Shumate, Jr. and Damon Reed are represented by Thomas P.
Thrash, Esq. -- tomthrash@sbcglobal.net -- and -- Marcus Neil
Bozeman, Esq. -- bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net -- THRASH LAW FIRM,
P.A. -- Russell A. Wood, Esq. -- rwood@woodlaw.com -- WOOD LAW
FIRM


CSRA INC: "Strauch" Parties Explore Settlement
----------------------------------------------
CSRA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2016, that the parties have explored
potential settlement scenarios but have not concluded any
settlement in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class
Action.

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

In September 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added claims under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws.
The relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and
civil penalties.

If a liability is ultimately incurred as a result of these claims,
CSRA would pay a portion to CSC pursuant to an indemnity
obligation. CSC and CSRA both maintain that system administrators
have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt
employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime
compensation requirements and were paid in accordance with the
FSLA and applicable state laws.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 3, 2016
and on June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The conditionally certified FLSA and
putative classes include approximately 1,285 system
administrators, of whom 407 are employed by CSRA and the remainder
employed by CSC.

The Company expects that, following a period during which
potential class members may opt-in the action and discovery is
completed, the court will determine whether the case will proceed
to trial or whether to decertify the class. If the action is
decertified, then only individual claims may proceed to trial.
CSC filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 15, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief
on August 12, 2016 and the matter is currently under advisement
with the Court.

CSRA Inc. is a provider of IT and professional services to U.S.
government organizations. CSRA delivers IT, mission, and
operations-related services across the U.S. federal government to
the Department of Defense ("DoD"), the intelligence community and
homeland security, civil and healthcare agencies, as well as to
state and local government agencies through two business segments:
(1) Defense and Intelligence and (2) Civil.


DJM ADVISORY: TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned O.P. SCHUMAN & SONS, INC., v. DJM ADVISORY
GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3563 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R.
Sanchez of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint and transfer the case to the Middle District
of Florida.

Plaintiff O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc., brings the putative class
action alleging Defendants DJM Advisory Group, LLC, Banner Life,
and William Penn Life Insurance Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by
transmitting a single-page facsimile advertising the Defendants'
term life insurance that did not include the opt-out notice
required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4).

In April 2013, the Defendants sent a single-page facsimile
transmission to the Plaintiff advertising the Defendants' term
life insurance.  The Plaintiff did not invite or provide
permission to the Defendants to send the facsimile, and the
facsimile did not include an opt-out notice that complied with 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4).  According to the Complaint, the
Defendants sent the same facsimile to more than 39 individuals
around the country. As a result of receiving the facsimile, the
Plaintiff and the other recipients suffered damages, including
loss of paper, ink toner, the use of their fax machines, the use
of telephone lines, time, and privacy.

The Plaintiff seeks to pursue a TCPA claim on behalf of "All
persons who were sent one or more telephone facsimile messages on
or after four years prior to the filing of this action, that
advertised the commercial availability or quality of any property,
goods, or services offered by DJM, Banner Life Insurance Company,
or William Penn Life Insurance Company, that did not contain an
opt-out notice that complied with federal law."

The Defendants move to dismiss the action for lack of standing
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to stay or
dismiss the case pursuant to the first-filed doctrine, or, in the
alternative, to strike the Plaintiff's proposed class definition
pursuant to Rule 12(f).  The Plaintiff argues that if the Court
finds the first-filed rule applies, the case should be transferred
to the Middle District of Florida where an earlier related action
is pending.

In a Memorandum dated February 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/7k6xDe from Leagle.com, Judge Sanchez found that
relief is warranted under the first-filed rule, granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss insofar as the case will be
transferred to the Middle District of Florida.  The Court chooses
to transfer rather than stay the case, as resolution of both cases
within the same district, and potentially by the same judge, is in
the interest of the parties, witnesses, and judiciary.

O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc. is represented by Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
-- amilstein@shermansilverstein.com -- SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL
ROSE PODOLSKY -- Daniel J. Cohen, Esq. -- damiel@classlawyers.com
-- Kimberly M. Watt, Esq. -- kimberly@classlawyers.com -- and --
James M. Smith, Esq. -- jim@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
& OPPENHEIM, LLC

DJM Advisory Group, LLC is represented by Nicole L. Milone, Esq. -
- nmilone@certilmanbalin.com -- John H. Gionis, Esq. --
jgionis@certilmanbalin.com -- and -- Paul B. Sweeney, Esq. --
psweeney@certilmanbalin.com -- CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN LLP -
- Kevin J. Kotch, Esq. -- rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com -- THE KIM LAW
FIRM LLC

Banner Life Insurance Company, and William Penn Life Insurance
Company of New York are represented by Kymberly Kochis, Esq. --
kimberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Lewis S. Wiener, Esq. -
- lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com -- and -- Wilson G.
Barmeyer, Esq. -- wilsonbarmeyer@evesheds-sutherland.com --
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP


DURHAM SCHOOL: Shann Appeals C.D. Cal. Ct.'s Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Donisha Shann and Terrilyn Russell filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Donisha Shann, et al. v.
Durham School Services LP, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05158-R-SS,
(C.D. Cal).

The nature of suit is stated as civil rights -- jobs.

The appellate case is captioned as Donisha Shann, et al. v. Durham
School Services LP, et al., Case No. 17-55148, filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Terrilyn Russell and Donisha Shann's opening
      brief is due on July 17, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Durham School Services LP's answering
      brief is due on August 15, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants DONISHA SHANN, as an individual and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, and TERRILYN RUSSELL,
as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, are represented by:

          Treana L. Allen, Esq.
          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          NaShaun Lamar Neal, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: tallen@mahoney-law.net
                  kmhoney@mahoney-law.net
                  nneal@mahoney-law.net

Defendant-Appellee DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP is represented by:

          John Richard Giovannone, I, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6175


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Motion for Class Certification Denied in "Davis"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit by
Michael Davis.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission.

In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to
dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds.

In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On February 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.


EMCORE CORPORATION: Settles Mirasol Class Action for $300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company and
Christina Mirasol have agreed to a settlement of $0.3 million with
regards to all claims outstanding.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company working in California since December 15,
2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleged seven
causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages;
(4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to
provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under
the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.;
and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The
claims were premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and
the putative class members were not provided with their legally
required meal periods. Mirasol sought recovery on her own behalf
and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for
compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company,
certain current and former employees previously agreed to release
the Company from all potential claims related to the matters
alleged in the Mirasol lawsuit.

The Company had recorded an accrual for these amounts at September
30, 2016 that was not material to the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows, which had been
recorded within Operating Expenses for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2016.

On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a settlement
of $0.3 million with regards to all claims outstanding. During the
three months ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an
accrual of $0.2 million within Operating Expenses related to the
settlement.

EMCORE Corporation together with its subsidiaries designs and
manufactures Indium Phosphide (InP) optical chips, components,
subsystems and systems for the broadband and specialty fiber
optics market.


EZCORP INC: April 25 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Campbell, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP have announced a
proposed settlement in a securities class action with the EZCORP
Inc.

In a securities class action involving Automotive Machinists
Pension Trust against EZCORP Inc., a small-dollar lender, AMPT has
proposed settlement of the action for $5.9 million in cash. If
approved, it will resolve all claims in the class action, a news
release through PR Newswire reported.

According to Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, the firm
filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Automotive Machinists Pension
Trust against EZCORP Inc., company officers and EZCORP's
controlling shareholder, Phillip Ean Cohen, and MS Pawn Limited
Partnership.

The complaint alleged that from April 19, 2012, through Oct. 6,
2014, EZCORP and some of its senior executives "violated
provisions of the Exchange Act by disseminating false and
misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and statements during investor
conference calls."

It also was reported by the law firm that during the period from
2012 to 2014, EZCORP and some of its senior executives
misrepresented significant facts concerning the business,
including the fact that EZCORP and its Cash Genie company were
following the correct regulations governing the businesses.

However, EZCORP disclosed that Cash Genie has not obeyed best-
practice measures, admitting that it had violated consumer-
protection laws.  It further added that it was undergoing a
reorganization of its business, stating that it was getting out of
its online businesses in the United Kingdom and the United States.
This resulted in around $110 million in goodwill impairments and
other charges, and EZCORP stocks declining significantly.

On Jan. 26, 2015, AMPT appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann as lead counsel, which filed its consolidated complaint
on March 12 of that year.  Even though EZCORP filed motions to
dismiss, the lead plaintiff opposed, the law firm reported.

On Nov. 29, 2016, the parties announced a $5.9 million settlement,
which was granted preliminary approval by the court on Jan. 4,
2017.

A hearing will be held at 10 a.m. April 25, 2017 before Judge
Andrew L. Carter Jr. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York.  A deadline for submission of claims is May 19, 2017.

In 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also took action
against EZCORP Inc. for illegal debt-collection practices. In a
report from the CFPB, the bureau ordered EZCORP to refund $7.5
million to 93,000 consumers, pay $3 million in penalties, and stop
collection of remaining payday and installment-loan debts owed by
around 130,000 consumers.

CFPB said that it found that EZCORP had "collected debts from
consumers through unlawful in-person collection visits at their
homes or workplaces, risked exposing consumers' debts to third
parties, falsely threatened consumers with litigation for non-
payment of debts, and unfairly made multiple electronic-withdrawal
attempts from consumer accounts, causing mounting bank fees."

According to the CFPB website, EZCORP, headquartered in Austin,
Texas, "provided high-cost, short-term, unsecured loans, which
also included payday and installment loans in 15 states and more
than 500 storefronts."  However, on July 29, EZCORP announced that
it would stop offering payday, installment and auto-title loans in
the U.S. after the Bureau launched its investigation.

BLB&G has four offices nationwide, including one in San Diego.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an
amended complaint has been filed.

The amended complaint asserts that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

The complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount
on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between October 23, 2014 and November
9, 2015, inclusive.

Flotek Industries, Inc. is a global, diversified, technology-
driven company that develops and supplies chemistry and services
to the oil and gas industries, and high value compounds to
companies that make cleaning products, cosmetics, food and
beverages, and other products that are sold in consumer and
industrial markets.


FORD MOTOR: Suit Over Faulty Electric Steering Systems Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge has tossed a class action in San Jose accusing
Ford of building cars with faulty electric steering systems that
endangered drivers, but the dismissal is likely a step toward
appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Ford's motion for
summary judgment in a class action that claimed faulty power
steering systems in the Focus and Fusion cars caused economic harm
to it people who rented or bought the cars in between 2010 and
2014.

"Plaintiffs have conceded that they have no admissible evidence to
prove damages," wrote in the 21-page order filed Feb. 16.
"Additionally, because damages are an essential element of each of
plaintiffs' claims, plaintiffs also concede that the damages issue
alone is sufficient to justify granting the motion for summary
judgment in its entirety."

The admissible part is key, as Koh said she believes the
plaintiffs are conceding they don't have a damages case in order
to be able to appeal the motion for summary judgement to the Ninth
Circuit.

"It is clear that plaintiffs are most concerned with class claims
in their third amended complaint," Koh wrote in the ruling. "After
the motion for class certification was denied, plaintiffs made no
attempt to defend the claims of any of the individual plaintiffs."

In other words, Koh found the plaintiffs demonstrated they did not
want to proceed by defending the claims individually, but are
instead preparing an appeal that will focus on Koh's rationale for
denying class certification.

"Plaintiffs evidently would prefer to appeal the court's grant of
summary judgment rather than either file a motion for Rule 23(f)
review of the class certification order or litigate plaintiffs'
individual claims," Koh wrote in the order.

Adam Levitt, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, did not respond
to an email seeking comment.

The dispute arises from a lawsuit filed in 2014 by William
Philips, who said Ford concealed defects in its Electronic Power-
Assisted Steering (EPAS) system on his used 2011 Ford Fusion to
avoid costly repairs. He sought to represent a class of
Californians who bought or leased 2010-2014 Fusions, and 2012-2014
Focuses.

But Koh denied class certification last year, finding the damages
assessment method used by plaintiffs was insufficient and that
individual issues with the steering system made commonality
unlikely.

As often is the case in civil litigation, refusal to certify a
class reduces the incentive for the plaintiffs to pursue a case.

Ford's steering system includes a power steering control motor,
electronic control unit, torque sensor and steering wheel position
sensor, but Philips said it has a defect that "renders the system
prone to sudden and premature failure."

Philips said that after complaining repeatedly to Ford about the
problem, the company told him it would cost $2,000 to fix and
offered to pay only half of it. He did not repair it then, in
2013, but Ford recalled his car in July 2015 and fixed the
problem.

When the system fails, drivers "experience significantly increased
steering effort and an increased risk of losing control" when
their cars suddenly switch to manual steering, according to the
complaint.

Philips and the class said their personal experiences, a National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation of the
steering system in the Ford Explorer, and similar complaints by
other California drivers amply demonstrated their claims.

Ford recalled 422,131 defective cars in 2015 and has repaired
about 51 percent of them, including the steering system in 8,000
cars as of December 2015. In court filings Ford has said the
recall and subsequent fixes should render the claims moot.

Koh did not rule on any other components of Ford's motion for
summary judgment, saying the plaintiffs' concession that there was
no admissible evidence of damages was sufficient to render
everything else moot.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defending 9 Class Suits Over Takata Airbag
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that through January 27,
2017, the Company was aware of one putative class action pending
against GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative class action
in Mexico and seven putative class actions pending in various
Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of allegations that airbag
inflators manufactured by Takata are defective.

In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General has initiated
litigation against Takata and numerous automotive manufacturers,
including GM.

The Company said, "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of
possible loss."

"On May 4, 2016 NHTSA issued an amended consent order requiring
Takata to file DIRs for previously unrecalled front airbag
inflators that contain an ammonium nitrate-based propellant
without a moisture absorbing desiccant on a multi-year, risk-based
schedule through 2019 impacting tens of millions of vehicles
produced by numerous automotive manufacturers. NHTSA concluded
that the likely root cause of the rupturing of the airbag
inflators is a function of time, temperature cycling and
environmental moisture. On May 16, 2016 Takata issued its first
DIR in connection with the amended consent order, and on January
3, 2017, Takata issued its second set of DIRs.

"Although we do not believe there is a safety defect at this time
in any GM vehicles within scope of the Takata DIR, in cooperation
with NHTSA we filed Preliminary DIRs on May 27, 2016, updated as
of June 13, 2016, covering 2.5 million of certain of our GMT900
vehicles, which are full-size pick-up trucks and SUVs. On November
15, 2016 we filed a petition for inconsequentiality and request
for deferral of determination regarding certain GMT900 vehicles
equipped with Takata inflators. On November 28, 2016 NHTSA granted
GM's deferral request in connection with this petition. The
deferral provides GM until August 31, 2017 to present evidence and
analysis that our vehicles do not pose an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety. We believe that this timeline will permit us
to complete our testing of the relevant non-desiccated Takata
inflators in GMT900 vehicles and to prove to NHTSA that the
inflators in these vehicles do not present an unreasonable risk to
safety and that no repair will ultimately be required.

"Takata filed a second set of equipment DIRs on January 3, 2017
and we filed a second set of Preliminary DIRs for certain GMT900
vehicles on January 10, 2017. These January 2017 DIRs are
consistent with GM's May 2016 DIRs. On the same day, we also filed
a second petition for inconsequentiality and deferral of decision
with respect to the vehicles subject to our January 2017 DIRs. On
January 18, 2017, NHTSA consolidated our first and second
petitions for inconsequentiality and will rule on both at the same
time.

"We believe these vehicles are currently performing as designed
and ongoing testing continues to support the belief that the
vehicles' unique design and integration mitigates against inflator
degradation. We believe that the results of further testing and
analysis will demonstrate that the vehicles do not present an
unreasonable risk to safety and that no repair will ultimately be
required. Accordingly, no warranty provision has been made for any
repair associated with our vehicles subject to the Preliminary
DIRs and amended consent order. However, in the event we are
ultimately obligated to repair the inflators in these vehicles, we
estimate a reasonably possible cost of up to $880 million for the
6.9 million vehicles subject to either the Preliminary DIRs or
future Takata DIRs under the amended consent order."


GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Ignition Switch Recall Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that through January 27,
2017, the Company was aware of 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S.
and 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts
in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases).

The Company said, "In 2014 we announced various recalls relating
to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls
included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under
certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of
power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the
event of a crash."

"In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state
governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek
injunctive relief as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees
for alleged violations of state laws.

"Through January 27, 2017 we were aware of 284 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 14 actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or
death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls
announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these
personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, punitive damages and other relief.

"During 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the district court) and a Texas court administering a
Texas state multidistrict litigation scheduled a combined eight
ignition-switch personal injury cases for bellwether trials. None
of those resulted in a finding of liability against GM; juries in
two cases returned verdicts in favor of GM, a court dismissed one
case on summary judgment, plaintiffs dismissed two cases with
prejudice before trial, and the parties settled the remaining
three cases. The district court has scheduled additional personal
injury bellwether trials for 2017 and 2018. Each bellwether trial
will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent
bellwether trial may be different from the earlier bellwether
trials.

"On July 15, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied in
part GM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint seeking damages
for alleged economic loss relating to the ignition switch and
other recalls by GM in 2014. The district court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and those brought by any
plaintiff whose vehicle was not allegedly defective when sold. The
district court also rejected Plaintiffs' broadest theory of
damages -- that plaintiffs could seek recovery for alleged
reduction in the value of their vehicles due to damage to GM's
reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch matter.
The district court also held that plaintiffs did not have a common
basis for their claims across all defects and models to proceed as
a single class, and that the remaining claims may have to proceed
individually or in subclasses of vehicles affected by a common
defect. Further, the district court held that the named plaintiffs
may assert claims only on behalf of owners of the same vehicle
models that they themselves purchased (or leased) or models with
sufficiently similar defects, and that it will not specify the
specific permissible class claims until the class-certification
stage. Finally, the district court granted GM's motion to dismiss
with respect to certain state law claims but denied it as to other
state law claims. The court held that the viability of state law
claims will depend on each state's specific laws and plaintiffs'
specific factual allegations. While the ruling addressed post-
bankruptcy claims, we believe the district court's legal holdings
should apply to limit plaintiffs' pre-bankruptcy claims similarly.
On September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended
Consolidated Complaint amending their economic-loss claims. On
December 7, 2016 GM moved to dismiss certain claims in that
complaint as well.

"Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above
paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors
Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for
liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the
terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction (2009 Sale Order)
issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from
being asserted against us for, among other things, personal
injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims
based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims
asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General
Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015
the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision precluding claims against
us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or
conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability
claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been
expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement, and
claims that could be asserted against us only if they were
otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-
closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by
General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy
Court's decision and we cross appealed with respect to certain
issues to preserve our rights.

"On July 13, 2016 a three judge panel of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued a
decision and judgment affirming in part, reversing in part, and
vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's April 15, 2015
decision and subsequent judgment. Among other things, the Second
Circuit held that the 2009 Sale Order could not be enforced to bar
claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used
vehicles after the sale closing or against purchasers who asserted
claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-
closing personal injury claims and economic-loss claims. The
Second Circuit also vacated that portion of the Bankruptcy Court
judgment enforcing the 2009 Sale Order against plaintiffs with
pre-sale claims based on defects other than the ignition switch
and remanded that issue to the Bankruptcy Court for further
proceedings. The Second Circuit denied our request for an en banc
review of the panel's decision and judgment. On December 13, 2016
we petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
In 2014 GM voluntarily established the Ignition Switch Recall
Compensation Program (the Program), administered by an independent
administrator, which provided compensation for individuals who
died or suffered personal injuries (or for their families) as a
result of the ignition switch defect, both before and after
bankruptcy. The Program completed its claims review process in the
three months ended September 30, 2015, but continues to process
acceptances that require court approval and resolve liens related
to accepted claims. Accident victims (or their families) that
accept a payment under the Program agree to settle all claims
against GM related to the accident. As a result, certain pre-
closing personal injury claims relating to the ignition switch
defect were resolved through this program.


GENERAL MOTORS: Shareholder Appeal of Case Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the putative
shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf
of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July
24, 2014 (Shareholder Class Action), the lead plaintiff, the New
York State Teachers' Retirement System, alleged that GM and
several current and former officers and employees made material
misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition
switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public
statements. On May 23, 2016 the Eastern District entered a
judgment approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder
Class Action for $300 million. One shareholder has filed an appeal
of the decision approving the settlement.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing Held in Appeals Over Dealers' Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Ontario Court of
Appeal has heard the appeals and cross appeals related to GM
Canada Dealers' claim.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class
of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which
had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009
in the context of the global restructuring of GM's business and
the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate
insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers
the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM
Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff Dealers allege
that their Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly
terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with
certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of
fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers'
statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff
Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff
Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are
rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes
reference to a claim "not exceeding" 750 million Canadian Dollars,
without explanation of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues. A
number of former dealers opted out of participation in the
litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class.

On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff
Dealers' claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM
Canada's counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment
of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for
other relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal. The
appeals and cross appeals were heard by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in January 2017.


GRUBHUB INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Auto-Texting
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, writing for Law360, reports that a Colorado
resident launched a proposed class action against GrubHub on
Feb. 17 in Illinois federal court, claiming that though he'd never
before used the take-out delivery service, it repeatedly sent him
unauthorized, automated text messages in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Nicholas Amodeo contended that while GrubHub Inc. sends automated
text messages to consumers regarding the orders they placed for
delivery through its smartphone application-based service,
inevitably, through the entry of incorrect or changing telephone
numbers, it also occasionally sends text messages to consumers
who've never interacted with the company in any way.

That's exactly what happened to him in late 2016, Mr. Amodeo said,
when he began receiving a number of messages from GrubHub letting
him know the order he placed would arrive shortly even though he'd
not placed any order.

Making matters worse, the company gave him and others like him who
receive the inadvertent texts no opportunity to opt out from
getting the messages in the future, "resulting in consumers'
repeated receipt of unwanted, unauthorized automated text
messages," Mr. Amodeo said.

"GrubHub's disregard for consumers' opt-out requests constitutes
willful and knowing violation of the TCPA," he wrote.

The barrage of messages began in late 2016, when Mr. Amodeo
received a seemingly automated message alerting his that his food
was supposedly almost ready when in fact he'd ordered no food
through the service, he said.

The texts continued, each time with the same message template,
causing him to finally call GrubHub's customer service line in
October asking that they be stopped.  Mr. Amodeo alleged a
representative advised him to text back the word "STOP" or
"STOPALL" next time he received one of the messages, but that did
nothing to stop them.

The texts likewise came at inconvenient times, Mr. Amodeo
contended, such as in the middle of a music lesson he was teaching
and during a family dinner party around the holidays.

Not only was his "time wasted tending to GrubHub's text messages
sent after he expressly requested that they stop," but the
messages also drained his phone battery and caused him additional
electricity expenses and wear and tear on his phone and battery,
Mr. Amodeo said.

What's more, no human was involved in the sending of GrubHub's
messages, and in fact, the company uses a computerized algorithm
for creating automated text messages that appear to be customized.
Such a system has the capability to generate and dial random
sequential numbers, placing it in violation of the TCPA, Mr.
Amodeo alleged.

His complaint claimed a knowing and willful violation of the TCPA
and seeks to represent a class that includes anyone in the U.S.
who received at least one authorized text on their cell phone from
GrubHub within the last four years.

A representative for GrubHub declined to comment.

Mr. Amodeo is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC and
Katherine Ann Rehan, Esq.

Counsel information for GrubHub wasn't immediately available.

The case is Nicholas Amodeo v. GrubHub Inc., case number 1:17-cv-
01284, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


GULF INTERSTATE: Hughes Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tom Hughes and Desmond McDonald took an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Tom Hughes, et al. v.
Gulf Interstate Field Service, Case No. 2:14-cv-00432, (S.D. Ohio)
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit on May 9, 2014, seeking to
recover alleged unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Tom Hughes, et al. v. Gulf
Interstate Field Service, Case No. 17-3112.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant brief is due on March 15, 2017; and
   -- Appellee brief is due on April 14, 2017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

Defendant-Appellee GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC., is
represented by:

          Mark A. Knueve, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP
          P.O. Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          Facsimile: (614) 719-4808
          E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com


GW GJ INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Velarde" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick Velarde took an appeal from a District Court
order dated January 5, 2017, and judgment dated January 6, 2017,
entered in the lawsuit titled Velarde v. GW GJ, Inc., Case No. 14-
cv-695, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York (Buffalo).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Velarde v. GW GJ, Inc., Case
No. 17-330, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick Velarde, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101

Defendant-Appellee GW GJ, Inc., DBA The Salon Professional
Academy, of Buffalo, Margaret Grenauer and Paul Grenauer are
represented by:

          Paul A. Woodard, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          Facsimile: (716) 852-5649
          E-mail: paw@connorsllp.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: To Fund $54MM of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company will fund approximately $54 million of the
$100 million class action settlement fund, and its insurer will
fund the balance, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed
against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
initiated an investigation in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004."

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. and our disclosures and reserves relating to our
asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed
a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the
claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief
Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed
against our CEO and us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion
for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit ruling and the case was returned to the lower courts for
further consideration.

"In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying
the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order. In June 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit and held that we are entitled to rebut that presumption of
class member reliance by presenting evidence that there was no
impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. The
Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court
decision.

"In July 2015, the district court denied certification for the
plaintiff class with respect to five of the six dates upon which
the plaintiff claimed that disclosures correcting previously
misleading statements had been made that resulted in an impact to
the stock price. However, the district court certified the class
with respect to a disclosure made on December 7, 2001 regarding an
adverse jury verdict in an asbestos case that plaintiffs alleged
was corrective. We appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit. The
Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal in August 2016 and
its consideration of the appeal is suspended pending finalization
of the settlement discussed below. In October 2016, the district
court issued an order continuing the December 2016 trial date.

"In December 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
this lawsuit, without any admission of liability and subject to
approval by the district court. We will fund approximately $54
million of the $100 million settlement fund, and our insurer will
fund the balance. As such, we recorded a $54 million charge on our
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December
31, 2016. Plaintiff's counsel fees and costs will be awarded from
the settlement fund. The settlement remains subject to final
documentation and the approval of the district court following
notice to class members."

Halliburton Company's predecessor was established in 1919 and
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1924.
Halliburton are a provider of services and products to the
upstream oil and natural gas industry throughout the lifecycle of
the reservoir, from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological
data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and
completion, and optimizing production throughout the life of the
field.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Warrants Issued Over Suit Deal Expire
-------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2017, that the
warrants it issued in connection with its settlement of a
consolidated securities lawsuit expired on January 17, 2017.

On September 30, 2009, HealthSouth Corporation ("HealthSouth" or
the "Company") issued 8,151,265 warrants in satisfaction of its
obligation to do so under the comprehensive settlement of the 2003
consolidated class action captioned In re HealthSouth Corp.
Securities Litigation, Master Consolidation File No. CV-03-BE-
1500-S brought by the Company's stockholders and bondholders.
Under the terms of the related warrant agreement, dated as of
September 30, 2009, among the Company and Computershare Inc. and
Computershare Trust Company, N.A., jointly and severally as
warrant agent, the warrants were exercisable at a price of $41.40
per share by means of a cash or a cashless exercise at the option
of the holder. The warrants expired at 5 p.m., New York City time,
on January 17, 2017.

In total, the Company says, holders exercised 7,119,824 warrants
resulting in the issuance of 699,345 shares of the Company's
common stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock"), and
1,031,441 warrants expired without being exercised. Specifically,
holders exercised (i) 644,375 warrants by means of cash exercise
resulting in the issuance of 644,375 shares of Common Stock and
cash proceeds to the Company of $26.7 million and (ii) 6,475,449
warrants by means of a cashless exercise resulting in the issuance
of 54,970 shares of Common Stock. Substantially all of the
exercises occurred in January 2017.

The Company notes that in the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company
repurchased 1,054,754 shares of Common Stock in the open market
for $41.5 million.


HOMEAWAY INC: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Seim" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Seim filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Deidre Seim v. HomeAway, Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-CV-
479, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin.

The nature of suit is stated as "Recovery/Enforcement."

The appellate case is captioned as Deidre Seim v. HomeAway,
Incorporated, Case No. 17-50102, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DEIDRE SEIM, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

Defendant-Appellee HOMEAWAY, INCORPORATED, A Delaware Corporation,
is represented by:

          David Dean Shank, Esq.
          SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P.
          303 Colorado Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 495-6356
          Facsimile: (512) 474-0731
          E-mail: dshank@scottdoug.com


HRG GROUP: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that Dale R. Ludwick's
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. HRG, FGL Insurance,
Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman. The complaint alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other
relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity.

On April 13, 2015, FGL joined in the filing of a joint motion to
dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court
granted the defendants' joint motion to dismiss. Judgment was
entered on February 12, 2016.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals") from the District Court's order and judgment.

As of December 31, 2016, FGL did not have sufficient information
to determine whether it was exposed to any losses that would be
either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense
contingency estimate of $1.7 million, which was accrued during the
year ended September 30, 2016.

HRG Group is a holding company that conducts its operations
through its operating subsidiaries.  HRG Group currently presents
its operations in two reportable segments: (i) Consumer Products,
which consists of Spectrum Brands; and (ii) Insurance, which
consists of Front Street.


HRG GROUP: "Cressy" Case Settlement Now Complete
------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that Eddie L. Cressy has
filed a Notice of Filing Declaration of Settlement Administrator
and Status of Completion of Settlement.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. ("Cressy") in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "LA Court"), Case No. BC-
514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to
maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter
alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied
on defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, FGL
tendered $1.3 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim
review fund. FGL implemented an interest enhancement feature for
certain policies as part of the class settlement, which
enhancement began on October 12, 2015.

On October 24, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the
January 2, 2015 final order and judgment, to extend the deadline
for settlement completion from October 24, 2016 to December 5,
2016.

On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff Cressy filed a Notice of Filing
Declaration of Settlement Administrator and Status of Completion
of Settlement; the Declaration of Settlement Administrator
included a certification by the Settlement Administrator that FGL
had complied in all respects with the class settlement and that
all eligible claims had been paid and the interest enhancement had
been implemented pursuant to the terms of the class settlement.

At December 31, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9.2 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of less than $0.1 million.  FGL had incurred and paid
$5.9 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3
million related to settlement costs as of December 31, 2016.

Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect
the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs
to differ materially from the amount accrued.

HRG Group is a holding company that conducts its operations
through its operating subsidiaries.  HRG Group currently presents
its operations in two reportable segments: (i) Consumer Products,
which consists of Spectrum Brands; and (ii) Insurance, which
consists of Front Street.


INEEDMD HOLDINGS: Makover Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
iNeedMD Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and its
board of directors are currently involved in litigation against
Michael E. Makover, M.D. ("Makover").

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

On August 22, 2016 the Company and Makover participated in a
meditation which resulted in an agreement which would provide for
the issuance of 2,500,000 shares of the Company's common stock to
Makover and a payment of $100,000 by the Company to Makover. The
stock issuance and payment are contingent upon the Company
securing additional financing.  Tthis matter has not been settled
and the parties are in the process of scheduling an additional
mediation to work towards finalizing a settlement.

iNeedMD Holdings, Inc. ("iNeedMD" or the "Company") is a holding
company and was incorporated on February 1, 2012, under the laws
of the State of Nevada. The Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
iNeedMD, Inc., incorporated on February 16, 2000 under the laws of
the State of Delaware, operates as a medical device company that
has developed a disposable device used in the diagnosis,
prevention, and monitoring of cardiovascular disease. On January
27, 2014, a new subsidiary was formed in India called iNeedMD
Medical Device Private Ltd. The purpose of the formation of the
subsidiary was to provide sales and distribution in India.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are awaiting a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "In April 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and
NYSE Arca, Inc., two of our subsidiaries, were among more than 40
financial institutions and exchanges named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District,
by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other plaintiffs. In
subsequent consolidated amended complaints, the plaintiffs
asserted claims against the exchange defendants and Barclays PLC,
or Barclays, a subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading
system known as Barclays LX, on behalf of a class of "all public
investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the
present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the
exchange defendants or on Barclays LX."

"In August 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting
the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The court held
that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim
against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the
Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims against the
exchanges were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory
organization immunity.

"In September 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit. The appeal was briefed and
argued during 2016, and the parties are awaiting a decision."

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a global operator of regulated
exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of
data services for commodity and financial markets.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: 2nd Circuit Denies "Lanier" Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied a petition filed by
Lanier, relating only to the lawsuit involving the Options Price
Reporting Authority plan.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed (and
later amended) in the Southern District by Harold Lanier against
the securities exchanges that are participants in each of the
three national market system data distribution plans -- the
Consolidated Tape Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the
Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the Options Price Reporting Authority, or the
Plans, -- which are established under the Exchange Act and
regulated by the SEC. New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc.
and NYSE MKT LLC, which are our subsidiaries, were among the
defendants named in one or more of the suits, in which Lanier
claimed to sue on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated subscribers to the market data disseminated by the Plans.
Lanier's allegations included that the exchange participants in
the Plans breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating
market data in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred"
customers allegedly received their data faster than the proposed
class.

In September 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaints, and in April 2015, the court issued an opinion and
order granting the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits with
prejudice.

In September 2016, the Second Circuit entered an order affirming
the dismissal of the lawsuits. In November 2016, the Second
Circuit denied a petition filed by Lanier, relating only to the
lawsuit involving the Options Price Reporting Authority plan,
seeking a rehearing by the panel of judges that decided the appeal
or, in the alternative, for review by the full Second Circuit.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a global operator of regulated
exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of
data services for commodity and financial markets.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: April 20 Status Hearing in "Laufer" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in
the case captioned, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., the
court has ordered that a proposed stipulation of settlement be
filed by March 15, 2017 and scheduled a status hearing for April
20, 2017.

On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v.
Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as
defendants. The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger between Johnson Controls Inc. and the Company's merger
subsidiary by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves
improperly and failing to disclose material information in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The
complaint further alleged that the Company aided and abetted
Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
merger.

On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and
release all claims that were or could have been brought by
plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls
Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement is conditioned upon, among
other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement.

On November 10, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report
notifying the court they had reached such agreement.  On November
22, 2016, the court ordered that a proposed stipulation of
settlement be filed by March 15, 2017 and scheduled a status
hearing for April 20, 2017.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement. In either event, or certain other circumstances,
the settlement could be terminated.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Plaintiffs in "Gumm" Case May File Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in
the case captioned, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Plaintiffs have
three weeks from January 25, 2017 to file either an amended
complaint or a notice that they do not plan to amend the
complaint.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board
of directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted
various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state
law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that the individual
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly
enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the Company,
Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a
United States federal income tax realization event for the
putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and
allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as
related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy
statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint
also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual
defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement
of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing
of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting
to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs have three weeks from January 25,
2017 to file either an amended complaint or a notice that they do
not plan to amend the complaint.


KEURIG GREEN: "Montanio" Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the United States District Court for
the District of Vermont granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the case captioned, KYLE MONTANIO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., BRIAN P. KELLEY, NORMAN H. WESLEY,
BARBARA D. CARLINI, JOHN D. HAYES, A.D. DAVID MACKAY, MICHAEL J.
MARDY, HINDA MILLER, DAVID E. MORAN, JOSE OCTAVIO REYES LAGUNES,
SUSAN SALTZBART HOLDINGS B.V., ACORN HOLDINGS B.V., and MAPLE
HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-19 (D.
Vt.).

The case is a direct shareholder class action lawsuit in which the
lead plaintiff, Kyle Montanio, a former shareholder of Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., has sued Keurig, Keurig's former CEO,
members of Keurig's former Board of Directors, and the corporate
investors that bought out Keurig in a deal completed in March
2016.  He alleges that, in connection with the proposed merger,
Defendants disseminated a materially false and misleading proxy
statement, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a),
78t(a), and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9.

The complaint names the following defendants: Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.; Brian Kelley (former CEO of Keurig and a former
member of its Board); Norman Wesley (former Chairman of the
Board); the following former members of the Board: Barbara
Carlini, John Hayes, A.D. David Mackay, Michael Mardy, Hinda
Miller, David Moran, Jose Reyes Lagunes, Susan Kilsby, and Robert
Steele; JAB Holdings B.V. (the company that bought Keurig); Acorn
Holdings B.V. (a subsidiary of JAB Holdings); and Maple Holdings
Acquisition Corp. (a subsidiary of Acorn).

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.

In an Opinion and Order dated February 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/jcPqxe from Leagle.com, Judge Crawford found that
the complaint fails to state a claim that there were material
omissions from the proxy related to any strategic alternatives or
alternative scenarios considered by the Board and fails to state a
claim against Defendants.

Kyle Montanio is represented by Christopher C. Martins, Esq. --
cmartins@rgrdlaw.com -- David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. --
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Mark J. Dearman, Esq. --
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Sabrina E. Tirabassi, Esq. --
stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com -- and -- Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al. are represented by Elizabeth
Y. Austin, Esq. -- laustin@sidley.com -- James W. Ducayet, Esq. --
jducayet@sidley.com -- and -- Nilofer Umar, Esq. --
numar@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- Matthew S. Borick, Esq. -
- mborick@drm.com -- and -- Robert B. Luce, Esq. -- bluce@drm.com
-- DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC

Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp. is represented by Amanda K.
Pooler, Esq. -- amanda.pooler@weil.com -- Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq.
-- andrew.blumberg@weil.com -- Christine T. Di Guglielmo, Esq. --
christine.digugliemo@weil.com -- and -- John A. Neuwirth, Esq. --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL & MAGNES LLP -- Robert B.
Hemley, Esq. -- rhemley@gravelshea.com -- and -- Daniel J. Martin,
Esq. -- dmartin@gravelshea.com -- GRAVEL & SHEA PC


LABEL HOSPITALITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Weaver" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. R. Bryan Harwell conditionally certified the lawsuit
titled DAN WEAVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LABEL HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ROOSTER'S
RESTAURANT BAR AND GRILL and EREZ SUKARCHI, individually, Case No.
4:15-cv-03456-RBH (D.S.C.), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Class is defined as:

     "All current and former employees of Rooster's Restaurant
     Bar and Grill (Rooster's) at any time from June 13, 2014 to
     August 31, 20141 who were paid a direct, or hourly, rate
     less than the statutory minimum wage of seven and 25/100
     ($7.25) per hour and were required either to remit a portion
     of their tips into a tip pool or received funds from a tip
     pool."

Judge Harwell also approved the Notice and Consent and procedure
for sending the Notice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 579-7373
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin A. Baroody, Esq.
          BELLAMY RUTENBERG COPELAND EPPS GRAVELY AND BOWERS PA
          1000 29th Avenue North
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
          Telephone: (843) 448-2400
          E-mail: BBaroody@Bellamylaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan and Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 21 declined to take a second
look at a dismissed class action in which former Lehman Brothers
workers claimed their benefits plan should have dumped the bank's
stock before it failed -- a case the justices had previously
revived in light of a changed standard for fiduciary duty.

Employees allege that former members of a benefits committee that
oversaw the Lehman's 401(k) plan should have known that the bank
was at risk of collapsing and sold the plan's holdings.  The
Supreme Court revived the suit in 2014 in light of a ruling
changing the standard for deciding whether fiduciaries for plans
that invest in company stock acted prudently under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, but the high court declined to
review the case after another dismissal.

As it often has in the past, the Supreme Court offered no
explanation for its refusal, leaving intact the Second Circuit's
decision affirming U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan's dismissal of
the third amended consolidated complaint filed by the employees.

Two previous iterations of the case were dismissed, but the
allegations were revived in July 2014 by the Supreme Court in the
wake of its ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.  That
decision eliminated the so-called presumption of prudence for plan
fiduciaries that invest in company stock, but it also placed
limits on suits that allege fiduciaries should have sold stock on
the basis of public information.

Judge Kaplan in July 2015 ruled that the employees' claims still
fell short of classic pleading standards requiring plausible
allegations, finding that the third complaint failed to allege
that circumstances had changed sufficiently to trigger the
committee's obligation to review the prudence of the plan's
investment.

A three-judge Second Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal in March
2016, agreeing with Kaplan that although the Fifth Third ruling
had changed certain fiduciary standards, the employees had still
failed to plausibly allege a breach.

"The district court found -- and we agree -- that neither Fifth
Third nor the substitution of one amended complaint for another
changes our previous conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege a breach of duty claim," the Second Circuit said

The employees are represented by Mark C. Rifki of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The members of the benefits committee are represented by Jonathan
K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- and Janet Gochman --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The case is Rinehart et al. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et
al., case number 16-562, before the U.S. Supreme Court.


LIBRE BY NEXUS: Faces Class Action by Honduran Immigrants
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action in San Francisco accuses a company
that bails immigrants out of detention of imposing "crushing
financial terms" and "GPS shackles" on vulnerable migrants, while
touting a mission of family reunification.

Two Honduran immigrants sued Libre by Nexus in federal court,
claiming the Virginia-based company falsely represents association
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to intimidate
clients into paying exorbitant monthly fees.

"LBN misrepresents its association with ICE in order to confuse
detainees and their families by creating the impression that LBN
is an official organ of the U.S. government, with the power to
determine whether a detainee is released or detained," lead
plaintiff Juan Quintanilla Vasquez says in the 28-page complaint.

The company claims its mission is to "help those without a voice
in the immigration system" and to reunite immigrant detainees with
their families "without having to pay the full amount of their
bonds," according to its website.

But Vasquez et al. claims LBN continues to collect high monthly
sums from its clients even after they have paid the full amount of
their bonds in nonrefundable fees to the company.

LBN charges a bond security payment of 20 percent, "at the highest
end of the going rate in the industry," according to the
complaint. Additionally, immigrants must pay an $880 nonrefundable
fee up front and lease a GPS monitoring ankle device for $420 per
month.

The complaint describes the GPS device as a "heavy shackle" that
causes bruising and forces the wearer to be tied to an electrical
outlet for hours each day for charging, "none of which is
disclosed at signup."

It claims LBN provides virtually all of its written materials in
English, despite knowing that "virtually none of the detainees
they target are able to understand and read English."

LBN also fails to inform detainees that moving to ICE's non-
detained docket means their cases will move more slowly, and that
they could be paying LBN monthly fees to lease "burdensome" GPS
devices for years, according to the complaint.

The company also charges clients a 50-cents-per-day insurance fee
for their ankle monitors but never discloses that fee in Spanish
language documents or receives affirmative consent to charge the
fee, according to the lawsuit.

Vasquez, an asylum seeker who fled gang violence in Honduras, was
detained and released from a Houston detention facility in
December 2015.

Vasquez says LBN provided him a contract entirely in English, even
though he lacks English writing and speaking skills. He was told
he must wear an ankle bracelet at all times and that he would be
incarcerated for failing to do so, according to the complaint.

He was told any damage to the ankle monitor would result in a
$3,000 fine.

Vasquez says he did not understand he would have to pay the $420
monthly fee in perpetuity or that his case would be moved to a
slower-moving docket, "meaning he could be required to pay LBN for
years."

He says LBN also failed to disclose that he must be tethered to a
wall outlet two hours each day to charge the device, or else it
would vibrate intensely. While charging, the device gets very hot,
preventing him from sleeping and causing him pain, according to
the complaint.

Wearing the ankle monitor has made it harder for Vasquez to work
as a day laborer to earn the money needed to pay for the device.

"It has caused plaintiff Vasquez severe leg pain, prevented him
from carrying out some tasks like climbing a ladder, and caused
him to trip and fall when he was doing yard work," the complaint
states.

Paying high monthly fees for the ankle monitor takes up "a
substantial portion" of his modest wages, according to the
lawsuit.

Vasquez also accuses LBN of unfair debt collection. He says it
called him claiming inaccurately that he had missed two payments
and that he "could be incarcerated as a result."

Co-plaintiff Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz says she, too, was threatened
with incarceration for missing payments. She and her husband have
had to forgo buying groceries just to make those monthly payments,
she says.

Vasquez and Ortiz say they would not have agreed to borrow bail
money from LBN had the financial terms and burdensome nature of
the ankle bracelets been disclosed "accurately and truthfully."

They seek class certification, an injunction, restitution,
disgorgement and punitive damages for forced labor, peonage,
unfair competition, fraud, violations of the California
Translation Act, and consumer law violations.

They are represented by Jeffery Kaliel with Tycko & Zavareei in
Oakland.

LBN said in an emailed statement: "We deny, and will vigorously
defend, the allegations in the complaint. We are proud of the work
Libre by Nexus performs for the immigration community and our
employees are 100% committed to this mission."


LIFELOCK INC: Defends Two Suits Arising From Symantec Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc., is defending two putative class action lawsuits
arises from the proposed merger with Symantec Corporation,
according to the Company's January 17, 2017, 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 20, 2016, the LifeLock, Inc., Symantec Corporation,
and L1116 Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Symantec,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. Upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Acquisition Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Symantec.

On January 16, 2017, LifeLock entered into Amendment No. 1 to the
Merger Agreement.

In connection with the Merger, two purported class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of the stockholders against
the Company, the members of the board of directors, Symantec and
Acquisition Sub in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, and
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The
two complaints are captioned as follows: Minzer v. LifeLock, Inc.
et al, CV-2016-53742 (filed December 15, 2016 ) and Parshall v.
LifeLock, Inc. et al, Civ. No. 2:16-cv-04434-DKD (filed December
16, 2016).

The Company believes that no supplemental disclosures are required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and
to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company is
making certain disclosures that supplement and revise those
contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement (the "litigation-
related supplemental disclosures"). The litigation-related
supplemental disclosures contained below should be read in
conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is
available on the Internet site maintained by the Securities and
Exchange Commission at http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic
reports and other information the Company files with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and the other named defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in
committing any violations of law or breaches of duty to LifeLock
stockholders, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they complied with their fiduciary and other legal
duties and are providing the litigation-related supplemental
disclosures below solely to try to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further
litigation. Nothing in the litigation-related supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the litigation-related
supplemental disclosures set forth herein. To the extent that the
information set forth herein differs from or updates information
contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, the information set
forth herein shall supersede or supplement the information in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. All page references are to pages in
the Definitive Proxy Statement, and terms used, unless otherwise
defined, have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy
Statement.

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


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Defendants' Response Due by March 13
------------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants must
file their response to lead plaintiffs' amended complaint on or
before March 13, 2017.

On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-
BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016).  In this action (now
recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation),
plaintiff alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b),
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, by making false or misleading statements or omissions
in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the Company's internal controls and financial results
for the first, second and third quarters of fiscal year 2016.  The
initial complaint sought unspecified damages against the
defendants on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016.

By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that
defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action
until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, at which time the
parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the filing of
an amended complaint and responses thereto.

On November 14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff were filed.  On December 13, 2016, the Court appointed
Dale Blanch and Yvonne Cohen as lead plaintiffs and approved their
selection of lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On January 27, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants must file their response thereto on or before March 13,
2017.

The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for
this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or
estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations or financial condition.

The Company engages in the identification, research, development
and distribution of advanced nutraceutical dietary supplements and
skin care products.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in the case,
Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D.
D. C. 2014), plaintiffs' class certification motion be fully
briefed by May 2, 2017.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its
chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief
accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby
artificially inflating its stock price, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that
motion in part and denied it in part. Only the claims related to
the Company's retail division were not dismissed.

On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. The
scheduling order in this action requires that: document production
be substantially complete by January 13, 2017; plaintiffs' class
certification motion be fully briefed by May 2, 2017; fact
discovery be completed by August 31, 2017; and expert discovery be
completed by February 23, 2018.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.

The Company operates a network of leading e-commerce marketplaces
that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an efficient,
automated environment offering over 500 product categories.


LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Defender System
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class action in Baton Rouge, La. claims a woefully
inadequate public defender system in Louisiana is the primary
reason the state with the highest incarceration rate in the
nation.

In a complaint filed Feb. 6., the 13 lead plaintiffs assert that
under the current, Louisiana's poor are routinely denied effective
and meaningful attorney representation during criminal trials and
therefore, "do not stand 'equal before the law.'"

Each of the plaintiffs is in jail and currently awaiting trial for
crimes that could keep them behind bars for years if not decades.

All say they have a court-appointed public defender "but the
representation they are receiving fails to meet minimum
constitutional or professional ethical standards by any measure."

The lawsuit says the plaintiffs have only met their attorneys in
passing, and that even then, their attorneys failed to speak with
them in any meaningful way about their cases.  Many of plaintiffs
do not even know the extent of the charges they face, the
complaint says.

The lawsuit goes on to say these experiences "are not unique and
are the product of the structural barriers to effective
representation in Louisiana."

The Louisiana public defender depends primarily on a "user-pay"
system of local fines and fees, such as traffic tickets, for
financial support.

The 42-page lawsuit calls the program "hopelessly underfunded," "a
systematic failure by any measure," "on the verge of collapse,"
"beyond the crisis stage," and "abysmal."

Eighty-five percent of people accused of a crime in Louisiana are
indigent, according to statistics from the Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights, that organization that brought the lawsuit along
with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Davis, Polk & Wardell LLP of
New York, and Jones Walker LLP of New Orleans.

"The state's failure to treat them equally under the law has
sweeping ramifications," Lawyers' Committee said in a news
release.

In addition to having the nation's highest incarceration rate,
Louisiana also has the dubious distinction of having the second-
highest wrongful conviction rate nationwide.

The class claims many of these cases are the clear result of a
lack of adequate funding for the program.

"No other state in the United States relies primarily on local
court fees and fines to fund public defender services."

In 2016, at least 33 of 42 public defender offices either stopped
accepting cases altogether or placed prospective clients -- most
of them currently in jail -- on a wait list for an extended time
period.

Although a lack of funds affects the entire class, blacks pay the
highest prices, the class action says.

While black people make up 32 percent of the population in
Louisiana, they represent nearly 70 percent of the prison
population.

A 2016 study of inmates in Orleans Parish Prison found that black
men were 53 percent more likely than white men to stay in jail
more than three days, and that they made up 86 percent of those
held in jail for more than a year.

The same study found that black men were 50 percent more likely
than white men to be arrested and black women were 55 percent more
likely than white women to be arrested.

Similarly statistics exist for marijuana arrests. Between 2010 and
2015, 85 percent of people arrested for a marijuana offense in New
Orleans were black, and of those charged with felony marijuana
possession, 94 percent were black.

Although public defender shortages and discrepancies between rich
and poor criminal defendants in New Orleans are startling, the
class action says, they are not unique to the Big Easy.

"Public defenders in 42 judicial districts in Louisiana
systematically fail to test the charges against their clients in a
meaningful way," the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Michael Carter, 27, has been in jail since August 2015
on firearm and other charges, and faces up to 20 years in jail,
according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the year and a
half he has been jailed, he has never received a visit from his
attorney.

"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," Carter said in a statement provided by
the SPLC.

"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," Mark Cunningham, a senior partner with Jones
Walker LLP, one of the filing attorneys, said in an emailed
statement. "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."

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 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 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," Kristen
Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law, said in an emailed statement. "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."

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 overseeing statewide legal services for the poor
in criminal cases. It also names the state's chief public
defender, James Dixon.

Gov. Edward's office did not reply to emailed requests for
comment.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Faces "Shenk" and "Patel" Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company is facing putative class
action lawsuits by Patricia A. Shenk and Jyotindra Patel, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the transition period
from October 1, 2016 to December 30, 2016.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Mark
Trudeau in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., No. 17-
cv-00145-EGS. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded
securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and
January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company
made false or misleading statements related to Acthar and
Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the
Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar revenues, and the exposure of Acthar to
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., No. 1:17-
cv-00171 was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes branded and
generic specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MDL 2196: Bassett Furniture Gets $1.4-Mil. from Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Bassett Furniture Industries, Incorporated, said in its Jan. 19,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 26, 2016, that cost
of furniture and accessories sold for the year includes the
benefit of $1,428,000 of income the Company received from the
settlement of a class action litigation.

The Company said: "This benefit is included in our wholesale
segment. We were a member of the certified class of consumers that
were plaintiffs in the Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation
against various producers of flexible polyurethane foam. The
litigation alleged a price-fixing conspiracy in the flexible
polyurethane foam industry that caused indirect purchasers to pay
higher prices for products that contain flexible polyurethane
foam. In 2015 a settlement was reached with several of the
producers, though other producers named in the suit filed appeals
blocking distribution of the settlement. In June of 2016 the final
producer appeal was dismissed and we received $1,428[,000] in cash
representing our share of the settlement, which is included in
cash provided by operating activities in our statement of cash
flows for the year ended November 26, 2016."

Bassett is a retailer, manufacturer and marketer of branded home
furnishings.  The Company's products are sold primarily through a
network of Company-owned and licensee-owned branded stores under
the Bassett Home Furnishings ("BHF") name, with additional
distribution through other wholesale channels including multi-line
furniture stores, many of which feature Bassett galleries or
design centers.  The Company was founded in 1902 and incorporated
under the laws of Virginia in 1930.


MDL 2672: Judge Narrows Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of
California, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2672 CRB (JSC)(N.D. Cal.), relating to: City of St. Clair
Shores, 15-6167 Travalio, 15-6168 George Leon Family Trust, 15-
6168 Charter Twp. of Clinton, 16-190 Wolfenbarger, 16-184.
Lead plaintiff Arkansas State Highway Employees' Retirement System
(ASHERS) and plaintiff Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund (Miami
Police), who represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased Volkswagen-sponsored Level 1 American Depositary
Receipts (ADRs) on an over-the-counter market in the United States
from November 19, 2010 through January 4, 2010 (the class period),
alleged that Volkswagen made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding its vehicles' compliance with emissions
regulations as well as the company's overall financial condition
that led to the decline in value of their ADRs.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit against corporate defendants
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaf; Volkswagen Group of America;
Volkswagen of America; and Audi of America, Inc., and individual
defendants Martin Winterkorn, former CEO and Chairman of the
Management Board of VW AG; Michael Horn, former President and CEO
of VWGoA, as well as President of the VWOA brand, from January
2014 to March 2016; Jonathan Browning, former President and CEO of
VWGoA from October 2010 to December 2013; and Herbert Diess, a
member of the Board of Management of VW AG and Chairman of the
Board of Management of the Volkswagen Passenger Cars Brand.

The Plaintiffs allege that Volkswagen effected a massive fraud
related to the compliance of its clean diesel vehicles, having
installed software defeat devices in 11 million vehicles sold
worldwide, including 580,000 sold in the United States, that
allowed the vehicles to meet emissions standards when undergoing
official testing even though the vehicles emitted up to 40 times
the legal limit of nitrous oxide (NOx) during normal operation.
Despite its knowledge that the vehicles did not comply with U.S.
and European emissions regulations, Volkswagen and its executives
misled the investing public before and during the class period by
assuring them to the contrary that the diesel vehicles met all
applicable emissions standards, including those in all 50 states
of the United States, the Plaintiffs said.  Volkswagen also
understated the liabilities that it would suffer as a result of
its known emissions non-compliance, including at least $18 billion
in fines that it potentially faced for violations of the Clean Air
Act alone, the Plaintiffs added.

Once the truth was revealed in September 2015, Volkswagen's share
prices were negatively affected, resulting in a $63-billion drop
in Volkswagen's market capitalization.  Volkswagen's fraudulent
conduct caused the price of the ordinary ADRs to decline from
$38.03 per ADR on September 17, 2015, the day before the
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board announced the emissions cheating scandal, to $28.34 per ADR
on January 5, 2016; the price of Volkswagen's preference ADRs
similarly declined from $38.05 per ADR on September 17, 2015 to
$26.16 per ADR on January 5, 2016, the lawsuit stated.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other equitable
relief from Volkswagen for violations of Securities Exchange Act
Section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 because defendants made untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make their statements not misleading with regards to
Volkswagen's financial condition as well as the defeat devices
that Volkswagen installed in its clean diesel cars in order to
give the appearance of compliance with various emissions standards
in the United States and in the European Union. The Plaintiffs
also allege that VW AG and the Individual defendants are liable
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for Volkswagen's
fraudulent conduct as controlling persons of the various Corporate
Defendants.

The Defendants collectively move to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint on five grounds: (1) the plaintiffs' claims fall outside
the territorial reach of Section 10(b) under the Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247
(2010); (2) the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens
grounds because Germany is the superior forum for resolution of
the plaintiffs' claims; (3) the plaintiffs failed to adequately
plead facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendants
acted with scienter; (4) the misstatements or omissions the
plaintiffs identified were merely aspirational and not actionable
under Section 10(b); and (5) plaintiffs failed to plead control
person liability under Section 20(a). Diess and Winterkorn each
also separately move to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  In sum, defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims under the Supreme Court's
Morrison decision is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss on
forum non conveniens is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to adequately plead scienter is granted in part as to
Diess and Browning and is otherwise denied. Defendants' motion to
dismiss because the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were
merely aspirational is granted in part as to Volkswagen's
understatement of its financial liabilities and is otherwise
denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 20(a)
control person claims is granted in part as to Diess, Horn, and
Browning and is otherwise denied and Winterkorn's and Diess's
individual motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
are denied.

The court gives the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
Plaintiffs must file a new amended complaint within 30 days of the
order.

A copy of Judge Breyer's order dated January 4, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/5gCngK from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Thomas
E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet --
waudet@audetlaw.com -- at Audet & Partners, LLP; Jeff D. Friedman
-- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com --
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Thomas E. Loeser --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- at Law Office of Peter
Fredman

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com --
at Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro --
tshapiro@shulaw.com -- at Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Charles S. Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed LLP
Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- David S. Stellings -- dstellings@lchb.com --
Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Nicholas Diamand --
ndiamand@lchb.com -- Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen -- pgnguyen@lchb.com --
Todd A. Walburg -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback LLP
Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Dean Noburu Kawamoto --
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek William Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com -
- at Keller Rohrback LLP

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Dean Noburu Kawamoto --
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek William Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com -
- at Keller Rohrback LLP

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Niki L. Mendoza --
nikim@blbglaw.com -- Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP; Matthew I. Henzi --
mhenzi@swappc.com -- at Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton P.C.; Susan
Rebbeca Podolsky -- at The Law Offices of Susan R Podolsky
Linda Babinski, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP
Chaan William Beard, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP
Steven Yell, Plaintiff, represented by Celene S. Chan, Kasdan
LippSmith Weber Turner LLP, Frank A. Perez, Kasdan LippSmith Weber
Turner LLP, Graham Bruce LippSmith, Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner
LLP & Kenneth S. Kasdan, Kasdan Simonds et al LLP

Christopher Bricker, Plaintiff, represented by David F. Sugerman,
David F. Sugerman Attorney, PC, Gabriel A. Hawkins, Cohen & Malad,
LLP, Irwin B. Levin, Cohen Malad LLP, Lynn A. Toops, Cohen and
Malad LLP, Richard E. Shevitz, Cohen and Malad & Tim A. Quenelle,
Tim Quenelle PC

Danijela Bjelic, Plaintiff, represented by Damien J. Marshall,
Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Boies, Boies
Schiller and Flexner, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller, The Miller
Law Firm, P.C., Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott E. Gant, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice, Sharon S. Almonrode, Stephen N. Zack, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP


METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces "Bushansky" Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------- -----------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of shareholders
filed a federal lawsuit in Detroit to stop a vote on metal parts
maker Metaldyne's proposed $1.6 billion sale to American Axle &
Manufacturing, claiming they don't have enough relevant financial
information for an informed vote.

The lead plaintiff is Stephen Bushansky, and the defendants are
Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., George Thanopoulos, Kevin Penn,
Loren Easton, Michael Fisch, Nick Bhambri, William Jackson,
Jeffrey Stafeil and John Pearson Smith.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf  of Himself
and All Others Similarly  Situated,  Plaintiff,  v.  METALDYNE
PERFORMANCE GROUP INC., GEORGE THANOPOULOS, KEVIN PENN, LOREN
EASTON, MICHAEL FISCH, NICK BHAMBRI, WILLIAM JACKSON, JEFFREY
STAFEIL and JOHN PEARSON SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10508-
MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich. February 16, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, New York 10036
     Tel: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010

          - and -

     Sara K. MacWilliams, Esq.
     MACWILLIAMS LAW PC
     6663 Bloomfield Lane
     West Bloomfield, MI 48322
     Tel: (248) 514-5399


MICHIGAN, USA: Ongori Appeals W.D. Mich. Ruling to Sixth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vincent Ongori filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Vincent Ongori v. Rebecca Adducci, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00224, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan at Marquette.

Rebecca Adducci is a Field Office Director at Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Timothy P. Greeley entered denied a motion in support of
certification of class.

Judge Greeley said, "In the report and recommendation that was
issued on December 14, 2016, the [Court] determined that
Petitioners did not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), which requires
that the class have a class representative that will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Because Petitioners
are proceeding pro se, they cannot fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class. (Generally, pro se prisoners cannot
adequately represent a class.)"

The appellate case is captioned as Vincent Ongori v. Rebecca
Adducci, et al., Case No. 17-1146, pending in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Petitioner-Appellant VINCENT ONGORI, for themselves and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, is currently
incarcerated at Chippewa County Jail, in Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan.  He appears pro se.

Respondents-Appellees REBECCA ADDUCCI, Field Office Director;
DETROIT IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL; JEH
JOHNSON, Homeland Security Secretary; JUAN P. OSUNA, Director,
Executive Office for Immigrative Review; and [UNKNOWN] STANAWAY,
Lieutenant Warden Chippewa County Jail, are represented by:

          Michael L. Shiparski, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          P.O. Box 208
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501
          Telephone: (616) 456-2404
          E-mail: mike.shiparski@usdoj.gov



MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Contests Airbag Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the
Company's Atmel subsidiary intends to contest plaintiffs' claims
in the case, In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability
Litigation.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)
against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The
Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and
Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law
alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased
vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating
allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits
manufactured by the Company's Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and
2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in
the value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs
are seeking, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and other relief. The Company's Atmel subsidiary
intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Guerrini Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that an
appeal in the Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry
Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees remains pending.

On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "District Court") against the Company's Atmel
subsidiary, French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel
Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case
purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer
manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's
subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than three
years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August 21,
2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief
from the dismissal judgment.


MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Interlock GPS Tracking Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KSTP reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on Feb. 21 claims
plaintiffs weren't told that interlock devices they were required
to install had been equipped with GPS tracking devices.

The suit was filed against the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety and three manufacturers of the interlock devices.

Several KSTP stories are included as exhibits.

The plaintiffs claim they were forced to install new ignition
interlock systems in their cars, but were not told by DPS or the
interlock manufacturers that the new devices have GPS tracking
capabilities.

Under Minnesota law, DUI offenders -- in some cases -- have the
option of using the ignition interlock system as part of their
sentences after conviction.

The interlock system requires drivers pass a breathalyzer test
before their cars will start with the ignition interlock.

But the plaintiffs contend they did not agree to GPS tracking
capabilities within the interlock devices as part of their
sentences.

"We believe the U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in
previous rulings that GPS tracking by the government is
unconstitutional, and there are only limited instances where it is
allowed," said Dan Koewler, an attorney representing the
plaintiffs.  "And in those instances a search warrant is
required."

And, Mr. Koewler said, "there is no evidence from DPS that shows
they are taking measures to ensure the collected GPS data, which
records every move made by the ignition interlock user, is being
stored with adequate protection.

"We think this is unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution," Mr. Koewler said.

A DUI offender and GPS interlock user who did not want to use her
name said, "This is not what I agreed to as part of my conviction
and sentence, and if I am paying for my mistake then I think they
should have to pay for their mistake."

Right now, there are two bills moving through the state
Legislature that would end the GPS tracking capabilities in the
ignition interlock program.

One of the interlock makers has also sued DPS over this issue.

KSTP contacted DPS for comment, but the agency said it does not
comment on lawsuits.  In past stories, DPS has said it is not
collecting and storing the GPS information on DUI offenders, and
has no intention of using the data.

The agency said collection and storage of the GPS data is handled
by the interlock manufacturers.


NOODLES & COMPANY: To Defend Against Selco Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the Selco Litigation.

The Company is the defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
Selco Community Credit Union vs. Noodles & Company, alleging that
the Company negligently failed to provide adequate security to
protect the payment card information of customers of the
plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated credit unions,
banks and other financial institutions alleged to be part of the
putative class, causing those institutions to suffer financial
losses (the "Selco Litigation"). The complaint in the Selco
Litigation also claims the Company was negligent per se based on
alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act, and it seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Selco Litigation. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential losses
that will be associated with the Selco Litigation because it is at
an early stage.

Noodles & Company is a fast-casual restaurant chain where its
globally inspired dishes come together to create a World Kitchen.


NUVASIVE INC: Dec. 18 Trial in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that trial has been set for
December 18, 2017, in the securities litigation.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case
("Plaintiff"), filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered
the complaint on August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding.

Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October 28,
2016 and the Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9,
2017. Trial has been set for December 18, 2017.

At December 31, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of
potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an
accrual related to this litigation.

Nuvasive is a medical device company in the global spine surgery
market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive surgical
products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine surgery.


OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Cir. Wants Bozic to Voluntarily Junk Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed
Appellant Regina Bozic to file a voluntary dismissal of the appeal
entitled REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HENNY DEN
UIJL; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-55135, or show
cause why it should not be dismissed.

"A review of the district court docket demonstrates that this case
is not governed by Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. Therefore, this appeal
shall proceed in the usual course," according to the Ninth
Circuit's order.

"In addition, a review of the record suggests that the court may
lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Pacific Car & Foundry Co.
v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1968) ("[O]rders respecting
venue entered under Section 1404(a) . . . are interlocutory in
nature and are not appealable prior to final judgment.")," the
Ninth Circuit added.

The Ninth Circuit, hence, directed the Appellant, within 21 days
after the date of the Order, to move for voluntary dismissal of
the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction.  If the Appellant elects to show cause, a
response may be filed within 10 days after service of the
memorandum.

If the Appellant does not comply with the Order, the Clerk of
Court will dismiss the appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1.
Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2017, the
District Court case was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento).  The
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00222-MCE-
EFB to the proceeding, and was assigned to Hon. District Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr.

Henny Den Uijl is a citizen of California and a resident of San
Diego County.  Den Uijl is a managing member/owner of Obesity
Research Institute.

Obesity Research offers dietary supplements for weight loss.


ORACLE CORP: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk "Troudt"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado recommends that the superseding
motion to dismiss the case captioned, DEBORAH TROUDT, BRAD STAUF,
SUSAN CUTSFORTH, WAYNE SELTZER, MICHAEL HARKIN, MIRIAM WAGNER, and
MICHAEL FOY, individually and as representatives of a class of
plan participants, on behalf of the Oracle Corporation 401(k)
Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION,
ORACLE CORPORATION 401(K) COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20.
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00175-REB-CBS (D. Colo.), be denied.

The putative class action commenced on January 22, 2016, with the
filing of the Complaint asserting claims against Oracle
Corporation, the Oracle Corporation 401(k) Committee and John Does
1-20. The named Plaintiffs are participants in the Oracle
Corporation 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan (the Plan), which
is an "employee pension benefit plan" under 29 U.S.C. Section
1002(2)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA). The Plan, as of December, 2014, purportedly held more
than $12 billion in assets and had 65,732 participants. During the
relevant time period, Fidelity Management Trust Company was the
Plan trustee appointed by Oracle and responsible for providing
record keeping and administrative services to the Plan pursuant to
the 2004 Trust Agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their
[fiduciary] duty in two primary respects: (1) causing the Plan to
pay unreasonable administrative expenses; and (2) providing three
investment options that consistently underperformed and did not
justify their selection or retention in the Plan.

In moving to dismiss, the Defendants insist that the Plaintiffs'
first claim for excessive fees and revenue-sharing fails because
revenue-sharing is "perfectly legal" and because "nothing in ERISA
requires fiduciaries to solicit bids for record keeping services"
through a competitive process.  The Defendants argue that the
second claim in Plaintiffs' Complaint is "predicated entirely, and
impermissibly, on hindsight." The Defendants contend that claim
three fails because claims one and two fail to assert cognizable
claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Similarly, Defendants argue that claim
four must be dismissed because Plaintiffs "have not plausibly
alleged Fidelity was overpaid for recordkeeping or trustee
services" and because "a mutual fund is not a party in interest."
The pending motion was referred to this magistrate judge by Judge
Robert E. Blackburn for a Report and Recommendation.

In a Recommendation dated February 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/RNSOHK from Leagle.com, Magistrate Shaffer held that
the Plaintiffs have met their pleading obligations and that the
legal and factual merits of the Plaintiffs' claims are better
resolved on a fuller factual record, either in the context of a
motion for summary judgment or at trial.  Accordingly, the
magistrate recommends that the Defendants' Superseding Motion be
denied.

Brad Stauf, et al. are represented by:

      Heather Lea, Esq.
      James Redd, Esq.
      Kurt Charles Struckhoff, Esq.
      Michael Armin Wolff, Esq.
      Troy Andrew Doles, Esq.
      Jerome Joseph Schlichter, Esq.
      SCHLICHTERBOGARD AND DENTON, LLP
      100 South Fourth Street
      Suite 1200
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Tel: (314)621-8102
      sbd@uselaws.com
Oracle Corporation, et al. are represented by Brian T. Ortelere,
Esq. -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Christopher Joseph
Boran, Esq. -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com -- and -- Jeremy
P. Blumenfeld, Esq. -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS &BOCKIUS, LLP -- William Craig Berger, Esq. --
bberger@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Cho" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. continues to defend against the case
captioned, Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 8, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 28, 2016, a putative securities
class action captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-07371, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Securities Case"). The
Securities Case asserts claims allegedly relating to our
disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, we received a
Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC as part of its
investigation to determine whether we, through our Venmo service,
have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act."

"The Securities Case purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of eBay's stock on or after December 19, 2013 who
subsequently received the Company's stock pursuant to eBay's spin-
off of the Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or
purchasers of the Company's stock between July 20, 2015 and April
28, 2016, and asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, and former interim Chief Financial Officer, and eBay and
certain of its former officers, including the Chairman of our
Board of Directors.

"The Securities Case alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omissions regarding our compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, including the failure to
disclose that we were purportedly engaging in unfair trade
practices through our Venmo service and that as a result of
alleged false and misleading statements or omissions, our stock
traded at artificially inflated prices.  The Securities Case seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class
members.

"We believe the claims and allegations in the Securities Case are
without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in January 2015
and is a technology platform and digital payments company that
enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants worldwide.


PERFORMANCE FOOD: To Settle "Wilder" Case for $2.3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in the case
captioned, Wilder, et al. v. Roma Food Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
the Company has indicated its non-binding agreement to settle the
lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3 million.

The Company said, "In October 2014, three former delivery drivers
who worked in our former Roma of New Jersey warehouse in
Piscataway, New Jersey filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County
against us. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of
delivery drivers who worked in our Roma, broadline and Vistar
facilities in New Jersey from October 2012 to the present that,
under New Jersey state law, we failed to pay minimum wages and
overtime compensation to the delivery drivers in these facilities.
The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) award of unpaid
minimum wages and overtime under New Jersey state law; (2) an
injunction preventing us from committing the alleged violation;
(3) a declaration from the court that the alleged violations were
knowing and willful; (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
(5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

"The case is in the preliminary phases of discovery, and no class
has been certified. The plaintiffs have expressed their desire to
include temporary delivery drivers in the alleged class; however,
the court has not ruled as to whether those temporary workers may
join the lawsuit.

"On October 4, 2016, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs,
and on October 25, 2016, we indicated our non-binding agreement to
settle the lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3
million, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement
agreement and receipt of court approval of that agreement. As of
December 31, 2016 the Company has accrued $2.3 million for this
settlement."


PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Laumea" Case Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in the case
captioned, Laumea v. Performance Food Group, Inc., the court has
entered a final order approving the Stipulation for Settlement and
Release of Class Action Claims on December 16, 2016. The final
order will take effect after the expiration of a sixty-day appeal
period. The parties do not expect an appeal will be filed; thus,
the Company anticipates funding the $1.4 million settlement once
the final order takes effect.


PHELPS COUNTY, NE: Marsh Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronda L. Marsh filed an appeal from a memorandum & order and
judgment both dated January 6, 2017, entered in the lawsuit
entitled Ronda Marsh v. Phelps County, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-
03032-CRZ,(D. Neb.).

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronda Marsh v. Phelps County,
et al., Case No. 17-1260, filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on March 15, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant Ronda L. Marsh is due on March 15, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronda L. Marsh, and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Joy Shiffermiller, Esq.
          SHIFFERMILLER LAW OFFICE P.C. L.L.O.
          1002 G Street
          Lincoln, NE 68508-0000
          Telephone: (402) 484-7700
          E-mail: joy@shiffermillerLaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Phelps County; Gene Samuelson, Individually
and in his official capacity as Sheriff; Penny Gregg, Individually
and in her official capacity as Phelps County Correctional
Lieutenant; and Louis P. Campana, in his official capacity, are
represented by:

          Brandy Rae Johnson, Esq.
          Vincent Valentino, Esq.
          VALENTINO LAW OFFICE
          Nebraska Telephone Building
          130 S. 13th Street, Suite 300
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 742-9240
          Facsimile: (402) 742-9250


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Nodine" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Plains All American Pipeline apologized for a 2015 oil spill in
Madison County, Illinois, but hasn't paid homeowners who were
injured by it, three residents of Highland claim in a federal
class action in East St. Louis, Ill.

Kevin Nodine et al. sued Plains All American Pipeline on Thursday
for the July 10, 2015 pipeline rupture at the Pocahontas Pump
Station, which sent more than 4,000 gallons of crude oil into
waterways in and around Highland, a city of 9,800. The oil drained
into Silver Lake, a 574-acre water body that provides drinking
water to Highland and several surrounding villages.

Plains All American was aware of erosion issues at the pump
station eight days before the spill, the complaint states:
"Despite having knowledge of the leakage, defendants failed to
make immediate repairs on the containment dike at the Pocahontas
Pump Station."

Silver Lake was closed to recreational use for 12 days due to the
spill and the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and
Hazardous Material Safety Administration shut down the Pocahontas
pipeline, finding that continued operation would be hazardous to
life, property, and the environment without immediate corrective
actions.

Analysis showed inadequate maintenance, improper tubing and faulty
work by contractors as contributing factors to the spill, the
plaintiffs say.

"Defendants not only had a pattern and practice of shoddy safety
and maintenance procedures on their pipelines, they had knowledge
that the failure to properly maintain their pipelines creates a
substantial threat of a discharge of oil that can cause damage to
plaintiffs and the environment," the lawsuit states.

"This is not the first time defendants' negligent and unlawful
conduct has resulted in a devastating oil spill. On May 19, 2015,
defendants' negligence resulted in a corroded pipeline rupturing
and spilling approximately 101,000 gallons of crude oil along the
Gaviota coast in Santa Barbara, California. Nearly 21,000 gallons
made its way through a storm culvert out into the Pacific Ocean."

Plains Pipeline's issues go back even further, according to the
class action. On Aug. 10, 2010, the Department of Justice said the
defendants had agreed to pay $41 million to upgrade 10,420 miles
of crude oil pipelines in response to 10 oil spills in Texas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kansas.

"The July 2015 Highland oil spill, California oil spill and other
oil spills are clear examples of defendants putting profit over
safety at the expense of innocent people and wildlife as these
spills resulted from the unlawful acts and negligence of
Defendants, and their failure to properly maintain and inspect
their equipment to prevent these spills," the complaint states.

Plains Pipeline said in an email that it does not comment on
pending litigation.

The plaintiffs claim the Highland spill continues to harm the
environment and has diminished property values. In Highland alone,
30 miles northeast of St. Louis, the spill has affected 380
residential and 120 agricultural parcels, the complaint states.

They seek class certification of all people and businesses
affected by the spill and punitive damages for trespass,
negligence, public nuisance and continuing private nuisance.

They are represented by John Driscoll in St. Louis, who was
unavailable for comment.


PRESTIGE DELIVERY: "Watson" Remanded to Pa. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Bissoon of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania granted motion to remand to the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the case
captioned, RICHARD WATSON and DAVID CLARY, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRESTIGE DELIVERY
SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-1823 (W.D Pa.).

On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff Richard Watson filed a class
action complaint against Defendants Prestige and NICA in the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Over the course of the
litigation, Plaintiffs amended the complaint three times. The
operative complaint is the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed by
Plaintiffs on February 27, 2012. Each iteration of the complaint
contains an allegation that defines the class as including: all
Pennsylvania residents who worked for Prestige Delivery Systems as
package pick-up and delivery drivers in Pennsylvania, and who were
designated by Defendants as independent contractors "during the
period September 10, 2006 to the present." Furthermore, each
iteration of the complaint (with the exception of the original
complaint), contains a provision stating that "the value of the
matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000."

On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification which
was granted on March 24, 2016 as to Counts II and V of the Fourth
Amended Complaint.

On December 6, 2016, Prestige filed its Notice of Removal.
Prestige asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over this case
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d) because the amount of damages in dispute now exceeds $5
million.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand on January 5,
2017. Although the Plaintiffs do not contest that federal
jurisdiction exists under CAFA, they argue that Prestige's removal
of this action was untimely. In addition, the Plaintiffs request
payment of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c).

In a Memorandum and Order dated February 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/3vTL2x from Leagle.com, Judge Bissoon held that
removal is untimely because Prestige knew that the Plaintiffs
sought to certify a class that covered the period 2006 to the
present and, thus, that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million, years before it filed its Notice of Removal.  The Court
will not exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees and
costs in the case finding that Prestige had a reasonable basis for
seeking removal.

Richard Watson and David Clary are represented by:

       Evalynn B. Welling, Esq.
       Megan Lovett, Esq.
       COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
       3000 Biscayne Blvd #106
       Miami, FL 33137
       Tel: (305)907-7697

            -- and --

       Margaret J. Fried, Esq.
       FRIED LAW OFFICES, PC
       50 North, 5th Street
       Brooklyn, NY 11249
       Tel: (347)262-5412

Prestige Delivery Systems, Inc. is represented by Dean F.
Falavolito, Esq. -- Dean.Falavolito@jacksonlewis.com -- and --
Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq. -- Mariah.McGrogan@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference for March 29 in "Barahona"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in the case,
Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California Class
Action), the court has set another status conference for March 29,
2017 to, among other things, review the status of documents and
determine whether discovery should continue.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of
herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under
California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along
with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class
were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,
including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among
others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for
work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly
employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant
and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny
that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members
in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations
based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and
legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the
Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the
Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not
believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since,
among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains
highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the
Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be
characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant
Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record; (iii)
wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for
amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the
uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these
types of cases to trial; and (iv) Plaintiff has indicated her
desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement.
Plaintiff admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to
prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she
needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities,
and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of
their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which was
continued until January 2017 so the parties could attempt to
obtain the necessary documents. While Radiant has made progress in
obtaining documents and records, such documents and records are
incomplete in certain respects and the parties continue to dispute
whether such complete records exist. The court set another status
conference for March 29, 2017 to, among other things, review the
status of documents and determine whether discovery should
continue. At this time, the Company is unable to express an
opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter.


RAMSEY'S MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Metairie jewelry company has filed a class-action lawsuit against
a Chicago based company over allegations it sent unwanted junk
faxes.

Ramsey's Manufacturing Jewelers LLC and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed a complaint on Feb. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Berco
Watch and Jewelers Supply Co. Inc. alleging that the Chicago based
company violated the Junk Fax Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
Dec. 10, 2016, and Dec. 17, 2016, plaintiff received unsolicited
advertisements to its facsimile telephone machine.  As a result,
plaintiff alleges it suffered disruption, annoyance and cost of
fax paper and toner.  The plaintiff holds Berco Watch and Jewelers
Supply Co. Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly sent
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission without
plaintiff's prior express invitation or permission and failed to
comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying the action as a class action, appointing plaintiff as
class representative and its counsel as class counsel, award for
its efforts as class representative, statutory damages in the
amount of $500 for each violation of the act, plus interest, costs
of litigation and such other relief that is just and proper.  It
is represented by George B. Recile, Preston L. Hayes, Ryan P.
Monsour, Matthew A. Sherman, Patrick R. Follette and Adam M.
Stumpf of Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Griffith,
Stakelum & Hayes LLP in Metairie.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-01136


SAFE SECURITY: ICV Wins Bid to Dismiss "Bedient"
------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned LINDSEY BEDIENT, Plaintiff, v. SAFE SECURITY INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-02256 (N.D. Ohio)

SAFE Security Inc., is a Delaware corporation and has its place of
business in San Ramon, California.  Safe, Inc. is a holding
company for Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, LLC (Safe, LP) a
California limited liability company that also resides in San
Ramon, California and sells products like alarm systems and does
business as Safe Security.

Safe, LP contracts with Callvation, LLC (Callvation), a Florida
limited liability company based in Hollywood Florida to place
marketing calls on its behalf. Callvation generates customer lists
but does not complete calls until after Safe, LP reviews the lists
and uses an automated dialer and prerecorded messages.

Plaintiff Lindsey Bedient an Ohio resident alleges that she
received four automated, prerecorded calls to her cellular
telephone soliciting Safe Security services, including alarm
systems. Since December 2004, Bedient's phone number has been on
the national Do Not Call Registry.

On August 8, 2016, Bedient filed a class action lawsuit against
Safe Inc. and ICV Partners, LLC in the Lorain County Common Pleas
Court. Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of
Ohio on September 9, 2016. On November 11, 2016, Bedient amended
her complaint to include additional defendants Security Alarm
Financing Enterprises, L.P. and Callvation, LLC

Bedient brought a class action lawsuit against the defendants
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) and argued that defendants made
prerecorded and autodialed calls to people who have not given
their consent and also to people who have registered for the
federal Do Not Call Registry.  Bedient also sues ICV Partners,
LLC, a private equity firm with offices in Georgia and New York,
alleging that ICV's website and various press releases state that
ICV "acquired" Safe, Inc. in 2012. Plaintiff also states that ICV
controls and has representatives on Safe, Inc.'s board of
directors.

On October 7, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the case
to the Northern District of California and argued that convenience
favors transfer because most witnesses and relevant records are
located with Safe, Inc. and Safe, LP in California. Defendants
also argue that plaintiff's preferred venue deserves little weight
because she brings a nationwide class action. On November 23,
2016, ICV filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
for failure to state a claim.

ICV argues that the complaint allegations against it that ICV
acquired Safe, Inc. in 2012 and controls Safe, Inc's board are
false. And, even if true, ICV argues that such allegations do not
support ICV's direct or indirect liability. ICV also argued that
it is neither directly nor vicariously liable for the alleged
phone calls.

Bedient responds that ICV is answerable for Safe, Inc., a partner
and guarantor of Safe, LP. Thus, ICV is liable for Safe, LP's
contracted phone calls under agency principles.

Judge Gwin held that a shift of inconvenience from one party to
the other is not sufficient reason for a transfer, accordingly,
the motion to transfer is denied.  Judge Gwin granted ICV's motion
to dismiss.  Judge Gwin held that the plaintiff does not
successfully plead a principal-agent relationship between ICV and
Safe, Inc.  A parent corporation generally is not liable for the
acts of its subsidiary, even if its subsidiary is wholly owned.
ICV's acquisition of Safe, Inc. cannot independently trigger
vicarious liability, the judge held.  Furthermore, the plaintiff's
allegation that ICV has general control over Safe, Inc. is
insufficient.  the Plaintiff does not allege that ICV had any
knowledge of or ordered the alleged calls. Without allegations
that ICV directed Safe, Inc. or Safe, LP or Callvation to act on
ICV's behalf and make the alleged phone calls, plaintiff's agency
claim fails, Judge Gwin further held.

A copy of Judge Gwin's opinion and order dated January 10, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/o0VHgj from Leagle.com.

Lindsey Bedient, Plaintiff, represented by:

   James S. Wertheim, Esq.
   Michael L. Berler, Esq.
   FREDERICK & BERLER
   The Standard, 767 E 185th St.
   Cleveland, OH 44119
   Tel: 216-502-1055

Safe Security, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colleen C. Murnane
-- cmurnane@frantzward.com -- Gregory R. Farkas --
gfarkas@frantzward.com -- ay Frantz Ward

Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P., Defendant, represented
by Gregory R. Farkas -- gfarkas@frantzward.com -- ay Frantz Ward


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc., awaits decision on its motion to dismiss
a securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, the Company
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 17, 2017, for the fiscal year ended October
31, 2016.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of
Finance and Treasurer). As amended, the lawsuit claims in part
that the Company issued inaccurate information to investors about,
among other things, the Company's earnings and income and its
internal controls over financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and
the first and second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an
award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative
class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between January 12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive.

The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 18, 2016.

Shiloh Industries, Inc., is a Delaware corporation incorporated in
1993.  The Company is a leading global supplier of lightweighting,
noise and vibration solutions to the automotive, commercial
vehicle and industrial markets.  The Company, headquartered in
Valley City, Ohio, has a global network of manufacturing
operations and technical centers in Asia, Europe and North
America.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Bag Fee Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants' appeal of
the class certification decision is ongoing.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated
action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add
claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on
competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount
of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as
attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. The parties engaged in
extensive discovery, and discovery has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity.

On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment
on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. The parties filed motions
to exclude the opinions of the other parties' experts on class
certification and on the merits.

On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts.

On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta
from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which
AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants submitted a
petition to appeal the class certification decision, which the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted on October 7,
2016, and the appeal is ongoing.

Defendants' motions for summary judgment have been submitted for
decision and are still pending. AirTran denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert. Bid & Discovery Due April 27
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has entered a
case management schedule that calls for discovery to be completed,
and for plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification, by
April 27, 2018.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to
bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines
from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a case management schedule
that calls for discovery to be completed, and for plaintiffs to
file a motion for class certification, by April 27, 2018. The
Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend these civil cases.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Discontinue Ontario Case Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an initial case
conference in the Ontario litigation was held on January 27, 2017,
and the case managing judge scheduled a motion to discontinue that
proceeding as to the Company for March 10, 2017.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and Canada.
Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court and British Columbia and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with
the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British
Columbia, and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia. On September 28, 2016, the plaintiff
filed a motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the
Company and to stay that proceeding against the other defendants.

An initial case conference in the Ontario litigation was held on
January 27, 2017, and the case managing judge scheduled a motion
to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company for March 10,
2017. The time for the Company to respond to the remaining
complaints has not yet expired.

The plaintiffs in the remaining complaints generally seek damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants
as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and other costs. The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend these civil cases in
Canada.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Half-Priced Mobile Phone Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
lure of half-priced mobile phone service was only a mirage, a
California woman says in a $5 million federal class action in Los
Angeles against Sprint Communications.

Los Angeles County resident Sylvia Nixon says Sprint defrauded at
least 100 California consumers with false promises to entice them
to switch cellular service providers.

"Such representations was part of a common scheme to mislead
consumers and incentivize them to purchase telephone services in
spite of the inhibition brought about by the difficulty of
installing them," Nixon says in the Feb. 13 complaint.

Nixon says she agreed to Sprint's terms and changed cellular
service providers in November 2014. She says a Sprint salesperson
told her and others that their phone bills would be half the cost
of their then-current service, and that Sprint would pay the
termination fee and give her three prepaid Visa cards with $350 on
each.

But after she changed to Sprint, Nixon says, it did not pay her
termination fee, it charged far more than 50 percent of her
previous bills, and gave her just two of the three Visa cards.

She says she paid a $1,500 termination fee from her prior service
provider, and Sprint charged her for the two Visa cards she did
get.

Eventually, in May 2016, Sprint terminated Nixon's phone service
and never provided any of the services offered to her, she says.

Nixon says Sprint caused the class to lose money via a "'scheme
with the intent not to sell that personal property or those
services'" as advertised.

Sprint did not take reasonable steps to inform consumers that the
advertised goods and services were not part of the deal and
deceived them, Nixon says.

And, she says, Sprint "persists and continues to engage in these
practice and will not cease doing so unless and until forced to do
so by this court."

She seeks class certification, restitution, at least $5 million in
damages for false advertising and unfair business practices,
punitive damages and a court order requiring Sprint to correct its
advertising.

Sprint media relations did not respond to an email request for
comment on Thursday.

Class attorney Todd Friedman of Woodland Hills was not immediately
available by telephone.

The case is captioned, SYLVIA NIXON, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly  situated, Plaintiff, vs. SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01149 (C.D.
Cal., February 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Sylvia Nixon:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


TENNESSEE: Judge OKs Request to Expand Solitary Confinement Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily News Journal's Michelle Willard and The Tennessean's Anita
Wadhwani, report that a federal judge approved on Feb. 17 a
request to expand the possible plaintiffs in a suit to end the use
of solitary confinement for children by the Tennessee Department
of Children's Services and the Rutherford County Juvenile
Detention Center.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger in Nashville ruled on Feb. 17 in
favor of a request by American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee
attorney Tom Castelli to expand the class by potentially hundreds
of plaintiffs.

In July, Mr. Castelli requested certification for a class action
suit against the state and the county to "all current and future
juveniles detained in any facility licensed by the Tennessee
Department of Children's Services, including the Rutherford County
Juvenile Detention Center."

Judge Trauger partially granted his request.

"The court will certify a class of all juveniles detained in the
Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center who are or were placed
in solitary confinement or isolation for punitive reasons from
April 15, 2015, to present," Judge Traguer wrote in her opinion.

Court documents reveal that 1,339 juveniles were detained at the
Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center from July 1, 2015, to
June 30, 2016.

During a six month period with that year, 128 juveniles were
placed in isolation from March 17, 2016, to Oct. 7, 2016, based on
the facility's behavioral management policy, meaning for
disciplinary or punitive reasons.

The 128 juveniles, plus others, could possibly join the class
action lawsuit because of this ruling.

Attorneys for the family told The Tennessean they are seeking an
end to the practice of "lock down" -- or solitary confinement as
punishment or discipline -- for the 15-year-old boy as well as all
children who are awaiting trial or who have a mental illness.

The case was filed in April 2016 by Sharieka Frazier on behalf of
her 15-year-old son who had been placed in isolation for 23 hours
per day for five days, starting April 20, 2016, at the Rutherford
County Juvenile Detention Center.

Later that same month, the ACLU joined the suit.

The 15-year-old boy with developmental disabilities was released
from isolation after U.S. District Court Judge Todd Campbell
ordered his release.

According to The Tennessean, a Rutherford County Juvenile Court
Judge Donna Scott Davenport ordered a mental health evaluation on
March 18, 2016, for the boy after his arrest for aggravated
robbery, but that did not take place until after he was released
from confinement.

Detention center officials acknowledged the boy likely suffered
from some form of mental illness, according to a lawsuit filed in
federal court by the boy's mother.

"If you locked your child in a closet you would go to jail,"
Mr. Castelli, legal director for the ACLU of Tennessee, said in a
news release.

"The government cannot lock children in isolation like this with
next to no standards or regulations," he said.  "Sometimes
children make mistakes, and the best thing we can do for them is
focus on rehabilitating them so that they can become productive
members of society, not mistreating them and causing long-term
damage."

At the time the suit was filed, a spokesman for DCS declined to
comment on pending litigation.

DCS has developed strict guidelines about the use of confinement
in its state-run Youth Developmental Centers, but those guidelines
do not extend to county juvenile detention facilities. DCS
certifies those facilities to house youth deemed delinquent while
DCS finds a placement for them -- at a Youth Development Center, a
group home, foster home, or other setting.


TERRAFORM POWER: Status Report on Mediation by March 17
-------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a
securities class action are to file a status report on the
mediation by March 17, 2017.

On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal
securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and two of
its former officers (one of which was also a director of the
Company) asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf
of a putative class. The Complaint alleges that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including
with respect to disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal
controls and the Company's reliance on SunEdison. An amended
complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former officer and
director of the Company were added as defendants.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was
held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The
Court entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict
litigation to mediate and entered a partial stay of all
proceedings through March 31, 2017. The parties are to file a
status report on the mediation by March 17, 2017.

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate
resolution of this proceeding, the Company believes each of the
allegations in this complaint are without merit and intends to
contest these allegations vigorously.

TerraForm Power, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a dividend growth-
oriented company formed to own and operate contracted clean power
generation assets. The Company's business objective is to acquire
assets with high-quality contracted cash flows, primarily from
owning clean power generation assets serving utility, commercial
and residential customers. The Company's portfolio consists of
renewable energy facilities located in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and Chile with a combined nameplate capacity
of 2,983.1 MW as of December 31, 2016.


TILE SHOP: Settlement Reached in Beaver County Employees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 8-K/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2017, that the
amendment to the Current Report on its previously filed Form 8-K
is being submitted solely to include Exhibit 10.1, which was
inadvertently omitted from the Form 8-K.  No additional amendments
to the Form 8-K are made by this Amendment.

Exhibit 10.1 contains the "Stipulation of Settlement, among Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund and
the other parties thereto, dated January 13, 2017."

The Company entered into the Stipulation to resolve the
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned BEAVER COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, et al. v. TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., et
al., Case No. 0:14-cv-00786-ADM-TNL (S.D.N.Y.).

In November 2013, two class action lawsuits were commenced against
Tile Shop and certain of the Defendants in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  By Order
entered on March 13, 2014, the two lawsuits were transferred to
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
(the "Court"). The two lawsuits subsequently were consolidated as
Case No. 0:14-cv-00786-ADM-TNL under the caption Beaver County
Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et
al. (the "Action"), and Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel were
appointed.

The Stipulation defines "Settlement Amount" as $9,500,000 in cash.
"Settlement Fund" means the sum of $9,500,000, to be paid by Tile
Shop and/or the Insurers on behalf of Defendants, including any
interest accrued thereon after payment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
          Nathan A. Hasuik, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: kjustice@ktmc.com
                  mnewcomer@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Paul A. Breucop, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com
                  pbreucop@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          William J. Geddish, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile:  (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
                  wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Light, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jlight@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., Robert A. Rucker, The Tile
Shop, Inc. and Timothy C. Clayton are represented by:

          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          Justin P. Krypel, Esq.
          Staci L. Perdue, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN  55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com
                  justin.krypel@FaegreBD.com
                  staci.perdue@FaegreBD.com

Defendants Peter J. Jacullo III, JWTS, Inc., Peter H. Kamin, Todd
Krasnow, Adam L. Suttin and William E. Watts are represented by:

          David P. Pearson, Esq.
          Matthew C. Robinson, Esq.
          WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P. A.
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 604-6400
          Facsimile: (612) 604-6912
          E-mail: dpearson@winthrop.com
                  mrobinson@winthrop.com

Defendants Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., CJSSecurities, Inc., Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.,
Piper Jaffray & Co., Sidoti & Company, LLC, Telsey Advisory Group
LLC, and Wedbush Securities, Inc., are represented by:

          Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
          Jed M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 822-5149
          E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com
                  jschwartz@milbank.com


TORRANCE REFINING: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Safety Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Green, writing for Daily Breeze, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed on behalf of three South Bay residents alleges a
"corporate choice to place profits over public safety" has led to
the fires, leaks and other public safety issues plaguing the
Torrance refinery.

Manhattan Beach law firm the Matern Law Group filed the lawsuit in
Los Angeles Superior Court on Feb. 17, the day before the latest
fire struck the PBF Energy-owned refinery, further alarming a
community on edge since the massive February 2015 explosion at the
plant, which prompted the legal action.

The lawsuit alleges that the "numerous fires, leaks, explosions
and other releases of dangerous pollutants" were caused by "years
of neglect, lax oversight and corporate indifference to necessary
safety (and) operating standards."

"The case against the Torrance Refinery arises out of growing
community concern in the South Bay regarding the questionable
operations of the refinery," emailed attorney Daniel Bass, who is
representing the plaintiffs.  "For years now, both under the
operation of the refinery's previous owner ExxonMobil and its
current owner PBF Energy, the refinery has been the center of
incident after incident that jeopardizes the safety of those who
live and work around the refinery.

LAWSUIT SEEKS MORE PLAINTIFFS

"The plaintiffs seek to represent the hundreds of thousands of
residents and commuters in the surrounding community hoping to
cease the defendant's choice to place company profits over public
safety," Mr. Bass added.  "The refinery cannot continue to operate
in the same manner, failing to rectify reoccurring problems, and
causing a never-ending string of aggravation and pollution in the
community."

Mr. Bass specifically mentioned the highly toxic modified
hydrofluoric acid or MHF that local activists and the regional air
pollution watchdog want banned, noting that it "is stored in tanks
near where the 2015 explosion occurred and the more recent fires."

"A release of the MHF could have drastic effects on the
surrounding community, including severe injury and death to those
exposed to the chemical," he said.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass and that the refinery
constitutes "an ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity,
as maintenance of an outdated refinery, particularly one using MHF
in a densely populated area, poses serious risk of harm,
regardless of the amount of care exercised."

Officials with PBF Energy declined to comment on Feb. 21.

The three plaintiffs who brought the suit live or work within
three miles of the refinery, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff Arnold Goldstein "watched as
ash fell from the sky like snow" in the aftermath of the February
2015 blast and he has subsequently developed asthma.

Plaintiff Gisela Janette La Bella, jogging with her dog when the
fallout began to flutter to earth, suffered damage to her larynx
"causing great pain in her second job as a singer," while her dog
became seriously ill and required expensive veterinary care.

Goldstein, a small-business owner, and plaintiff John Covas, a
Torrance real estate agent, allege they suffered economic harm by
the refinery.

The lawsuit estimates that 330,000 residents live within 3 miles
of the refinery so the class the lawsuit seeks to represent could
"include hundreds of thousands of members."

Named as defendants were PBF Energy and its subsidiary, Torrance
Refining Co., as well as ExxonMobil.

It's believed the lawsuit is the first to be filed over the
continuing safety and environmental issues at the refinery since
the 2015 blast.

Hundreds of local residents protested on Feb. 18 to mark the two-
year anniversary of the explosion, just hours after the latest
fire.

COMMUNITY FORUM PLANNED

The chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
board took the unusual step on Feb. 18 saying he wanted to hold a
community forum to address ongoing issues at the refinery.

The AQMD obtained an abatement order forcing the refinery to beef
up its electrical infrastructure in an effort to reduce the number
of polluting flares it is forced to use after power outages.

The nuisance lawsuit is reminiscent of one the city of Torrance
filed against then-owner Mobil Oil Corp. in 1989 in an effort to
improve safety at the refinery following a series of fires and
other accidents.


TOYOTA AUTO: Discovery in Calif. Suit vs. Deutsche Bank Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit
initiated in California against the indenture trustee of Toyota
Auto Receivables 2013-B Owner Trust, the Trust said in its Form
10-D filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
20, 2017, for the monthly distribution period from December 1,
2016, to December 31, 2016.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), which serves as
the indenture trustee under the indenture for the Toyota Auto
Receivables 2013-B Owner Trust, and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in civil litigation
concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

On March 25, 2016, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a state court action against
DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with
respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC
as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three
causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty;
and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The
Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and
all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does
not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On
September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the demurrer
and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On October 3, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their demurrer and
motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and
DBTCA's demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to
amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.

On December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the
amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing.


TOYOTA AUTO: Discovery in N.Y. Suit vs. Deutsche Bank Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit
involving the indenture trustee for the Toyota Auto Receivables
2013-B Owner Trust, according to the Trust's January 20, 2017,
Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the monthly distribution period from December 1, 2016, to
December 31, 2016.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), which serves as
the indenture trustee under the indenture for the Toyota Auto
Receivables 2013-B Owner Trust, and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in civil litigation
concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a derivative action against
DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts
asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust
Indenture Act of 1939 (the "TIA"), breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged
failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. The
Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and
filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for
the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially
overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The
complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and
servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs assert claims in connection with 62 trusts governed by
indenture agreements. The amended complaint alleges that the
trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of
U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for
money damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 15, 2016. On August 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.


TRANSPORT WORKERS: Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that on
Feb., 6 a petition was signed by more than 7,000 of the Southwest
Airlines flight attendants in the Transport Workers Union Local
556, demanding the recall of 12 of the executive board members
over alleged violations of the constitution and bylaws of the
Transport Workers Union of America.

There are 17 members of the executive board.  A vote will be held
to replace the 12 recalled board members.

The recall effort is headed by a Southwest Airlines flight
attendant, Jeanna Jackson, a member in good standing of the
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).  Ms. Jackson stated that
the flight attendants who voted for a recall feel they are not
adequately represented.

On behalf of those TWU members who signed the petition, a lawsuit
has been filed in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of
Texas (Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-339) by attorney Joshua A. Verde
of The Verde Law Firm, PLLC in Houston.  The defendants are
Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556 and Transport
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.

The complaint states: "On Dec. 15, 2016, valid recall petitions
signed by 7,592 TWU members in good standing were presented to the
Local for verification as required by the By-Laws.  The recall
petitions alleged violations of the Local By-Laws Objectives
Article II (b) and the TWU International Constitution Article XIX
Section 5.  The petitions met or exceeded the form requirements
described in the By-Laws."

The Complaint states that "Local 556 failed to comply with the
requirements of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 411 in rejecting and ignoring a
legitimate recall petition submitted by its members in good
standing."  It also asks that a judgment be entered ". .
.declaring that Local 556 has violated the LMRDA's Sec. 411 and
Sec. 412 procedural rights and protections secured to Plaintiffs
and other Local 556 members."  It seeks that a Local 556 be
permanently enjoined from ". . . blocking any action to recall the
existing officers and democratically elect new executive board
members."

The recall petition was not been verified by the union, prompting
the filing of the lawsuit to protect the rights of those members
who signed the petition.  Class action status is sought in the
lawsuit, which is against the union, not Southwest Airlines.

Ms. Jackson spearheads the recall effort.

"The requisite number of signatures has been delivered to the
executive board but they refuse to verify the signatures and honor
the will of the members," she was quoted as saying in a press
release.  "This will not stand.  Our brothers and sisters deserve
to be heard.  They will be heard."

Ms. Jackson told The Record she cannot comment about how the TWU
union members who signed the petition feel they are not being
represented by the board members they seek to recall.

"I cannot comment in detail because of the pending litigation, but
I can say that a majority of the members in good standing believe
good cause exists to recall these officers," she said.

Ms. Jackson said is not clear as to why the board refuses to honor
the petition.

"That's a very good question and one we do not have the answer to.
The Local refuses to recognize the recall petition."

TWU Local 556 is the only Union for all Southwest Airlines Flight
Attendants.  Membership in the union has been steadily increasing
since 2002.  Dues are $46 per month.


TRUGREEN INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Stevens-Bratton"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed
the district court's judgment and remanded the case captioned
KASIE STEVENS-BRATTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRUGREEN, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-5161 (6th Cir.)
TruGreen, Inc., is a lawn care service provider headquartered in
Memphis, Tennessee. On May 15, 2013, Kasie Stevens-Bratton entered
into an agreement with TruGreen for lawn care services. TruGreen
provided lawn care services to Stevens-Bratton from May 15, 2013
until May 15, 2014, when Stevens-Bratton terminated the agreement
with TruGreen.

On November 9, 2013, Stevens-Bratton registered her cell phone
number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Beginning on
January 27, 2015, Stevens-Bratton received over ten telemarketing
calls on her cell phone from TruGreen, who used an automatic
telephone dialing system. Despite Stevens-Bratton's requests that
TruGreen stop calling her, the calls continued.

Stevens-Bratton filed a complaint against TruGreen alleging
violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227, and sought class certification, or in the
alternative, a stay of certification briefing pending discovery in
federal district court. TruGreen filed an answer and a motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration, or in the alternative, to stay the
litigation. The district court denied Stevens-Bratton's motion for
class certification, granted TruGreen's motion to compel
arbitration, dismissed all claims against TruGreen, and entered a
judgment for TruGreen. Stevens-Bratton appealed.

Stevens-Bratton argues that the agreement's arbitration clause
does not apply to her TCPA claim concerning the legality of the
telemarketing calls because the agreement expired before she
received those calls.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment
compelling arbitration and remanded the suit for further
proceedings as the dispute between Stevens-Bratton and TruGreen
does not arise under the expired agreement.  The district court
erroneously found that Stevens-Bratton's dispute against TruGreen
arose under the expired agreement and thus erroneously concluded
that the dispute was arbitrable.
A copy of the Sixth Circuit's Opinion penned by Circuit Judge
Damon J. Keith dated January 10, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/g17PPI from Leagle.com.


UBER TECH: Judge Granted Final Approval of $343,000 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Uber will pay a class of customers $343,861 to settle claims
that it lied about how much its drivers receive in tips.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted final approval of the
settlement on Feb. 16, and praised the company for fully refunding
46,882 riders who claimed Uber kept part of a gratuity charge they
thought went to drivers.

"Class counsel achieved an excellent settlement that provided the
class with essentially full relief," Chen wrote in a 10-page
order.

Lead plaintiff Caren Ehret in January 2014 accused Uber of making
customers believe it was giving drivers the full 20 percent
gratuity fee it charged for each ride, though Uber kept about 40
percent of the fee.

Ehret said she wouldn't have paid for the rides had she known that
Uber was pocketing nearly half of the drivers' tips.  Under the
settlement, each class member will receive an amount equivalent to
the 40 percent of the fees Ehret claimed Uber kept.  It also will
pay $431,138 in attorneys' fees, separate from the settlement
fund.

Uber had said the class could recover only the money the company
kept for itself, which it said was zero.

Class counsel Jacie Zolna, with Myron M. Cherry & Associates in
Chicago, called the settlement a victory for class members in
light of Uber's contention.

"The fact that not a single one of the over 46,000 class members
objected to the settlement says a lot about the results we were
able to achieve," he said Thursday.

And, he said, Uber stopped keeping drivers' tips shortly after
Ehret sued.

"So not only did we stop what we believe was an unlawful practice,
but also obtained full refunds for those affected by the
practice," he said.

In December 2015, Chen partially certified a class of people who
had received an email from Uber telling them that the 20 percent
charge would be gratuity only, and who then paid for rides between
April 2012 and March 2013.

Chen denied Ehret's request to certify people who saw Uber's
misrepresentations on its website, concluding that their presence
online did not mean the proposed class members saw them.

He preliminarily approved the settlement in September 2016.

Class counsel Michael Ram, with Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
in San Francisco, said he was pleased with the settlement.

"This is essentially everything we asked for," he said. "This is
the money we said was wrongly taken from the class."

Uber was represented by Stephen Swedlow with Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan in Chicago. He did not return a request for
comment.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed Claims Against UTCFS
---------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the district
court granted UTCFS' summary judgment motion and dismissed the
claims against UTCFS in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
class action lawsuit.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named
as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed
on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third-
party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers
listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in
contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  In
each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief and monetary damages.  Each violation under the TCPA
provides for $500 in statutory damages or up to $1,500 for any
willful violation.

In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern
District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending
TCPA cases has been consolidated, arguing that the third parties
who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not
acting as UTCFS' agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be
vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA.

On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary
judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS. Plaintiffs
have not yet filed an appeal.

United Technologies Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in
1934. UTC provides high technology products and services to the
building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Huntsman Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation is defending itself against purported class
action lawsuits alleging antitrust law violations, Venator
Materials Corporation said in its Form 10-12B/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 17, 2017.

The board of directors of Huntsman Corporation approved the spin-
off of its Pigments & Additives segment as a separate, publicly
traded company, which is named Venator Materials Corporation.  The
Board believes that this separation of Venator to form a new
publicly traded company is in the best interests of Huntsman, its
stockholders and Venator.

Huntsman said: "We were named as a defendant in consolidated class
action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that
we, our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired
to fix prices of TiO2 sold in the U.S. between at least March 1,
2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter
were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August
28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S.
customers who purchased TiO2 directly from the defendants (the
"Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. On December 13, 2013,
we and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers
litigation and the court approved the settlement. We paid the
settlement in an amount immaterial to our financial statements.

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February
26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation
and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to
our financial statements."

"We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On
October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2.
On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint.
A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29,
2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural
paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of
nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16
states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed
another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court
substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer
protection claims in one state. The parties are negotiating a
resolution to this action."

"On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth
civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home
Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchase primarily through paints
it purchases from various manufacturers. Home Depot makes the same
claims as the Direct and Indirect Purchasers and seeks treble
damages for its increased costs from purchasing paint."

"These Indirect Purchasers seek to recover injunctive relief,
treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs
of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal
conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have
incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional
costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us.
Because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have
not made a material accrual with respect to these claims."

Huntsman operates in five segments: Polyurethanes, Performance
Products, Advanced Materials, Textile Effects and Pigments and
Additives.


WARNER MUSIC: Suit Over Digital Music Downloads Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Company
intends to defend against lawsuits related to pricing of digital
music downloads.

The Company said, "On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the
Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with
requests for information in connection with an industry-wide
investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On
February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also
seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music."

"Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

"On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January
12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January
10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition
for Certiorari.

"Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

"On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion
in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of
the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a
wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers.

"On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has now been fully briefed. Plaintiffs filed
an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015.
The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015.
A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution.

"The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made."

Warner Music Group Corp. was formed on November 21, 2003. The
Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp., which is the
direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition Corp. is one
of the world's major music-based content companies.


WASHINGTON GAS: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire
------------------------------------------------------
WGL Holdings, Inc. and Washington Gas Light Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016, that the Company is facing a class action suit seeking total
damages related to an explosion and fire at an apartment complex.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, the cause of
which has not been determined.

On November 2, 2016, two civil actions were filed in the District
of Columbia Superior Court against WGL Holdings and Washington Gas
(as well as a property management company that is not affiliated
with WGL Holdings or Washington Gas), by residents of the
apartment complex.  In one lawsuit, twenty-nine plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for, among others, wrongful death and personal
injury. The other action is a class action suit seeking total
damages stated to be less than $5 million for, among others,
property damage and various counts relating to the loss of the use
of the premises.

Both actions allege causes of action for negligence, product
liability, and declaratory relief. Eighteen civil actions have
been filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland
seeking unspecified damages for personal injury and property
damage.

The Company said, "We maintain excess liability insurance coverage
from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self-insured
retention. We believe that this coverage will be sufficient to
cover any significant liability to it that may result from this
incident. Management is unable to determine a range of potential
losses that are reasonably possible of occurring and therefore we
have not recorded a reserve associated with this incident.
Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be a party to the
investigation and in that capacity continues to work closely with
the NTSB to help determine the cause of this incident."


WELLS FARGO: 8th Cir. Affirms Award of $8.5MM in Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's award of $8,583,332.48 in attorneys' fees in the class
action filed against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

In 2008, the plaintiffs filed the class action against Wells Fargo
& Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  The plaintiffs' claims related
to Wells Fargo's practice of automatically ordering and charging
fees for property inspections when customers fell behind on their
mortgage payments.

In 2015, the parties participated in mediation and reached a
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement provides that
Wells Fargo will pay $25,750,000 in full settlement of all class
claims (total settlement fund).  The amount includes $3,250,000
intended to cover the costs of providing notice and administering
the settlement.

The district court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement, and more than 2.7 million notices were sent to class
members. Class counsel also requested attorneys' fees in the
amount of one-third of the total settlement fund. Three parties
objected to the amount of attorney's fees.  Steven Buckley argued
that notice and administration costs did not represent a benefit
to the class members, and thus the court should calculate
attorneys' fees based only on the net settlement fund rather than
the total settlement fund.  Jennifer Deachin and Julius Dunmore,
Jr., argued that the amount of attorneys' fees requested was
unreasonable.

After holding a fairness hearing, the court granted final approval
of the class action settlement and awarded class counsel
$8,583,332.48 in attorneys' fees to be paid out of the total
settlement fund. This award represents one-third of the total
settlement fund.

On appeal, objectors appeal the district court's order awarding
attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the total settlement
fund in a class action settlement contending that the court's
decision to apply that percentage to the total settlement fund
rather than the net settlement fund constitutes legal error
because the total settlement fund includes administrative costs,
which do not constitute a benefit to the class.

In an Order dated February 15, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/IKb6CJ from Leagle.com, the Eighth Circuit concluded
that the court did not abuse its discretion because the amount of
attorneys' fees was not unreasonable.  The Eighth Circuit held
that (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the
circumstances of the case justified a large award; (2) under the
percentage-of-the-benefit method, the award was in line with other
awards in the Eighth Circuit; and (3) the district court verified
the reasonableness of its award by cross-checking it against the
lodestar method.

The appeals cases are Edward Huyer; Connie Huyer; Carlos Castro;
Hazel P. Navas, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Wells Fargo & Company; Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, v. Steven Buckley, Movant-
Appellant.  Edward Huyer; Connie Huyer; Carlos Castro; Hazel P.
Navas, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, v. Jennifer Deachin, Movant-
Appellant. Edward Huyer; Connie Huyer; Carlos Castro; Hazel P.
Navas, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, v. Julius Dunmore, Jr., Movant-
Appellant, Case Nos. 16-1681, 16-1740, 16-1743 (8th Cir.).

Edward Huyer, et al. are represented by Deborah Clark Weintraub,
Esq. -- dweintraub@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT

             -- and --

      Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
      ROXANNE CONIN & ASSOCIATES, PC
      319 Seventh St., Suite 600
      Des Moines, IA 50309
      Tel: (515)283-1111

             -- and --

      Michael Reese, Esq.
      RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      81 Prospect Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (718)705-4579

            -- and --

       J. Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
               2110 N. Beltline Blvd.
       Columbia, SC 29204-3999
       Tel: (803)252-4800

Wells Fargo & Company, et al. are represented by Michael
Giudicessi, Esq. -- michael.giudicessi@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
BAKER DANIELS -- Jan T. Chilton, Esq. -- jtc@severson.com -- Mark
D. Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- and -- Rebecca Snavely
Saelao, Esq. -- rss@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON


WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal Pending in Federal Circuit
--------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2016, that plaintiffs'
appeal in an antitrust class action is pending in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In June 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that SanDisk violated federal antitrust laws
by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash
memory products. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of direct
purchasers of flash memory products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-
controlled joint ventures from June 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleged that SanDisk created and maintained a monopoly
by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain
competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its
competitive use. The complaint sought damages, injunctive relief,
and fees and costs.

In February 2011, the District Court granted in part SanDisk's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in as named plaintiff Albert Giuliano,
the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, and the
Trustee's motions to add as named plaintiffs CPM Electronics Inc.,
E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc.

In May 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. In April 2016, the District Court granted
SanDisk's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is currently
pending.

Western Digital is a developer, manufacturer and provider of data
storage devices and solutions that address the needs of the
information technology industry and the infrastructure that
enables the storage of data. The Company also generates license
and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Card Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2016, that discovery
is presently stayed in a class action on behalf of a nationwide
class of indirect purchasers of SD cards.

In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal
antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition
laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint seeks damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the
royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in
turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD
cards.

The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. In May
2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.

In May 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. In February 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court.
In September 2015, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

In November 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' federal law claims.

In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' remaining claims. Discovery is presently stayed
until after completion of the pleading stage. The Company intends
to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital is a developer, manufacturer and provider of data
storage devices and solutions that address the needs of the
information technology industry and the infrastructure that
enables the storage of data. The Company also generates license
and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2016, that a District
Court has denied defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class
action lawsuit.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities
between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege
violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages
and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order
appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of
Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road
Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News
Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension
Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in April 2016.
In June 2016, the District Court granted the motion and dismissed
the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the
Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. In
January 2017, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss
without prejudice to the defendants filing a renewed motion to
dismiss, which the defendants filed soon thereafter. The Company
intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital is a developer, manufacturer and provider of data
storage devices and solutions that address the needs of the
information technology industry and the infrastructure that
enables the storage of data. The Company also generates license
and royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WORLD WRESTLING: Moved to Dismiss "Laurinaitis" Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2017, for the year ended December 31, 2016, that in the case,
Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of
certain trusts, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers and seeks class action
status.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.

Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015.
The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was
denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a
scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to
cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety.   On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was
filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough,"
Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns,"
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations
to Haynes.  The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to
Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts
between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted
on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual,
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including
ordering medical monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases
purport to be class actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits
contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits
alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the
injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.  WWE moved
to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection
clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were
granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the
Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and
Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed.  The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss.

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery was completed by June 1,
2016, and on March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of
decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough
lawsuits.  The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the
Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by
omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5,
2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's
motion in the Windham lawsuit.

On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.  On April 27, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction,
which motions were granted and the appeals were dismissed with
leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of the consolidated
cases.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the
sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit on August
1, 2016.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts.  This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees
denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws.
This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property.  The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against
Mr. McMahon.

The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on
October 19, 2016.  On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  On December 23, 2016, the Company and
Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company.


WORLD WRESTLING: Motion to Dismiss "Bagwell" Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2017, for the year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Marcus Bagwell
remains pending.

On August 9, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut entitled Marcus Bagwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.    The lawsuit alleges claims
for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, C.G.S. Sec.42-110a, et seq., principally arising
from WWE's alleged failure to pay royalties for streaming video on
WWE Network.

On September 7, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was filed along
with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, seeks
to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a
defendant.

On November 4, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend and plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on
November 7, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Company believes all claims against the Company in
this lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue to defend
itself vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company.


WYOMING, OH: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daniels" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Quincy C. Daniels filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled as Quincy Daniels v. City of Wyoming, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00507, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 6,
2017, Judge Susan J. Dlott granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Daniels asserted a claim for violation of his
Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Tom
Riggs, a police officer with the City of Wyoming, Ohio, arising
from a traffic stop.  He asserted that the traffic stop was
illegal because it was racially motivated.  Officer Riggs moved
for summary judgment on the grounds that he did not violate Mr.
Daniels's constitutional rights and that he is entitled to
qualified immunity as a matter of law.

The appellate case is captioned as Quincy Daniels v. City of
Wyoming, et al., Case No. 17-3133, filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant QUINCY C. DANIELS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Glenda Ann Smith, Esq.
          P.O. Box 15353
          Wyoming, OH 45215
          Telephone: (513) 382-7913

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF WYOMING; LYNN TETLEY, Officially &
Individually; WYOMING POLICE DEPARTMENT; GARY BALDAUF, Officially
& Individually; TOM RIGGS, Officially & Individually; MIKE WORLD,
Officially & Individually; BRIAN BERIGAN, Sergeant, Officially &
Individually; and JEFFREY BANKER, Officially & Individually, are
represented by:

          Gary E. Becker, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8179
          Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
          E-mail: gary.becker@dinsmore.com


YADKIN VALLEY: Jury Selection in WARN Act Suit Set for April 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge has approved April 3 for jury selection for a class-
action WARN lawsuit filed by three former employees of the closed
Yadkinville hospital.

Yadkin Valley Community Hospital was shut down May 22, 2015, by
CAH Acquisition 10 LLC.  CAH remained in the hospital until Yadkin
County took possession through a federal court agreement on July
15, 2015.

In September 2015, the three former employees -- Carrie Hutson,
Jeanna Simmons and Jenifer Swanner -- filed the class-action
request pursuing salaries and benefits tied to the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN.  The
potential number of class-action members could be as high as 150.

The trial will be held U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina in Greensboro.  It is expected to take four to
five days.

The plaintiffs are suing CAH; HMC/CAH Consolidated Inc., which
held the hospital license; and parent company Rural Community
Hospitals of America LLC. Hutson worked at the hospital for more
than three years, Simmons eight years and Swanner more than 13
years.

The defendants say that the three plaintiffs are not qualified to
lead a class-action lawsuit and that employees should be required
to file individual claims.

The WARN Act requires companies planning large job cuts -- defined
as more than 50 employees -- to notify their state and local
governments, as well as the affected workers, at least 60 days in
advance.

CAH Acquisition never filed a WARN notice with Yadkinville
officials or the N.C. Commerce Department.

Employees must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN
rights.

An employer that violates the WARN Act can be required to
compensate affected workers for all pay and benefits lost , up to
the full 60 days WARN requires.  Employers also can be ordered to
pay the attorney fees and court costs of workers who sue and win.

Employers who don't give proper notice to the state also may have
to pay fines, but that money goes to the state, not to employees.

CAH said it gave a WARN notice to employees on Feb. 27, 2015,
telling them it planned to close the hospital on April 30, 2015.

CAH and Yadkin County officials reached an agreement on April 2,
2015, for CAH to continue to provide services through July 31,
2015, to give Yadkin officials more time to negotiate for a new
hospital operator.

The plaintiffs said CAH officials told hospital department heads
to tell employees on Feb. 28, 2015, to disregard the notice out of
concern that key employees would look for jobs elsewhere. CAH
denied making that statement.

CAH said it began to lose hospital workers after issuing the WARN
notice to employees.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Kornbluth of Taibi
Kornbluth Law Group PA of Durham, has said that one purpose of a
WARN notice is to allow employees to begin job searches before the
60-day period ends, "thus employers should expect to lose
employees during that process."

Even though the Feb. 27, 2015, notice apparently never went beyond
employees, CAH contends it fulfilled its WARN obligations. It said
Shawn Bright, its top executive at Yadkin Valley, kept employees
up to date on negotiations, including as late as nine days before
the hospital was shut down.  Judge William Osteen Jr. ruled that
federal law required CAH to issue another WARN notice once the
hospital remained open past April 30.


ZILLOW GROUP: "Freeman" Case Settlement Subject to Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement of a
class action lawsuit remains subject to court approval.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, with the caption
Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleged, among other
things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of
employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions
to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act."

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"On May 5, 2016, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit with
payment by Zillow, Inc. of up to $6.0 million. The settlement does
not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or
responsibility by any of the parties. The settlement class
includes all current and former inside sales consultants employed
by Zillow, Inc. in any office from January 1, 2010 through the
present.  The settlement is subject to court approval and was
contingent upon Zillow, Inc.'s resolution of the DOL compliance
review.

On November 28, 2016, Zillow, Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement with the DOL that resolved the DOL's compliance review.

On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
Company's petition for permission to appeal the order granting
class certification.

The Company said, "We have recorded an accrual for $6.0 million as
of December 31, 2016, and we recorded an accrual for an immaterial
amount as of December 31, 2015. We do not believe there is a
reasonable possibility that a material loss in excess of amounts
accrued may be incurred."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates the leading real estate and home-
related information marketplaces on mobile and the web, with a
complementary portfolio of brands and products to help people find
vital information about homes and connect with local
professionals.




                            *********

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  * * *