CAR_Public/170302.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 44



                            Headlines

AKERS NATIONAL: Reduced Pension Hit in "Cup" Suit
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit
AUSTRALIA: Must Compensate Indonesians Jailed as Children
AVMED INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Certifies Transvaginal Mesh Class Action

CANADA: Judge Favors Litigants in 60's Scoop Class Action
CEMTREX INC: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Faces New Allegations Amidst Class Action
CORE-MARK INT'L: Takrouri Files Suit Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
DAIKIN AMERICA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to $5MM Deal

DEPENDABLE FOOD: House of Salads Sues Over Under-filled Mayo
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Robbins Arroyo Probing Acquisition
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Harmful Drone Firmware Update
DUKE ENERGY: 11 Cincinnati Organizations Splitting $6.8MM Deal
ELECTROLUX HOME: Brown Sues Over Defective Washing Machines

ELI LILLY: Drug Makers Sued Over Insulin Price Hike Conspiracy
FARMERS GROUP: "Grigson" Suit Alleges Unfair Discrimination
FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Power Steering Class Action
GERMANY: Namibian Tribe Leaders Seek Compensation for Genocide
GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle Market Manipulation Class Action

GRANA Y MONTERO: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claim
GRAND RAPIDS, MI: Police Officer Sues Over Termination
HAGENS BERMAN: Suit Says Lawyer Has Been Shortchanged on Fees
HARRY AND DAVID: Faces Suit Over Moose Munch Popcorn Slack Fill
INVENTURE FOODS: "Burton" Sues Over Misleading Product Labels

JOHNSON & BELL: Dodges Class Claims in Data Security Case
KANE'S FURNITURE: Offering Extended Warranties to Customers
LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court to Decide in Statute of Repose Case
LULAROE: POS Automatically Surcharges Sales Tax, Suit Says
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Asks 6th Cir. Not to Revive Class Action

MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Chemo Settlement
METLIFE INC: Julian Files Suit Over FLSA, ERISA Breach
MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Consumer Receipt Suit for $1.2 Million
NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Sued for Overcharging Medical Records
NEXUS SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over 'Unconscionable' Fees

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pebble Mine Doesn't Pencil Out, Report Says
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Baleja" Action Hits Reduction in Pension Plan
PEARSON PLC: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Class Action Over Meal & Rest Breaks
PETROBRAS: Settles Four Investor Lawsuits in New York

PIZZA HUT: Could Face Class Action Over Wage Theft
RACKSPACE HOSTING: "Luger" Dismissed, To Pay $190K to Attorney
SERVIS ONE: Court Denies Class Certification
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New Suit Over Misleading Investors
SPOTLESS GROUP: Sued for Breaching Disclosure Obligations

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Allows Driver Wages Suit to Proceed
TOMBIGBEE ELECTRIC: Sirote & Permutt Secures Class Suit Dismissal
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Problems in Computer Programs
UNITED PARCEL: Faces New FCRA Class Action Over Background Check
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Medicare Suit to Proceed

UNITED STATES: Trade Groups Appeal Decision to Uphold DOL
VCA INC: Faces Suit Over $9.1-Bil. Takeover by Mars
VOLKSWAGEN: Exec Pleads Not Guilty to Emission Scandal Charges
WINDERMERE REAL: Dismissal of Noise Disclosure Suit Reversed

* Deceptive Pricing Class Actions Against Retailers Surge
* Delay in Supreme Court Review of Waivers to Impact Employers
* Food & Beverage Litigation in Illinois Surges, Report Shows
* Pending OCR Rule to Impact Data Breach Class Actions
* Plaintiff's Lawyers, Consumer Advocates to Fight New Bill

* Securities Class Actions Hitting Lull, NERA Data Show
* U.S. Chamber President Comments on "Slack Fill" Class Actions




                            *********


AKERS NATIONAL: Reduced Pension Hit in "Cup" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Ronald A. Cup and Mark Greenawalt, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated and United Steel, Paper And
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, And
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs, v.
AMPCO-Pittsburgh Corporation, Akers National Roll Company and
Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00189, (W.D. Pa., February 8, 2017),
seeks to restore their retiree health care benefits, monetary
damages, restitution or other monetary relief plus interest,
equitable relief, fees and costs incurred in this action and such
other and further relief under the Labor Management Relations Act,
for violation of their Collective Bargaining Agreements and their
Employee Benefit Plan and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

Cup and Greenawalt worked for Akers and have already retired and
are currently receiving their monthly pension under their
respective retirement plans. However, effective January 1, 2017,
the company eliminated the Health Plan for pre-Medicare eligible
retirees, spouses, or covered dependents and instead paid limited
monthly reimbursements for health insurance on the private market.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan Kilbert, Esq.
      ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL - UNITED STEELWORKERS
      Five Gateway Plaza, Room 807
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 562-2562
      Email: nkilbert@usw.org

            - and -

      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
      429 Fourth Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: 412-281-8400
      Fax: 412-281-1007
      Email: pewing@fdpklaw.com
             jhurt@fdpklaw.com
             rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.co


ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of financial institutions
that suffered damages as a result of the recently-announced data
breach at nationwide locations of Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.

In or around October 2016, computer hackers began using malicious
software, known as malware, to access point-of-sale systems at
Arby's locations throughout the United States. This data breach
lasted through at least January 2017 (and possibly later) when
Arby's first learned of the data breach only after being notified
of the breach by industry partners. Arby's did not publicly
acknowledge the breach until February 16, 2017, approximately four
months after hackers first gained entry into Arby's data systems.

Hackers were able to gain entry into Arby's data systems by
exposing substantial weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Arby's
computer and point-of-sale systems by installing malware to
extract payment card data from customers' credit and data cards.
In the breach, hackers stole Track 1 and Track 2 data, which
normally includes the accountholder's name, primary account
number, expiration date, service code, and verification code.

On behalf of a financial institution, Scott+Scott has filed a
class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, First
Choice Federal Credit Union v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., to
recover damages incurred as a result of the data breach at Arby's.
The complaint alleges that the breach was the inevitable result of
Arby's inadequate data security measures and approach to data
security. Arby's data security deficiencies are alleged to have
been so significant that hackers were able to install the malware
and remain undetected for several months, until outside parties
notified Arby's that its computer and point-of-sale systems had
been breached.

To aid consumers whose data may have been stolen, financial
institutions have been forced to reissue potentially millions of
credit and debit cards. This process, which costs several dollars
per card, imposes substantial costs on such financial
institutions, who also incur many administrative expenses and
overhead charges dealing with monitoring and preventing fraud.
These financial institutions must also reimburse fraudulent
charges and lose interest and transaction fees.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

If you are a financial institution and are interested in learning
more about or joining this litigation, please contact attorney

         Joseph Guglielmo
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com.
         Tel. No: (212) 223-6444


AUSTRALIA: Must Compensate Indonesians Jailed as Children
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Georgatos, writing for The Stringer, reports that the
Commonwealth Government should not delay in compensating
Indonesians jailed as children in Australian adult prisons

From 2008 to 2012, and even thereafter, Indonesian children were
jailed in Australian adult prisons.  They were cooks and deckhands
on boats providing passage to asylum seeks who had languished in
Indonesia.  Lawyer Lisa Hariej is acting on their behalf in the
Central Jakarta District Court, pursuing a class action against
the Australian Government for their wrongful incarceration.

The class action is representing 31 individuals who during their
incarceration in Australian adult prisons were in fact minors.

Supported by the Indonesian National Commission of Child
Protection, Ms Hariej is in fact arguing on behalf of 115
Indonesians who had been jailed in Australian adult prisons as
minors or who had been detained in Australian immigration
facilities instead of being returned home.

Ms Hariej is in possession of 115 birth certificates.  The
relevant Australian authorities could have also secured these
instead of relying on a discredited wrist-bone age-scan in the
hope that it could determine 'age.'


AVMED INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Caimi, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
Clearwater woman says her former employer incorrectly classified
her employee status and alleges that the company failed to pay her
all of the wages she was due.

Christie Stone was an employee of Avmed Inc., based in Tampa.
According to the company website, Avmed is a provider of not-for-
profit health plans, providing coverage to South Florida, Orlando,
Gainesville, and Jacksonville markets.

According to her LinkedIn profile, Ms. Stone was working as a
sales consultant for Avmed health plans.

On Feb. 8, Ms. Stone filed a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that
Avmed classified her as an employee exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).  That act guarantees overtime to all
nonexempt employees.

In her complaint, Ms. Stone claims she worked more than 40 hours
per week without being paid any overtime and because of her job
responsibilities, she should receive overtime as is stipulated in
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Stone is requesting a trial by jury and seeks all wages,
liquidated damages, interest and all legal fees, in addition to
any other relief the court thinks is appropriate.

Donna Ballman, an employee-side employment law attorney and author
of the upcoming book Stand Up For Yourself Without Getting Fired,
told the Florida Record that there are many class-action cases for
wages and hours in Florida and also notes that "most lawsuits of
any variety settle.  These (class actions) are no exception."

Often these types of cases come down to what Stone's specific job
duties may have been, Ms. Ballman said.

"It's not clear what her job duties were, but the issue may be
outside sales v. inside sales," she said.  "Outside salespeople
have a specific exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act."

According to the FLSA, if the employee's primary duty was making
regular sales away from Avmed's places of business, then the
exemption may stand.

Ms. Ballman also explained another exemption possibility, which
says that if an employee is working in a retail or service
establishment with a rate of pay exceeding one and one-half times
the minimum wage and with more than half the total wages coming
from commissions, then the employee is not covered by the act and
not guaranteed overtime.

These are just two of many possibilities.

"There are, of course, many other exemptions under the law, so it
will be interesting to see which exemption the employer claims
this employee fell under," Ms. Ballman said.

Since Stone filed a class-action, Ms. Ballman also said it's
possible that there are too many plaintiffs to name each one in a
suit against Avmed, and it's more likely a hundred or a thousand
compared to two or three people.

There are upsides and downsides to filing this sort of class-
action claim.

"The advantage is the employer now faces higher stakes and may
feel more pressure to settle," Ms. Ballman said.  "The downside is
they are harder to litigate, require lawyers with special
experience in class-scions, and it's difficult to settle one claim
during a class action."

Ms. Stone is represented by Mitchell L. Feldman of Mitchell L.
Feldman, Esq. P.A. in Tampa.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Certifies Transvaginal Mesh Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Robinson at Legal Feeds reports that an Ontario judge has
certified a class action lawsuit against medical device
manufacturer Boston Scientific Ltd., in what lawyers say is the
first successfully certified contested action concerning
transvaginal meshes in Canada.

In Vester v. Boston Scientific Ltd., Ontario Superior Court
Justice Paul Perell certified the action, which claimed the nine
different devices manufactured by the company were negligently
designed, and that Boston Scientific failed to warn the women of
their potential risks.

Class members say they experienced adverse side effects after
having one of the devices -- which are all made of the same
polypropylene -- surgically inserted in order to treat
incontinence. The lead plaintiff, Susan Vester, claimed she
suffered complications and a great deal of pain after undergoing
surgery to have one of the products implanted in her.

The class action is the latest of a number of transvaginal mesh
cases that have been proposed in recent years against different
manufacturers.

This, however, was the first that was successfully certified on a
contested motion, says Daniel Bach, one of the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs.

"We're really pleased with this decision," says Bach, who is a
partner at Siskinds LLP.

"We think it's a big victory for our clients who are trying to get
into court to have a judge adjudicate whether or not the products
that were put in their body were safe and fit for their use and
whether or not they were properly warned of any dangers in the
products."

The certification motion in the Boston Scientific case was
originally heard in November 2015, but Perell adjourned the matter
to give the plaintiffs another chance to submit more evidence.
Perell determined the plaintiffs would have to provide more
evidence in order to establish there was some basis in fact for
common issues for their negligent design claim, as well as their
claim that the manufacturer had failed to warn.

Bach says it is rare for judges to adjourn certification
proceedings to allow plaintiffs to submit further evidence and
even rarer for an action to be certified subsequently on return.

Perell used a little used subsection of the Class Proceedings Act,
which gives judges the power to adjourn motions for certification
to permit parties to amend their materials or pleadings, and to
provide further evidence.

Boston Scientific argued that while the plaintiffs identified a
common feature of all nine of its transvaginal mesh products, they
had failed to establish that it was connected to their claims.

Both sides made further submissions, but on return, Perell found
the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs established some basis in
fact for common issues for the claim.

"This is evidence there is a common issue for all the women
implanted with these devices about the safety and efficacy of the
medical device in question, being these various Boston Scientific
transvaginal mesh devices, all of which are made of the same
polypropylene," says Bach.

David Morritt -- dmorritt@osler.com -- of Osler, one of the
lawyers representing Boston Scientific, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.


CANADA: Judge Favors Litigants in 60's Scoop Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Battlefords News-Optimist reports news that the Ontario Superior
Court has ruled in favor of litigants in the class action lawsuit
on the "Sixties Scoop" comes as good news to the Federation of
Sovereign Indigenous Nations executive.

The decision by the Ontario Superior Court deals with the practice
in the 1960s and '70s of removing large numbers of Indigenous
children from their families and communities and placing them in
the care of non-Indigenous foster homes or adoptive homes.

"Acknowledging and addressing the injustice of the many First
Nation children who were taken from their families in the 60s and
70s is the next step in the process of reconciliation," said FSIN
Chief Bobby Cameron in a statement following the ruling. "There is
significant trauma in being uprooted and stolen as children."

The FSIN executive has issued a statement saying they are watching
the situation closely, and waiting for direction from their chiefs
on how to proceed. Cameron has stated the courts and government
will need to act quickly to support the survivors.

The Superior Court decision directly impacts around 16,000 people
in Ontario but has national implications. The court ruled Canada
breached a common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to
present on-reserve children from losing their indigenous identity.

FSIN officials say indigenous people in Saskatchewan have suffered
as well.

"Our First Nations people in our region have endured and
experienced the same trauma and demand reconciliation," said FSIN
Vice-Chief Heather Bear.

"We received a steady flow of calls from Saskatchewan survivors of
the 60s scoop looking for information and support."


CEMTREX INC: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Cemtrex, Inc. securities (CETX) from October 26, 2016 through
February 22, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cemtrex investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Cemtrex class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1059.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Defendant Aron Govil's role at Southern Steel &
Construction Inc., which has been paying a notorious stock
promoter, Small Cap Specialists, to promote Cemtrex's stock; and
(2) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times.
On February 22, 2017, Seeking Alpha published an article asserting
that over $1 million has been paid to notorious stock promoters to
promote Cemtrex, and Cemtrex's founder, Defendant Aron Govil, is
secretly paying promoters behind imploded frauds like Forcefield
Energy and Code Rebel via an undisclosed entity. On this news,
shares of Cemtrex fell $1.72 per share or over 33.5% from its
previous closing price to close at $3.40 per share on February 22,
2017, damaging investors

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 25, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1059.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Faces New Allegations Amidst Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shay Castle at Daily Camera reports that two shareholders of
Clovis Oncology are accusing the Boulder company of regulatory
violations during clinical trials for its failed lung cancer drug
rocilentinib,

The allegations come as the biopharmaceutical firm continues a
legal battle with shareholders over allegations that executives
made false and misleading statements about the lung cancer drug's
efficacy -- and follows a January public offering that raised $221
million to fund the marketing of a successful new ovarian cancer
drug.

Clovis disclosed the most recent allegations in a 10-K filed On
February 23 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, calling
them "unfounded."

Officials also maintained they were not under investigation by the
U.S. Food and Drug administration, a claim made by one of the
shareholder letters.

Clovis declined to comment further.

The 10-K filing also reported that "governmental agencies" are
seeking details about the FDA's November 2015 request for more
information on the efficacy and safety of rociletinib.

It's not clear if the inquiries are related to the shareholders'
allegations. Clovis said it was "cooperating" with the agencies.

It is "unusual" that the filing failed to specify which agencies
were requesting information, said Lynn Turner, a former SEC chief
accountant and current Colorado-based consultant.

However, the SEC is the most likely source to be investigating, he
said, because shareholder lawsuits allege violations of federal
securities law.

Both the SEC and FDA declined comment.

Clovis' shares plummeted 70 percent on Nov. 16, 2015, wiping out
$2 billion in value after the FDA requested more clinical
information on rocilentinib.

Development of rociletinib was shelved in May of last year when
the FDA declined to approve it. Clovis announced it would reduce
its 309-person global workforce by 35 percent as a result.

The failure of the treatment also spawned the class action
lawsuits by shareholders who say executives knew the data on the
drug was insufficient yet failed to disclose that fact in a Nov.
5, 2015, conference call.

A lawsuit brought by plaintiff Maris Sanchez on Feb. 18, 2016, on
behalf of the company against its own board of directors, alleging
the directors knew that misleading information had been presented
to investors, was dismissed three weeks later.

The more recent allegations, contained in a Dec. 15 demand letter
from a shareholder, involved violations of clinical trial
regulations surrounding patient eligibility, record management and
verification, and informed consent.

The correspondence, referred to in the filing as "the McKenry
Demand Letter," requested access to Clovis' books and records
related to the rocilentinib trial.

After initially saying the letter-writer was not entitled to any
documents, Clovis "produced certain books and records" in
response.

Demand letters have become useful tools for shareholders over the
last decade, Turner said, giving them an opportunity to peak into
a company's processes outside the realm of the courts.

While such documents could come to light during the discovery
phase of a lawsuit, "if the judge dismisses the case, you never
get to go to discovery."

Of the five lawsuits filed against Clovis in the past 15 months,
one has been dismissed. Three of the remaining suits were
consolidated into one class action, Medina vs. Clovis Oncology,
and on Feb. 9, a federal judge refused to dismiss that case.

On February 23's revelations didn't spook investors too much:
Shares fell 7.8 percent during the day's trading, but picked back
up slightly to close the week at $57.90.

Shares are still up nearly 56 percent since the Dec. 19
announcement that rucaparib, Clovis' ovarian cancer drug, had
received FDA approval.


CORE-MARK INT'L: Takrouri Files Suit Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Takrouri, an individual, on Behalf of Herself and All
Similarly Situated Current Former' Employees, Plaintiffs, v. Core-
Mark International, Inc. and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
BC649905, (Cal. Super., February 8, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, including back pay, front pay, punitive and liquidated
damages, damages for emotional distress, liquidated damages,
penalties, costs of action including expert fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and such other and further
legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Laws.

Defendants jointly own, manage and/or operate Core-Mark, marketers
of fresh and broad-line supply solutions for the convenience
retail industry. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as store
merchandisers at their Los Angeles and San Bernardino locations.
Takrouri complains of unpaid overtime, working through breaks and
alleges that Defendants failed to provide proper time-keeping for
its employees thus do not issue pay stubs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Tel: (213) 814-4940
      Fax: (213) 814-2550


DAIKIN AMERICA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to $5MM Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Fleischauer at Decatur Daily reports that a federal judge
gave preliminary approval on February 24 to a $5 million class-
action settlement between Daikin America Inc. and a group of
plaintiffs that includes all customers of West Morgan-East
Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority.

The lawsuit arose from claims that 3M Co., Dyneon LLC and Daikin
discharged industrial chemicals from their Decatur plants that
ended up in the Tennessee River and ultimately contaminated West
Morgan-East Lawrence drinking water.

The members of the class include all those who receive drinking
water from West Morgan-East Lawrence, including customers of
V.A.W. Water System, Falkville Water Works, Trinity Water Works,
Town Creek Water System and West Lawrence Water Cooperative.

U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon also gave preliminary approval
for the settlement funds to be used to pay for installation of a
granulated activated carbon system designed to remove the
industrial chemicals from West Morgan-East Lawrence's water
supply. The authority draws its water from the Tennessee River, 13
miles downstream of the industries that are defendants in the
lawsuit.

The chemicals that are the subject of the lawsuit are PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfanate).

A public fairness hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled
for May 10 at 9 a.m. at the federal courthouse in Decatur at 400
Well St. N.E. The court required counsel to mail full details of
the proposed settlement and of the fairness hearing to all members
of the class.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in an advisory last
year that PFOA and PFOS, when present above certain concentrations
in drinking water, may cause cancer and other health problems.
Infants and young children face the greatest risk, according to
the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

West Morgan-East Lawrence issued a temporary no-drink warning last
year when levels of two chemicals in its drinking water climbed
above the EPA recommended maximum.



DEPENDABLE FOOD: House of Salads Sues Over Under-filled Mayo
------------------------------------------------------------
House of Salads, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Dependable Food Corp. and
AAK Food Corp Inc. a/k/a Oasis Foods, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00714, (E.D. N.Y., February 8, 2017), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution and all other
forms of equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit.

Plaintiff is in the wholesale food industry and sells readymade
salads to commercial entities for resale to consumers and alleges
that the mayonnaise it ordered from the Defendants was underweight
and under-filled.

The Dependable Food Corp. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business and headquarters located in New Jersey
with principal executive office at 29 Executive Avenue, Edison,
New Jersey 08817.

AAK Food Corp Inc. is a New Jersey business corporation located at
635 Ramsey Avenue, Hillside, New Jersey 07205.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Rebhun, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JASON J. REBHUN, P.C.
      225 Broadway, 38th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (646) 201-9392
      Email: Jason@jasonrebhun.com


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Robbins Arroyo Probing Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of DigitalGlobe, Inc. by
MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd.  On February 24, 2017, the
two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates will
acquire DigitalGlobe. Under the terms of the agreement
DigitalGlobe shareholders will receive $17.50 in cash and 0.3132
MDA common shares with a value of $17.50 per share based on MDA's
last unaffected closing price on February 16, 2017, the combined
value of which is equivalent to $35.00 for each share of
DigitalGlobe common stock.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for DigitalGlobe and Its
Shareholders?

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at DigitalGlobe is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

As an initial matter, the $35.00 merger consideration is
significantly below the target price of $44.00 set by an analyst
at Jefferies on November 15, 2016, and the target price of $39.00
set by an analyst at Piper Jaffray on November 29, 2016.
Additionally, in the last three years DigitalGlobe traded as high
as $42.73 on February 25, 2014, and most recently traded above the
merger consideration -- at $35.02 -- on April 9, 2015.

On October 25, 2016, DigitalGlobe reported strong earnings results
for its third quarter 2016. DigitalGlobe reported net income of
$15 million for the three months ended September 30, 2016, a 56.3%
increase over the same period of the prior year. DigitalGlobe has
also beaten analyst estimates for adjusted net income, revenue,
and adjusted earnings per share for the past four consecutive
quarters. In commenting on these results, DigitalGlobe Chief
Executive Officer Jeffrey R. Tarr remarked, "We are pleased to
report that solid execution of our strategy is delivering better
than expected results. With the upcoming launch of WorldView-4 and
our acquisition of Radiant Group, we will be even better
positioned to support our customers as the leading commercial
source of earth imagery and geospatial analytics."

In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining
DigitalGlobe's board of directors' decision to sell the company
now rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in
the company's continued success and future growth prospects.

DigitalGlobe shareholders have the option to file a class action
lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible
price for shareholders and the disclosure of material information.
DigitalGlobe shareholders interested in information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in securities
litigation and shareholder rights law. The law firm represents
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients
realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the
companies in which they have invested.


DJI TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Harmful Drone Firmware Update
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rattigan, Esq. -- krattigan@rc.com -- at Robinson + Cole,
in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that a class
action law suit was filed against leader in the drone industry,
DJI Technology, Inc. (DJI), for an allegedly harmful firmware
update that occurred in December 2015 that rendered certain
commercial drones in its Phantom 2 line of drones unable to record
video or take photographs. DJI is accused of ignoring the injury
that thousands of Phantom 2 drone owners faced in light of this
damaging update. DJI allegedly refused to reimburse them, replace
the product or take responsibility for the alleged flaw. The
complaint states, "The lost functionality of the Phantom 2 drones
occurred because the defective firmware update created and
released by defendants, which critically affected the drones'
range extender and Wi-Fi modules, which are component parts of the
drones."

Lead plaintiff, Kevin Sives of Pennsylvania, says that DJI is
responsible for loss of money and property due to the allegedly
defective update. He seeks to represent a nationwide class (and a
subclass of Pennsylvania residents fitting the same
qualifications) of all purchasers of the Phantom 2, Phantom 2
Vision and Phantom 2 Vision + quadcopter drones who downloaded and
installed the December 2015 DJI Vision update. Sives claims
include breach of express warranty, breach of written warranty,
breach of implied warranty, breach of duty of good faith dealing,
negligence and breach of Pennsylvania's unfair trade practices and
consumer protection law for the proposed subclass of plaintiffs.
Sives is seeking general and punitive damages, a court order for
DJI to repair or recall the Phantom 2 drones and attorneys' fees.


DUKE ENERGY: 11 Cincinnati Organizations Splitting $6.8MM Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Brownfield at Cincinnati Business Courier reports that eleven
Cincinnati organizations are splitting $6.8 million as part of a
settlement from the Duke Energy class action lawsuit.

Duke (NYSE: DUK), based in Charlotte, N.C., agreed to set up an $8
million fund for energy efficiency programs as part of a wider
settlement that awarded $81 million to 188,000 Duke customers.

The recipients of the grants are:

   * People Working Cooperatively was awarded $1.75 million to
provide low-income residents with energy conservation measures,
home repairs and modifications.

   * Cincinnati Development Fund received $1.5 million to improve
energy efficiency in rental housing.

   * Creekwood Energy was awarded $1.1 million to run an energy
management program based on advanced analytics targeting
commercial customers.

   * The city of Cincinnati was awarded $500,000 to establish a
revolving loan fund to implement projects to reduce energy
consumption at city facilities.

   * OKI Regional Council of Governments was awarded $500,000 to
help local governments identify actions and policies that will
reduce energy consumption.

   * Energy Optimizers was granted $463,030 to provide an energy
audit for underserved markets such as houses of worship,
nonprofits and local governments.

   * Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden was awarded $425,000 to
transition the zoo to all LED lighting.

   * Working in Neighborhoods was granted $370,000 for energy
education and outreach in South Cumminsville.

   * Village of Silverton was awarded $200,000 to improve energy
efficiency in a new craft brewery.

   * Green Umbrella received $80,000 for energy efficient
refrigeration for the local food system.

   * U.S. Green Building Council was granted $79,000 for a system
to allow homeowners to upload energy-efficient improvements on
their homes to the Multiple Listing Service.

Duke said it agreed to settle to avoid paying additional
litigation costs and the uncertainty that goes with a lawsuit.
Shareholders paid for the settlement, not ratepayers. The lawsuit
alleged Cincinnati Gas & Electric, which Duke later acquired, cut
deals to reduce bills with large users such as Procter & Gamble,
General Electric and others so they would end their opposition to
a rate increase that needed approval from the Ohio Public
Utilities Commission in 2004.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Brown Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Lampkin and Megan Brown, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01044, (N.D. Ill.,
February 8, 2017), seek all damages, injunctive relief requiring
Defendant to issue corrective actions, declaratory relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such further
and other relief resulting from breach of implied and express
warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Electrolux markets, advertises, sells and services front-loading
automatic washing machines under Electrolux, Frigidaire and
Kenmore brand names. Said washing machines allegedly accumulate
mold and mildew from the inside due to the failure to drain
properly and to eliminate moisture, detergent and residue
following wash cycles. Electrolux also has refused, and continues
to refuse to provide a remedy to its consumers.

Brown purchased a Frigidaire Washing Machine FAFW380ILW3 from
DeWaard and Bode in Bellingham, Washington. Lampkin purchased an
Electrolux Washing Machine EIFLS60LSS from Grant's Appliances in
Naperville, Illinois. Both complain of noxious odor permeating
their freshly washed clothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Amy E. Keller, Esq.
       Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
       Amy E. Keller, Esq.
       WEXLER WALLACE LLP
       55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300
       Chicago, IL 60603
       Tel. (312) 346-2222
       Fax. (312) 346-0022
       Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com

              - and -

       R. Brent Irby, Esq.
       McCALLUM, HOAGLUND, COOK & IRBY, LLP
       905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
       Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
       Tel: (205) 824-7767
       Fax: (205) 824-7768
       Email: birby@mhcilaw.com


ELI LILLY: Drug Makers Sued Over Insulin Price Hike Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that more than 29 million Americans live with
diabetes, and for some six million of them, insulin is a life or
death medication.

Between 2002 and 2013, the price of insulin more than tripled, to
more than $700 per patient.  A federal lawsuit accuses the three
insulin manufacturers of conspiring to raise their prices.  The
drug makers deny the allegations.

Those high prices, combined with rising insurance deductibles,
mean many people who rely on insulin are feeling sticker shock.
Even doctors say without a way to pay, some patients are left
facing impossible choices, reports CBS News correspondent Anna
Werner.

A cell phone video shows Dr. Claresa Levetan talking to her
patient Shawna Thompson back in the hospital because she couldn't
pay for her insulin.

"One vial of insulin costs how much for you?" Levetan asked.

"One hundred and seventy-eight dollars," Thompson responded.

It was the fourth time in just over a year that Thompson had to be
treated for a life-threatening diabetic coma.

"Patients come in and say I can't afford to take it, so I'm not,"
Levetan said.  She said it's common for her now to hand out free
drug company samples of insulin, just so patients can stay on
their lifesaving medication.

"Patients are begging for samples because they can't afford the
insulin," Levetan said.

"Not asking, you're saying, begging," Werner said.

"Begging," Levetan said.

Like 74-year-old Kathleen Washington.  Some months, her insulin
runs over $300 a month -- more than she can afford.

"I must pay my mortgage," Washington said.

If it's a choice between the mortgage and the insulin, "It's going
to be the mortgage," she said.

Investment research firm SSR Health analyzed insulin list prices
from 2012 to 2016 for the three companies that manufacture it, and
found prices went up between 99 and 120 percent.

In a separate analysis, SSR Health's Richard Evans also found a
striking pattern: the prices of two prime insulin drugs rose in
lockstep -- mirroring each other -- 12 times between 2008 and
2014.

"The two companies took price increases within days of one
another, and the price increases were similar -- even identical --
to the percentage point," Evans said.

"If you raise your price, and I raise my price to the same level,
what am I saying to you as a company?" Werner asked.

"Let's keep going, or, I'm not going to fight you," Evans said.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is calling for a federal
investigation, alleging collusion among the three drug companies:
Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.

"Just coincidentally it happens that the three major suppliers of
insulin seem to be raising their prices at the same exact time, at
the same level.  So I think you have to be very na├úve not to
believe there is collusion," Sanders said.

The companies deny they've broken any laws.  Sanofi told CBS News
there is "strong competition" on price.  Eli Lilly said it is
"aggressively competing on net (or negotiated) price," and Novo
Nordisk's president said on the company's website that increasing
list prices is designed to offset rebates and price concessions to
maintain profitability.

Lori Reilly, with the trade group that represents U.S.
pharmaceutical manufacturers, told CBS News, "I don't believe
there's been collusion by our companies."

She pointed out although the drug companies list prices are up,
the negotiated prices for insulin, what the industry calls "net"
prices, have gone up just 2 to 3 percent overall.  She said that's
because intermediaries called pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs,
negotiate for rebates from drug companies, take a fee, then pass
those lower "net" prices on to insurance companies and ultimately
consumers.

The problem, Evans said, is patients who have high deductibles or
little or no insurance don't get those discounted prices.

"So in other words, the people who can least afford these
increases are the ones who get hit by them," Werner said.

"Everybody gets hit by them a little bit, but people that can't
afford it get hit disproportionately," Evans said.

But Reilly said, "When you look at the evidence, the competitive
marketplace is working, and it's working very aggressively to help
keep drug cost increases in check."

"I'm listening to that statement and I'm hearing consumers go,
'Are you kidding me?'" Werner said.

"There is an issue for many patients who today face increasing
deductibles," Reilly said.  "If those patients are coming to the
pharmacy counter and they're paying full list price, while their
insurance company or pharmacy benefit manager has bought that drug
at a 50 or 60 percent discount, that is a problem."

The country's largest pharmacy benefit manager told CBS News drug
makers are the ones raising their prices.  But experts tell us
there's plenty of blame to go around.  Meanwhile, all three
insulin manufacturers say they've announced new initiatives to
make insulin more affordable.
Novo Nordisk responds:

Many Americans struggle to pay for our medicines and we are
focused on working collaboratively toward sustainable solutions.

On Massachusetts class action lawsuit:

"We are aware of the complaint and its characterization of the
pharmaceutical supply chain.  We disagree with the allegations
made against the company, and are prepared to vigorously defend
the company in this matter.  At Novo Nordisk, we have a
longstanding commitment to supporting patients' access to our
medicines. Since this is an ongoing litigation, we can't comment
further."

On shadow pricing allegations:

"Under the system that has evolved here in America, the actual
price received by a manufacturer is not the list price or the
Average Wholesale Price, but rather the net price after very
competitive negotiations with a number of middlemen who operate
between those of us who make insulin and the patients who use our
medicines to control their diabetes."

On Sen. Sanders' collusion allegations:

"Novo Nordisk is committed to developing innovative medicines for
patients with diabetes.  We set price for these life-saving
medicines independently and then negotiate with payers and PBMs to
ensure patients have access to them.  We stand by our business
practices and our efforts to improve the lives of patients with
diabetes."
Eli Lilly responds:

"Today's health care system works well for many people, but those
enrolled in high-deductible insurance plans and managing chronic
conditions face challenges in gaining reasonable access to the
treatments they need. Diabetes is one example, and we are
committed to doing our part.

"Lilly recently announced an innovative program to provide insulin
at a discounted price.  Starting January 1, people who pay the
highest out-of-pocket prices for insulin, including those who have
no insurance or are in the deductible phase of their high-
deductible insurance plans, may directly benefit from a 40 percent
discount via mobile and web platforms hosted by Blink Health.

"We also intend to work with health plans on innovative approaches
so patients can directly benefit from negotiated discounts during
the deductible phase."

On Massachusetts class action lawsuit:

"Lilly disagrees with the allegations reported to be in the
lawsuit.  We conduct business in a manner that ensures compliance
with all applicable laws, and we adhere to the highest ethical
standards."

On shadow pricing allegations:

"We are in strict compliance with all federal regulation and
guidelines on all aspects of our business, including drug pricing,
and we are committed to providing the best medicines to people
with diabetes at the best price available.

"The pharmaceutical industry is very competitive, and just like in
other competitive industries, we monitor publicly available data
to understand what other companies are doing.  Sometimes, that
means adjusting our prices, which helps our insulins remain
available on formularies for people with diabetes.  We make price
adjustments after considering multiple factors, including the list
prices of other treatments in the market.  Importantly, list
prices are a starting point, so they are not an adequate measure
of competition. Net realized prices -- after negotiations on
rebates and fees, and other costs are factored in -- are the real
measurement of competition.  We are aggressively competing on net
price.  For instance, while the list price for Humalog(R) has gone
up, Lilly actually receives a lower average net price now than in
2009."

On Sen. Sanders' collusion allegations:

"Lilly denies the accusation. Lilly conducts business in a manner
to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, and we adhere to
the highest ethical standards."
Sanofi responds:

"Sanofi fully understands that the price and affordability of our
products is important for patients, and we are committed to
helping patients get the treatment they are prescribed.  We offer
patient assistance programs for patients in need and copay
programs for qualified patients whose prescriptions are not paid
in part or fully by any state or federally funded program.

"Our goal is to help patients remain on their current treatment
and not have to change treatments just because of changes in their
coverage.  To help with this, we have recently introduced a new
copay offer for eligible patients to pay no more than $10 per
prescription for either Lantus or Toujeo for up to 12 months
regardless of insurance coverage.

"The new copay offer helps patients on traditional commercial
insurance including those on high-deductible plans as well as
those who pay cash.  More specifically:

   -- Patients who pay cash and use the copay card receive $100
off Lantus SoloStar or vial box which is a 27-40% discount, or for
Toujeo, they receive $200 off per box which is a 60% discount.

   -- Patients on high-deductible plans who use the co-pay card or
evoucher, which will automatically activate at participating
pharmacies when their out of pocket costs are above a certain cost
level, pay no more than $10 per prescription."

On Massachusetts class action lawsuit:

"We strongly believe these allegations have no merit, and will
defend against these claims.  Since this is related to pending
litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further," said
Ashleigh Koss, Sanofi Head of Media Relations, North America.

On shadow pricing allegations:

"Sanofi operates with the highest ethical business standards and
complies with all laws and regulations that govern our business.
There is strong competition in the marketplace that also factors
into how we set the prices of our treatments.  Sanofi fully
understands that the price and affordability of our products is
important for patients.  We have not increased the list price of
Lantus since November 2014.  In fact, the net price of Lantus over
the cumulative period of the last five years has decreased because
of efforts to remain included on formularies at a favorable tier
which helps to reduce out of pocket costs to patients.  In setting
prices for our insulin medications, we work to balance helping
patients manage their diabetes today and developing ways to
improve care in the future.  We also offer assistance programs for
patients in need."

On Sen. Sanders' collusion allegations:

"Sanofi operates with the highest ethical business standards and
complies with all laws and regulations that govern our business.
There is strong competition in the marketplace that also factors
into how we set the prices of our treatments.  Sanofi fully
understands that the price and affordability of our products is
important for patients.  We have not increased the list price of
Lantus since November 2014.  In fact, the net price of Lantus over
the cumulative period of the last five years has decreased because
of efforts to remain included on formularies at a favorable tier
which helps to reduce out of pocket costs to patients.  In setting
prices for our insulin medications, we work to balance helping
patients manage their diabetes today and developing ways to
improve care in the future.  We also offer assistance programs for
patients in need."
Express Scripts (PBM) responds:

"While drug companies have increased the price of insulin, the net
costs to payers have been held down.  That's because PBMs like us
are doing our job in delivering savings to our clients -- the
employers, health plans and government entities that pay the most
for medicines in this country.  Rebates are delivered to those
entities and they are used to help bring down benefit premiums and
also to ensure a robust pharmacy benefit is provided to workers
and families.  It is the payers' decision on how they want to
return those rebates to their members.  For example, we can, and
do at the direction of our clients, provide point of sale rebates
directly to a plan member.  Most plans would rather receive the
rebates and deploy them as they see fit to lower premiums and
enhance the benefit.

The main takeaway is this: Rebates don't raise drug prices, drug
makers raise drug prices.

Also, a few other notes about rebates:

   -- CMS' recent fact sheet noted rebates (as DIR) reduced
Part D spending $411 per beneficiary in 2015.

   -- In 2014, Medicaid spent $42 billion on Rx, but received $20
billion in rebates.

   -- Without rebates, how will these public programs afford
prescription drugs?"

Sen. Bernie Sanders weighs in:

On Facebook: "Americans pay by far the highest prices for
prescription drugs in the world.  During the campaign Mr. Trump
said that he would take on bigPharma and lower the cost of drugs.
On Feb. 22, he met with executives from the pharmaceutical
industry -- an industry where the top 5 companies made $50 billion
in profits in 2015.  Funny thing though.  He talked about tax
breaks for this tremendously profitable industry, but what he did
not talk about was his campaign promise to allow Medicare the
ability to negotiate prices with the drug companies.  It appears
Trump has already sold out the American people regarding his
promise not to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Is he
going to sell them out again and cave to the drug companies as
well?

"Meanwhile, I and colleagues will be introducing legislation to
significantly lower prescription drug prices in this country,
allowing our people to purchase low-cost prescription drugs from
abroad and having Medicare negotiate prices with drug companies.
Will Trump support this legislation and lower drug prices? Stay
tuned."

On working with the president: "I look forward to working with
President Trump on this issue if he is serious about standing up
to the pharmaceutical industry and reducing drug prices."


FARMERS GROUP: "Grigson" Suit Alleges Unfair Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Grigson and Robert Vale, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Group, Inc., a
Nevada Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00088, (W.D. Tex.,
February 8, 2017), seeks all damages and/or restitution associated
with unfair discrimination; award of attorneys' fees; expert
witness fees and costs; recovery of monies recovered for or
benefits; statutory penalties; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and such other and further relief for violation of the
Texas Insurance Code.

Farmers Group, Inc. is a Nevada corporation that maintains its
principal place of business at 6303 Owensmouth Ave., Woodland
Hills, California 91367. It selectively lowered insurance policies
in favor of new policyholders while the existing policyholders
still pay the existing higher rates despite policy changes that
mandate lower rates.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Slack, Esq.
     John R. Davis, Esq.
     Paula Knippa, Esq.
     SLACK & DAVIS, LLP
     2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel: (512) 795-8686
     Fax: (512) 795-8787
     Email: mslack@slackdavis.com
            jdavis@slackdavis.com
            pknippa@slackdavis.com

            - and -

     Joe K. Longley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY
     3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500
     Austin, TX 78731
     Tel: (512) 477-4444
     Fax: (512) 477-4470
     Email: joe@joelongley.com

            - and -

     Roger N. Heller, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 956-1000
     Fax: (415) 956-1008
     Email: rheller@lchb.com
            jselbin@lchb.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Power Steering Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
power steering lawsuit is over after a federal judge ruled in
favor of Ford and said the plaintiffs didn't have a case.
According to the lawsuit, the Ford Fusion and Ford Focus have
defective electric power-assisted steering (EPAS) systems that
cause drivers to lose power steering.

The plaintiffs had a tough time with the lawsuit because the judge
had already denied class-action certification and at one point
dismissed the lawsuit, but left the possibility open for the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Plaintiff William Philips says he wouldn't have purchased his Ford
Fusion, or he wouldn't have paid as much as he did, if Ford would
have admitted problems existed with the power steering system.

The plaintiff says he made numerous complaints to Ford about the
alleged steering problems and was told in 2013 it would cost about
$2,000 to fix the problems by replacing the EPAS system. Philips
claims he declined to repair the car at the time, then in 2015 he
received a recall notice to have the EPAS system replaced.

The plaintiffs originally claimed the power steering systems have
multiple problems, including misaligned ribbon cable pins, defects
in the contact plating, defects in the sensors and defects in the
gear assemblies.

However, the plaintiffs changed their stance to argue the EPAS
systems in 2010-2012 Fusion vehicles and 2012-2014 Focus vehicles
are defective because the EPAS systems contain unreliable electro-
mechanical relays.

Ford began to use electro-mechanical relays in EPAS systems in
2009 that includes two electro-mechanical relays: a "link relay"
and a "star point" relay.  The link relay controls power to the
EPAS system, and the star point relay controls power to the
steering motor.

These relays allegedly experience "faults," meaning the circuits
open and power is cut off at unexpected times.  When a fault
occurs, power steering is cut off and the vehicle reverts to
manual steering.  These faults are indicated by diagnostic trouble
code B43 that indicates a fault in the link relay, and code B3A
that indicates a fault in the star point relay.

The lawsuit alleges Ford knew as early as 2007 that electro-
mechanical relays shouldn't have been used in EPAS systems.
According to the lawsuit, Ford emails suggest that Ford employees
believed that electro-mechanical relays were subject to issues
such as thermal expansion and sensitivity to variations in
manufacturing.

Other internal Ford emails suggest that Ford hoped to "remove
electro-mechanical relays out of EPS products."  However, the
plaintiffs claim Ford decided not to change the design to omit
electro-mechanical relays because of the cost.

The plaintiffs say Ford continually diagnosed and assessed relay
problems and began to make some changes to the EPAS systems in
2011, but none of these changes addressed the ultimate cause of
the EPAS system's unusually high failure rates: the unreliable
electro-mechanical relays.

Ford also allegedly received an unusual number of complaints
regarding sudden failures of power steering systems.  At the time,
Ford concluded the main cause was the fact that "ribbon cables" in
the EPAS systems were sometimes damaged during assembly.

After the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(NHTSA) opened an investigation into reports of power steering
failures in Fusion vehicles, Ford began a recall of certain cars
based on the ribbon-cable issues.  However, according to
plaintiffs, this recall does not address their concerns because
even after replacement, the EPAS systems are still defective
because they use unreliable electro-mechanical relays.

Ford told the judge the plaintiffs have no admissible evidence to
prove damages for any of their claims and all three individual
plaintiffs' claims are empty because their EPAS systems were
replaced.  Ford also argued the plaintiffs failed to produce
evidence showing the alleged defect has caused or will cause their
EPAS systems to fail.

Finally, Ford says the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence
that Ford breached a duty to disclose a material fact for the
purposes of plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claims.

The judge said after class-action certification was denied, the
plaintiffs made no attempt to defend their claims.  Additionally,
if the plaintiffs had submitted any evidence of damages, the court
likely would have denied Ford's motion for summary judgment.
Instead, the judge ruled in favor of Ford by saying without proof
of damages, the lawsuit is without merit and is dismissed.


GERMANY: Namibian Tribe Leaders Seek Compensation for Genocide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Spitzer, writing for TRT World, reports that a group of
Namibians have travelled to Berlin to raise awareness of a long-
forgotten genocide.

They're members of the Ovaherero and Nama tribes who were targeted
in mass killings by German colonists at the start of the twentieth
century.

Namibia says from 1885 to 1903 about a quarter of Ovaherero and
Nama lands -- thousands of square miles -- was taken without
compensation by German settlers with the explicit consent of
German colonial authorities.  They claim German colonial
authorities turned a blind eye to rapes by colonists of Ovaherero
and Nama women and girls, and the use of forced labour.

Tensions boiled over in early 1904 when the Ovaherero rose up,
followed by the Nama, in an insurrection crushed by German
imperial troops.  At least 100,000 Ovaherero and Nama people died
in a campaign of annihilation led by German General Lothar von
Trotha.

The killings have now been recognised as genocide by the German
parliament, but not yet by the German government.

Representatives of the two indigenous groups have also filed a
class action suit in New York against Germany, seeking reparations
for the genocide of their peoples by German colonial rulers.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle Market Manipulation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer at Legal Post reports that Goldman Sachs, JP
Morgan, and Citigroup have agreed to pay $39.25 million to settle
a Canadian currency market manipulation class action.

The settlements, if approved by a court, will remove those banks
from a $1-billion class action that alleges several large
financial institutions conspired to rig foreign exchange markets
using electronic chat rooms with names such as "The Cartel," "The
Bandits Club" and "The Mafia."

"We alleged that traders from various financial institutions
communicated to manipulate the spread by widening it when they
effected currency transactions," said Daniel Bach of Siskinds LLP,
who represents the class as co-counsel with Koskie Minsky LLP and
Sotos LLP. "They also took certain actions to collude to make
other impermissible profits."

Citigroup will pay $21 million, JP Morgan will pay $11.5 million
and Goldman's share is $6.75 million. Previously, UBS, BNP Paribas
and Bank of America agreed to pay a total of $15.95 million. That
brings total recoveries in the case so far to $54.2 million.

The most recent settlement must still be approved by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. A hearing is scheduled for April.

Even if the settlement is approved, the case will continue against
other banks. The list of 43 remaining defendants reads like a
financial institution all-star team and includes Royal Bank of
Canada, The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi, Barclays Bank, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of
Scotland, Societe Generale and Standard Chartered.

The plaintiffs allege that between 2003 and 2013, the defendant
banks conspired to fix prices in the forex market by fixing spot
prices, manipulating benchmark rates and exchanging confidential
information. The allegations have yet to be proven in court.


GRANA Y MONTERO: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Grana y Montero S.A.A.. resulting from allegations
that Grana y Montero may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On February 24, 2017, local news magazine Hildebrandt en sus trece
reported that Grana y Montero knew about $20 million in bribes
paid to former President Alejandro Toledo by Brazilian firm
Odebrecht SA. Grana y Montero was one of Odebrecht's local
partners on two sections of a project to pave a road from the
Peruvian Amazon to Brazil. On this news, shares of Grana y Montero
fell $1.77 per share or over 34% to close $3.32 per share on
February 24, 2017.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Grana y Montero investors. If you purchased
shares of Grana y Montero on or before February 24, 2017, please
visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-
1060.html for more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim
or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via
email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


GRAND RAPIDS, MI: Police Officer Sues Over Termination
------------------------------------------------------
Cassy Arsenault at Fox 17 reports that the handling of a drunk
driving case involving a former assistant prosecutor in Kent
County landed three Grand Rapids Police officers in hot water.
It's been decided two of them will return to duty, but the third
is moving forward with a federal class action lawsuit against the
city.

Phone calls between officers the night former Kent County
Assistant Prosecutor Joshua Kuiper crashed into a parked vehicle
in downtown Grand Rapids are in question.

The city filed a declaratory action asking the federal courts if
they have the right to use the phone calls, because the police
officers were told the telephone line they used was unrecorded.
The police officers allegedly talked about how to handle the
situation on what they thought was a private line, labeled 'non-
recorded.

An important distinction here, according to Lt. Matthew Janiskee's
attorney Andrew Rodenhouse, is that Janiskee is the only officer
who hasn't been approached with a deal by the city. Also, he's the
only police officer out of three that didn't step foot at the
scene. Rodenhouse said the city is basing his termination off
calls that shouldn't be used in the investigation in the first
place.

The basis for the lawsuit is that it violates all kinds of laws:
Federal Wiretapping Act, Michigan Wiretapping Act, Eavesdropping
Act, and Janiskee's Fourth Amendment rights. The lawsuit is
against the city of Grand Rapids, Police Chief David Rahinsky, two
deputy chiefs, a captain, and a lieutenant.

Rodenhouse said releasing these calls and basing Lt. Janiskee's
termination on them is opening a can of worms. He said if the city
releases them then they need to release all the calls that were
recorded on there for as long as they have been recorded.

"They are throwing him under the bus and I don't know why. I don't
think the city understands the consequence of this recorded line.
I know that going forward in every criminal case I handle I am
going to be requesting the recording of that line as it pertains
to my client. It would be malpractice for any criminal attorney
now too," said Rodenhouse.

Rodenhouse claimed Lt. Janiskee didn't want to go this route, but
the city leaves him no choice. Rodenhouse said the end goal is to
get Janiskee's job back, and get him back pay for the time he has
missed. He said Janiskee just passed his captain's test and wants
the chance to be promoted, and wants his retirement without any
limitations.

FOX 17 did ask Rodenhouse if the contract that all city employees
signs that said they have no right to privacy while at work will
come into play. He said he is not worried about that, and it
shouldn't affect their case.


HAGENS BERMAN: Suit Says Lawyer Has Been Shortchanged on Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant at New Jersey Law Journal reports that a New
Jersey lawyer claims in a suit that class action firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro shortchanged him on fees from a $60 million
settlement of class action suits on behalf of college athletes
over the use of their names and likenesses in video games.

Timothy McIlwain of Linwood claims Hagens Berman breached a
contract between plaintiffs lawyers concerning sharing of fees in
his suit against the firm and three principals, which was filed On
February 23 in federal court in the District of New Jersey. In
addition to the firm, the suit names managing partner Steven
Berman and partners Leonard Aragon and Robert Carey as defendants.
Aragon said he had not had a chance to review the lawsuit, but
said any claim contradicting a Northern District of California
judge who awarded fees would be "frivolous."

The suit claims Hagens Berman breached a contract it entered into
with McIlwain concerning division of fees from class action
litigation against video game maker Electronic Arts and the
National Collegiate Athletic Association. Roughly 24,000 class
members received payments averaging $1,600 each for appearing in a
series of video games produced by EA between 2003 and 2014. In
July 2015 a U.S. judge in San Francisco approved the $60 million
settlement, which was brought on behalf of college football and
basketball players who said their rights of publicity were
violated by unauthorized depictions of them in video games.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of
California awarded $5.7 million in attorney fees to Hagens Berman
in the combined settlement of three suits against EA and the NCAA
on Dec. 10, 2015. The judge awarded $696,000 to McIlwain after
concluding that his fee application sought payment for several
items that were unrelated to the case.

But McIlwain's suit cites an agreement between plaintiffs firms in
the video game litigation that called for the pooling of any fee
award, and a division giving 60 percent to Hagens Berman and 40
percent to McIlwain and his co-counsel, the Lanier Law firm.
Berman agreed to those terms in a Sept. 24, 2013, email that is
included in an exhibit to McIlwain's complaint.

McIlwain brings counts for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and interference with
prospective economic advantage. He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages as well as costs, interest and legal fees.
McIlwain filed suit in state court on behalf of former Rutgers
University football player Ryan Hart in 2009. EA removed the case
to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Around the
same time, Hagens Berman's attorneys filed suit in the Northern
District of California on behalf of Sam Keller, who was a
quarterback at Arizona State University and the University of
Nebraska.

McIlwain's case, Hart v. Electronic Arts, was dismissed by a
federal judge in New Jersey who found EA's use of the plaintiff's
likeness was protected by the First Amendment. But that decision
was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit,
which sent the case back to District Court in May 2013.
Meanwhile, in Keller v. NCAA, EA appealed a District Court judge's
ruling denying its motion to strike right-of-publicity claims
asserted by Keller. EA claimed that its use of the player's
likeness and jersey numbers was a transformative use and therefore
protected by the First Amendment. But the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the lower court in July 2013.

Lawyers for those cases and for a similar suit, O'Bannon v. NCAA,
signed their fee-splitting agreement on Sept. 24, 2013. And two
days later, on Sept. 26, 2013, EA agreed at a mediation session to
settle the three suits for $40 million. In June 2014, the NCAA
agreed to pay $20 million to settle the three suits.
Hagens Berman argued before Wilken that it should receive the
largest portion of the fee award in the case because a ruling it
obtained from the Ninth Circuit in Keller was the catalyst for the
$60 million settlement. McIlwain, for his part, maintains that a
ruling he received from the Third Circuit in Hart was the catalyst
for the settlement and, therefore, he is entitled to over $4
million in fees.

But Wilken said in a Dec. 10, 2015, order that the right-of-
publicity claims raised under California law in Keller exposed EA
to the greatest liability. That finding weighed in favor of a
finding that the Keller case made the most significant
contribution to the settlement, Wilken said.

Aragon, who is in Hagen Berman's Phoenix office, said his firm has
not been served with the complaint yet, but added that the fee
distribution was resolved by Wilken. "Any attempt to bypass the
court's order is frivolous. If we are served, we will move to
dismiss the case and will seek fees and costs against Mr.
McIlwain."

Aragon said the email cited by McIlwain was "part of a much larger
agreement and that agreement never came to fruition. I would
suggest to him that he re-read Judge Wilken's order and dismiss
his case."

The litigation was notable because it marked the first time the
NCAA paid for the use of the name, image and likeness rights of
student athletes. "Many students received thousands of dollars
from the NCAA as a result of the Hagens Berman's work, and the
settlement was universally well received by the athletes," he
said.

McIlwain and his attorney, John Sanders II of Shebell & Shebell in
Shrewsbury, did not return calls about the case.

Mr. Sanders may be reached at:

     John Sanders II, Esq.
     SHEBELL & SHEBELL
     655 Shrewsbury Ave. Suite 314
     Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
     Tel: (732) 663-1122
     Fax: (732) 663-1144


HARRY AND DAVID: Faces Suit Over Moose Munch Popcorn Slack Fill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports that a New York consumer
has filed a class action lawsuit against Harry and David, LLC,
alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Bria Brown of Queens, New York, filed a complaint, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Feb. 10 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Harry
and David LLC alleging the defendant induced consumers to purchase
their products that contain non-functional slack fill.

According to the complaint, Brown was deceived into purchasing a
Moose Munch Popcorn product that misrepresented the actual volume
of product contained in the package. The plaintiff alleges Harry
and David purposely sold its products to consumers and used non-
transparent packaging in order to conceal the actual volume of
contents from consumers.

Brown seeks trial by jury, compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, restitution, injunctive relief, court costs and all
further relief the court grants. She is represented by attorneys
C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC in New
York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:17-cv-00999-DAB


INVENTURE FOODS: "Burton" Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannah Burton and Michelle Blair, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated Plaintiffs, v. Inventure Foods,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00134, (S.D. Ill., February 8,
2017), seeks declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory
damages, restitution of its ill-gotten gains, pre- and post-
judgment interest, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and
costs and all such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty and pursuant to
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
and Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

Inventure Foods, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business located in Phoenix, Arizona. It
manufactures, sells, and distributes snack chips. Plaintiffs
allege that "evaporated cane juice" listed as an ingredient in
their food is just an elaborate name for common sugar, thus
misleading its customers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
      8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
      St. Louis MO 63144
      Tel: (314) 258-0212
      Email: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

             - and -

      Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Email: stuart@stecklerlaw.com


JOHNSON & BELL: Dodges Class Claims in Data Security Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom at The Am Law Daily reports that in a win for the first
law firm to face a class action for lax data security, a Chicago
federal judge ruled that claims against Chicago-based Johnson &
Bell for allegedly failing to protect client information must be
heard individually in arbitration, not lumped together as a class.

The suit, filed by well-known class-action lawyer Jay Edelson,
made headlines when it was unsealed in December and seemed to
represent Edelson making good on an earlier promise to bring a
spate of data privacy complaints against law firms. He had said he
identified 15 firms with lagging security.

So far no other complaints against law firms have become public,
and the ruling is a setback for Edelson, who said he will appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The lawsuit against Johnson & Bell did not claim any client data
was stolen, and Edelson has said the alleged security holes
identified by a former client have since been patched.

But the case remains a reputational and financial risk for Johnson
& Bell and potentially other firms. Edelson argues that Johnson &
Bell's rates include an expectation that the firm provides
industry-standard data security measures. The case, which had
already been moved to arbitration before it became public last
year, seeks as damages a refund of some portion of the rate
clients paid.

U.S. District Judge John Darrah of the Northern District of
Illinois ruled that the court, not an arbitrator, had the power to
decide whether the arbitration was eligible for class-action
status. He also ruled the firm's engagement letter did not agree
to class arbitration.

"The court is saying that we have to bring thousands of individual
arbitrations against Johnson & Bell," Edelson said in an
interview. "We're obviously appealing that decision. We think the
most efficient way to proceed is through one class-action lawsuit,
and we feel very good about our chances in the Seventh Circuit."
Joseph Marconi, head of the business litigation department at 100-
plus lawyer Johnson & Bell, said the firm was pleased with the
court's decision and declined to comment further. In an earlier
statement, Johnson & Bell president William Johnson promised to
fight the case, calling it "specious," and saying the firm may
pursue counter-litigation after the suit is resolved.

The complaint alleged that Johnson & Bell used a time-entry system
that was 10 years old, known to be prone to hacking and had not
been updated with security patches. It said the firm's virtual
private network, or VPN, was prone to what is known as a "man-in-
the-middle attack," which the complaint says is often used by
hackers, spy agencies and foreign governments to "eavesdrop on
private communications and steal confidential client information."
The complaint also said the firm's email system was susceptible to
the same type of hack believed to be used against Panama's Mossack
Fonseca, known as a "DROWN" attack.

The arbitration proceeding will face the question of how to
calculate damages in a case where no data breach occurred. Edelson
argues that clients, in effect, didn't get the data security they
implicitly paid for.

Clients "have suffered a diminished value of the services they
received from Johnson & Bell; and they are threatened with
irreparable loss of the integrity of their confidential client
information and further injury and damages from the theft of that
information," the suit alleged.

Johnson & Bell, in an earlier court filing, argued that no
"concrete" injury exists in the case.
"There is no allegation of breach or that client confidences were
ever disclosed and any claimed deficiencies no longer exist,"
Johnson & Bell's filing said.


KANE'S FURNITURE: Offering Extended Warranties to Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reported that Kane's Furniture is settling a class-action
lawsuit and offering 15,000 extended warranties where customers
will receive a full or partial refund and store credit.

Thousands of Kane's furniture customers will get refunds for
defective leather furniture that cracked and peeled. Several
consumers had contacted Action 9's Todd Ulrich, who found out how
they can claim their refunds and also helped a local woman get her
new roof fixed after the contractor refused to make repairs.

Holly Drokes had a new roof with a big leak, but Jasper
Contractors said her warranty was voided by Hurricane Matthew, so
there were no repairs.

She called Action 9, and days after we contacted the company, she
got a call.

"All of a sudden, the same woman who hung up on me decided to make
things happen," said Drokes.

The company found that its faulty installation, not wind damage,
caused a leak. Repairs were made the same day free of charge.

"I'm just grateful for the help you gave. It really helped," said
Drokes.

Action 9 was also able to help Kelley Reyes in West Orange County.
Reyes watched her $2,000 leather sectional start cracking and
peeling after buying it from Kane's Furniture.

Three years later, the sectional is ripping and peeling in large
chunks.

"We're embarrassed to have people over at this point in time,"
said Kelley.

She had bought an extended warranty, but she said Kane's only
offered a 50 percent store credit. She said that was not the
warranty protection she expected.

"If you're not going to honor their guarantee, why invest another
cent, not their company," said Reyes.

Four customers contacted Action 9 about bonded leather that they
said had failed.

Now, Kane's is settling a class-action lawsuit and offering 15,000
extended warranties where customers will receive a full or partial
refund and store credit.

Kane's blamed a Mississippi manufacturer for the peeling bonded
leather.

"And there's nothing we did that should break this down," said
Reyes.

A Kane's spokesperson said they are glad this was settled and that
no one with the company knew the furniture was defective when it
was sold.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court to Decide in Statute of Repose Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Updates on class actions from Grant & Eisenhofer Law:

Not long after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008, an
investor in Lehman filed a federal class action complaint.

It claimed that underwriters of Lehman's securities offerings (the
defendants) were liable, under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, for false and misleading statements in the registration
statements for those offerings (the class action).

In 2011, before the District Court decided whether to grant class
certification, the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(the plaintiff), a member of the putative class, filed its own
Section 11 action against the defendants.  Later that year, the
parties to the class action settled the case, and the District
Court certified a class for settlement purposes. The plaintiff
opted out of the class action settlement in order to pursue its
claims individually.

The District Court, however, found that plaintiff's claims were
time-barred by the three-year statute of repose in Section 13 of
the Securities Act because they were filed more than three years
after the securities offerings at issue.  The plaintiff argued
that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1974 opinion in American
Pipe & Construction Co v Utah, the statute of repose was paused or
'tolled' by the filing of the Class Action, and therefore its
action was timely.  The District Court rejected this argument,
applying the Second Circuit's holding in Police and Fire
Retirement System of Detroit v IndyMac MBS, Inc that American Pipe
tolling does not affect Section 13's statute of repose. The Second
Circuit affirmed.

Previously, in 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to review the lower
court's decision in IndyMac to resolve a circuit split regarding
whether Section 13's statute of repose was subject to American
Pipe tolling.  Just one week before oral argument, however, in
light of a settlement in IndyMac, the Supreme Court dismissed the
writ of certiorari (request to review the decision) as
improvidently granted, leaving the issue unresolved.

The plaintiff in the present case petitioned the Supreme Court for
a writ of certiorari to review the Second Circuit's opinion, which
hewed to its earlier IndyMac decision.  The Supreme Court granted
certiorari on 13 January, 2017.

Issue

In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that: "The commencement
of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations
as to all asserted members of the class who would have been
parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class
action."

Section 13 of the Securities Act provides that "in no event shall
any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under
section 11 or section 12(a)(1) more than three years after the
security was bona fide offered to the public, or under section
12(a)(2) more than three years after the sale".  Section 13 is
considered a "statute of repose," which extinguishes a cause of
action after a fixed time period, in contrast to a "statute of
limitations", which establishes a period within which a lawsuit
may be filed after a cause of action has accrued.

In IndyMac, the Second Circuit held that to allow a complaint to
be filed after the statute of repose expired would "modify a
substantive right" in violation of the Rules Enabling Act.  Two
other circuits -- the Sixth and the Eleventh -- have recently
agreed with the Second Circuit's holding.

By contrast, in 2000 the Tenth Circuit held that a class action
complaint should be viewed as asserting the claims of all putative
class members at the time of filing.  Therefore, according to the
Tenth Circuit, application of American Pipe simply recognises that
the filing of a putative class action satisfies Section 13 for all
members of the putative class.
Implications

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Second Circuit, then class
members in all circuits will need to consider filing individual
cases to protect themselves in the event that class certification
is denied after the statute of repose has run.  Opt-out rights may
well be rendered illusory in protracted securities cases.
Furthermore, while the instant case involves only claims filed
under the Securities Act, whatever the Supreme Court decides
likely will be applied in the future to the statute of repose
applicable to Rule 10b-5 securities claims, and possibly those in
other, non-securities statutes.


LULAROE: POS Automatically Surcharges Sales Tax, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Malick, writing for The Fashion Law, reports that LuLaRoe,
a domestic retailer of women's clothing, is coming under fire for
allegedly "improperly and fraudulently add[ing] a surcharge to
purchases disguised as a 'sales tax' that does not exist."

According to Plaintiff Rachael Webster's lawsuit, which was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, LuLaRoe is a unique brand in that it does not sell
its garments directly to consumers, on its website, or in stores -
- it employs "consultants" across the U.S. (as of September, there
were 35,000, per Business Insider) as sales representatives.

Webster alleges in her class action complaint that the company's
point-of-sale system "automatically charges customers sales tax
based on the location of [LuLaRoe's] consultant who made the sale,
and not the laws of the taxing authority where [LuLaRoe] delivered
the purchase."  As a result, LuLaRoe "overcharges buyers up to
10.25%" -- the highest combined clothing sales tax as of January
2016 -- "every time a consultant who lives in a jurisdiction that
taxes clothing makes a sale where delivery is made to a
jurisdiction that does not."

In general, the delivery location of goods serves as the taxing
authority for the transaction, dictating the appropriate sales
tax.  However, the company provided conflicting pieces of
information regarding how they handle matters of taxation.
According to the complaint, LuLaRoe explained to consultants that
"all sales tax will be assessed against the ship to address" so
that for each transaction, the system can "calculate the
appropriate tax."  Alternatively, LuLaRoe CEO Mark Stidham is
quoted as instructing the company's consultants, "Your customers
will be charged the sales tax from your state, city and/or county,
not theirs."

In fact, Webster argues that consultants actually have "no ability
to control or adjust the sales tax" applied to each transaction,
and instead, customers are charged sales tax based on the location
of the seller.  Her complaint further asserts that LuLaRoe's
"sales tax assessment practices, in effect, are improperly and
fraudulently adding a surcharge to purchases, and are disguising
those surcharges as a 'sales tax' that does not exist."

In addition to seeking class action certification -- which would
enable other parties who were improperly charged sales tax in
connection with LuLaRoe purchases to join in the suit and share in
the settlement amount -- Webster is seeking "actual damages,
statutory damages, treble damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees."  Such damages are being sought on behalf of Webster and
"all persons who were or will be assessed sales tax on clothing
purchases [from LuLaRose] . . . and whose purchases were or will
be delivered to tax jurisdictions of the United States that do not
authorize a collection of sales tax on the clothing Defendant
sells."

The case is RACHAEL WEBSTER v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, Civil
Action No. 2:17-cv-00225-DSC (W.D. Pa.).


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Asks 6th Cir. Not to Revive Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Phillis, writing for Law360, reports that Marathon
Petroleum Corp. told the Sixth Circuit that a lower court
correctly interpreted Michigan law when it threw out a putative
class action seeking to make the company pay for its refinery's
supposed pollution of nearby properties, saying the alleged wrongs
began outside of the three-year statute of limitations.

Residents of Detroit's Boynton neighborhood filed private
nuisance, strict liability and negligence claims against the
company, saying that Marathon's refinery, which first began
operating in 1930, was emitting harmful chemicals and hurting
their ability to enjoy their property. But U.S. District Judge
Sean Cox said that the clock started ticking at the time the claim
first accrued.

Marathon says Michigan law does not allow plaintiffs to "toll" the
limitations period under a continuous wrongs doctrine -- any
alleged harm the refinery caused nearby residents started before
the statute of limitations and, because nothing changed that
constituted a new claim within the limitations period, state law
forbids a suit.

"The crux of the District Court's decision was that plaintiff's
indisputably alleged a nuisance that existed and interfered with
their property more than three years before they filed this case,
and then simply stated that the nuisance condition continued into
the limitations period because the refinery continued operating,"
the brief said. "As the district court observed, plaintiffs did
not allege any facts suggesting that some nuisance condition first
interfered with their property interest and caused significant
harm less than three years ago."

The original complaint was filed in February 2016 and argued the
refinery emits a number of harmful substances including sulfur
dioxide, benzene and carbon monoxide, which impact people who live
less than a mile away. The suit was dismissed by the district
court in November with prejudice.

To get that claim tossed, Marathon told the district court that
the nuisance the plaintiffs allegedly suffered was from the
ongoing operation of an almost 90-year-old facility and that the
putative class had no evidence that anything new happened within
the three year time bar.

The putative class told the Sixth Circuit in January that they are
still being harmed and that their suit should be allowed to
proceed. Lead plaintiffs Gregory Cole and Annie Shields told the
court they were under no obligation to identify exactly when the
clock started on the suit's claims and that the law does not carve
out immunity for an act just because the culprit committed the act
similarly in the past.

"I think that it is critically important to prevent the very
conduct that Marathon and other would be polluters are engaging in
to the detriment of the innocent residents," plaintiffs' attorney
Steven J. German of German Rubenstein LLP said to Law360 On
February 24. "If the law was the way Marathon would like it to be,
polluters could start and cease operations at a particular time
and then, after three years, they can substantially increase their
pollution" and still avoid liability.

Marathon Oil Corp., which is distinct from Marathon Petroleum
Corp., was also targeted in the suit. In addition to its statute
of limitations arguments, the company says the plaintiffs' claims
lack merit.

Representatives for Marathon did not respond to a request for
comment On February 24.

Marathon Petroleum Co. is represented by Amy M. Johnston --
johnston@millercanfield.com -- of Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone
PLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven J. German --
SGerman@germanrubenstein.com -- of German Rubenstein LLP, Alyson
Oliver of Oliver Law Group PC, Sugar Law Center for Economic and
Social Justice, Christopher T. Nidel -- info@nidellaw.com -- of
Nidel & Nace PLLC and Nicholas A. Migliaccio --
nMigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

The case is Gregory Cole et al. v. Marathon Oil Corp. et al.,
number 2:16-cv-10642 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.


MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Chemo Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Windsor reports that as complainants involved in the diluted
chemotherapy class action lawsuit wait to hear from a judge about
a settlement, members from the lawsuit held an information session
on Feb. 26.

They said their hope is that the verdict is going to be just.
Discussed at the meeting was what the group will do moving
forward.

Chemo patient Louise Martens says it's important people support
each other through this process.

Some patients objected to the amount involved in the settlement
and told a judge they'd receive only $1,500 each.

The meeting also looked at the possibility of getting new lawyers
and looking for help from various agencies.

Ms. Martens says certain members of the lawsuit are doing the best
they can to handle this with their own personal finances.

"Any lawyer who has had a family member or a friend impacted by
cancer or by diluted chemotherapy is asked to just give us some
time.  We need some legal advice," she says.


METLIFE INC: Julian Files Suit Over FLSA, ERISA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Debra Julian, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Metlife, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and Metlife Insurance Company, USA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00957, (S.D. N.Y., February 8, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and
overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further legal and equitable
relief and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Julian worked for MetLife in Oriskany, New York as a Long Term
Disability Claims Specialist until April 2016. She seeks unpaid
overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week and
alleges the Defendant failed to credit eligible compensation
entitled to be paid for purposes of the MetLife 401k Plan as
required by ERISA.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. DiChiara, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHAIRA LLC
      One Depot Square
      77 Market Street, Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Tel: (201) 746-0303
      Fax: (347) 765-1600


MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Consumer Receipt Suit for $1.2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale at Law360 reports that Microsoft Corp. and a proposed
class of consumers who allege the company's physical store
receipts displayed too many digits of their credit card numbers
submitted details of a $1.2 million deal to end the suit to a
Florida federal court on February 24.

Lead plaintiff Carlos Guarisma, who claimed violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, asked U.S. District Judge
Cecilia M. Altonaga to grant conditional class certification and
preliminary approval of the settlement and to schedule a fairness
hearing. His putative class action alleged Microsoft's
noncompliance with the law put him and others at the increased
risk of identity theft. Microsoft operates 97 physical stores in
the United States and nine outside of the country, according to
the company.

The settlement would provide up to $100 to consumers who submit
valid claims from a list of approximately 66,000 settlement class
members in exchange for releasing Microsoft from any claims
potentially arising from the alleged receipt violations, according
to Guarisma's motion for preliminary approval.

Guarisma told the court that the deal, worked out through several
months of mediation and negotiations after Microsoft's motion to
dismiss was denied in July, provides fair monetary return for
class members that exceeds many other FACTA class settlements,
and, he noted, the case also produced a substantial nonmonetary
benefit by prompting Microsoft to correct the issue in its point-
of-sale software.

And while the monetary award represents only a portion of the
maximum amount of statutory damages available under FACTA,
Guarisma said entering into a settlement is a prudent move for the
class given the law's requirement that the class prove that
Microsoft "willfully" committed the violations and in light of
discovery from the company that showed the violations took place
only over the course of a few weeks, Microsoft had no track record
of violations and it promptly corrected the issue.

"Given the hurdles facing the settlement class in this litigation
and the difficulty of proving willfulness, the results achieved
are outstanding," Guarisma's motion said.

Guarisma indicated that the sides had raised the idea of a
settlement after Judge Altonaga denied Microsoft's bid to dismiss
the suit on July 26.

In that ruling, the judge found that Guarisma sufficiently
established his alleged injury was concrete and particularized, as
required by the U.S. Supreme Court's May 16 decision in the case
Spokeo v. Robins. Guarisma pled a "clearly particularized" injury
in the form of a physical receipt for a purchased Microsoft
Surface Pen Tip Kit that didn't limit the credit card numbers
displayed, as required by FACTA to stem the threat of identity
theft, she found.

Guarisma alleged that after buying the Pen Tip Kit from a
Microsoft store in Florida in November 2015, he noticed that his
receipt bore the first six digits of his credit card account
number, plus the last four digits, his name and the name of the
salesperson who processed the sale.

His putative class action alleged that Microsoft's failure to
comply with FACTA put him and others at the increased risk of
identity theft.

Microsoft, in seeking to toss the suit, claimed that the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case since Guarisma
couldn't show he suffered an injury-in-fact because he didn't
actually experience any identity theft from the printed receipt,
and that in any case, he must arbitrate his claims due to a
warranty printed on the receipt and product he bought.

In his motion, Guarisma said he intends to apply for an incentive
award not to exceed $10,000, and also requests that his counsel be
appointed as class counsel and said that they will petition the
court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed one-third of
the "maximum settlement amount."

He notes that the agreement does not contain a "clear sailing"
provision and said that Microsoft "specifically retained" its
right to object any incentive award or fee award.

The deal also provides a means for what individuals not on the
settlement class list to submit claims by presenting receipts to
prove their eligibility, but it does not take away the rights of
those individuals if they choose not file a claim, according the
motion.

A representative for Microsoft said the company had no comment on
the proposed settlement On February 24.

Guarisma is represented by Michael Hilicki of Keogh Law Ltd.,
Scott Owens of Scott D. Owens PA and Bret Lusskin Jr. --
info@lusskinlaw.com -- of Bret Lusskin PA.

Microsoft is represented by Brian Ercole --
brian.ercole@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Carlos Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp., case number 1:15-
cv-24326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Sued for Overcharging Medical Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh and Khristina Narizhnaya, writing for New York Post,
report that one of the city's top hospitals is gouging patients
for copies of their medical records -- charging them twice what
the law allows, according to a new class-action lawsuit.

The illegal move, which potentially affects thousands of patients,
came to light when 72-year-old retiree Vicky Ortiz sought copies
of her records from NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University
Medical Center, her Manhattan Supreme Court suit says.

The Washington Heights woman was forced to cough up $2,963 for
1,758 pages, or $1.50 per page plus an administrative fee, her
lawyer said.

The New York Public Health Law clearly says such costs can't
exceed 75 cents per page, according to her suit.

"I said, 'This is crazy.  It's just too much,'" Ms. Ortiz told The
Post.

Her lawyer, Lowell Sidney, said he routinely requests records for
his cases but had never paid such a high price for the information
before.

"It was like a sticker shock," Mr. Sidney said.

But the prestigious hospital has "a monopoly on it.  There is no
other way to proceed.  If you don't pay, you don't get them,"
Mr. Sidney said.  "I'm sure they're savvy enough to know I'm going
to pay whatever the price is."

The class-action suit targets the hospital and IOD Inc., which
produces the records.

It seeks unspecified damages for all patients who were may have
been overcharged for records from 2011 through 2016.

The inflated rate has brought "substantial profits and windfalls"
to Columbia and IOD on the backs of thousands of patients,
according to court papers.

"We assume that if they are charging Vicky $1.50, they are
charging other people who requested their records $1.50," Sidney
said.

Ortiz needed the documents for a personal-injury lawsuit she filed
against a nursing home last year.

Court papers say that when her attorney brought the issue to the
attention of the hospital's administrators, they refused to lower
the price.

A similar class-action suit against Rochester hospitals is pending
before a federal appeals court.

A spokeswoman for NewYork-Presbyterian said she is looking into
the claim. IOD said it does not comment on pending litigation.


NEXUS SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over 'Unconscionable' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeLea at Daily Progress reports that a class action lawsuit
claims a Verona-based company takes advantage of immigrants
released on federal detention bonds by charging inflated prices --
about $10,000 in year one -- and threatening incarceration if they
don't pay.

The federal lawsuit against Libre by Nexus was filed on Feb. 15 in
California by a Washington, D.C., law firm on behalf of two
Honduran nationals, Juan Quintanilla Vasquez and Gabriela Perdomo
Ortiz.

The pair claims the company engages in unfair business practices,
such as suggesting to immigrants that it is associated with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"Contrary to its misrepresentations, LBN has no association with
ICE, and no power to invoke the powers of ICE or otherwise
incarcerate its consumers," the lawsuit states. "LBN, however,
takes advantage of these misrepresentations and fear of ICE
detention and incarceration to extort payment of fees and
continued shackling of GPS trackers."

Nexus issued a statement denying the claims.

"While it is our company policy not to comment on specific pending
litigation, we can say that we will vigorously defend the company,
which provides tremendous support to the immigration community and
others," said Jen Little, a spokeswoman for Nexus. "We are proud
of our company -- which sponsors one of the nation's largest free
legal services programs for immigrants, and which supports the
country's largest charitable criminal bonding program so that
people don't have to sit in jail just because they can't afford to
post a bond."

Libre by Nexus is a branch of Nexus Services Inc., which operates
out of a $22 million headquarters in Augusta County.

The lawsuit claims Nexus tricks its immigrant clients with
documents that are hard to understand.

"Detainees' lack of knowledge about immigration bail bond
offerings and limited English-language ability are the bedrock of
LBN's business," the lawsuit states. "LBN forces detainees to sign
an unconscionable English-language GPS ankle bracelet 'lease'
agreement . . . . while providing a Spanish disclosure that never
tells the true costs of the supposed 'bargain.'"

Those released on immigration bonds must pay the entire bond
upfront, or have a third party pay the bond. Vasquez's bond was
set at $10,000, while Ortiz's was $20,000.

Both sought asylum because they were targets, they say, of gang
violence in their home country. They are awaiting detention
hearings.

Nexus charges $420 a month to lease the bracelet plus upfront
fees. In exchange, Nexus uses a third-party bond company to cover
detainees' bail.

The lawsuit claims that, in the end, the clients sometimes pay
more than what their bond was set for.

"To illustrate the unconscionable nature of these charges: on a
$10,000 bond, a consumer will pay LBN approximately $9,000,
nonrefundable, in the first year," the lawsuit states. "All in
all, this is a shockingly bad deal, even relative to the other bad
options available to immigrant detainees, and is unconscionable on
its face."

Little said the company is providing a valuable resource for its
clients.

"Libre by Nexus provides critical services to immigrants in
detention across the United States. Libre by Nexus provides an
opportunity for detained immigrants to post bond without requiring
collateral, which is impossible for most immigrants and their
families to provide," the statement said.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial but no court date has been
set.

A story in the October issue of Mother Jones includes a story
similar to the one told by the two plaintiffs.

A woman, referred to only as Sophia, told the magazine about being
apprehended near San Diego after fleeing El Salvador and entering
the U.S. illegally. She claims her mother borrowed money and paid
Nexus $4,000 in upfront costs to be released and continued with
$420 payments each month.


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pebble Mine Doesn't Pencil Out, Report Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Dischner at The Arctic Sounder reports that political winds
may indicate smoother sailing for a major proposed mine project in
Bristol Bay, but new legal and financial hurdles may continue to
stymie the project.

In mid-February, an East Coast investment company released a
report that said it didn't believe the Pebble project was
financially viable, and since then, several law firms have filed
class action lawsuits against the company seeking to build the
project on behalf of investors who believe they have been misled.
A major gold and copper mine proposed for an area near the
headwaters of Lake Iliamna and the Nushagak watershed has long
been contentious. If built, it could be the largest open pit mine
in the world. And while past Environmental Protection Agency
actions indicated a federal willingness to protect the area, the
new administration's support for mining and resource development
has led new investors to the project this winter.

But the February report by Kerrisdale Capital Management said
those investors may have been mislead by overly optimistic
information, and said the deposit up for development is too low-
grade to generate a profit.

The Kerrisdale report said that the major mining company that
withdrew from the Pebble Project did so because it believed the
project was more expensive than originally expected. The higher
cost could make the project far more difficult to finance and
execute.

But in a statement released after the investment report came out,
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. said the Kerrisdale Capital
Management report was "unsupported speculation."

The Northern Dynasty statement countered the mine planning
scenario referred to by the Kerrisdale report, and also said that
the major mining partner in the project, Anglo American, had
walked away because it wasn't in a position to invest the $900
million needed to earn a 50 percent interest, not because it had
decided the project was not viable.

Pebble Partnership spokesman Mike Heatwole wrote in an email that
the report appears largely to be an attempt to drive the price of
stock down. Kerrisdale acknowledged in the report that it could
gain financially if stock prices drop.

Opponents of the project have said the financial issues are
helpful to their cause, and just another indication of why the
project isn't a good idea.

While the report was independent of efforts to oppose the
project., United Tribes of Bristol Bay's Alannah Hurley said that
it was a welcome addition to the conversation.
"... We are pleased to see financial analysts reaching the same
conclusion we in the region have held for years," Hurley wrote in
a statement. "The Pebble project is not economically, politically,
or socially viable. Bristol Bay's future, like its past, will be
defined by healthy salmon runs and vibrant tribal communities, not
toxic projects like Pebble."

Trout Unlimited's Alaska Engagement Coordinator Sam Snyder said he
hoped the recent financial news would have an impact on the
project.

"I think the Kerrisdale Report properly outlined the hurdles they
still face," Snyder said, noting that he hoped the financial
issues would add to the case against building the mine.

But, opponents won't drop their own fight, and plan to continue
advocating for state mechanisms that prevent the project.

"I think the financial tact was just kind of a nice bonus," Snyder
said.

Opponents aren't the only parties who have taken note of the
Kerrisdale report. The market responded nearly immediately as
Northern Dynasty stock prices dropped, and several east coast law
firms have since filed class action lawsuits, or declared their
intent to do so. New York's Rosen Law Firm said that it was filing
suit on behalf of purchasers of Northern Dynasty securities from
September 2013 through February 2017, to recover damages under
federal securities law.

By Feb. 21, at least five such suits had been filed, with others
being discussed.

Heatwole said the company would rigorously defend itself in the
new class action lawsuits.
"We remain very optimistic about the way forward for the project
in 2017," he said.

In its statement, Northern Dynasty also said that it was
considering a lawsuit against Kerrisdale over the report's
allegations.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Baleja" Action Hits Reduction in Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JOHN BALEJA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northrop Grumman Space &
Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan, Northrop Grumman
Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, Northrop Grumman
Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00235, (C.D. Cal., February 8, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on February 7, 2017.

Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension
Plan is an ERISA-governed retirement benefit plan. Northrop
Grumman Corporation headquarters is located at 2980 Fairview Park
Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042-4511.

Plaintiff was supposed to receive a monthly benefit of $1,066.80
under his Single Life Annuity effective December 15, 2015. However
he received a Pension Calculation Statement dated January 25, 2016
indicating that he was to receive only $595.46, a 44.2% reduction
in his monthly pension benefit and was not accompanied by an
explanation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter K. Stris, Esq.
      Brendan S. Maher, Esq.
      Victor O'Connell, Esq.
      STRIS & MAHER LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      Email: peter.stris@strismaher.com
             brendan.maher@strismaher.com
             victor.oconnell@strismaher.com

             - and -

      Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
      UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW
      5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 260-2347
      Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
      Email: smartin@sandiego.edu


PEARSON PLC: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
American Depositary Receipts of Pearson plc ("Pearson") (NYSE:PSO)
between January 21, 2016 and January 17, 2017. You are hereby
notified that Levi & Korsinsky has commenced the class action
Chupka v. Pearson plc, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-01422) in the USDC
for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go
to http://www.zlk.com/pslra/pearson-plcor contact Joseph E. Levi,
Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212)
363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies. In
particular, the complaint alleges the Company made overly
optimistic projections for 2017 and 2018 regarding its U.S.
education business when, in reality, students were not likely to
purchase the Company's products when more affordable alternatives
were available.

On January 18, 2017, Pearson issued a press release announcing
that it no longer expected to achieve its operative profit
guidance for 2018 as a result of "[t]he North American higher
education courseware market being much weaker than expected" and
that Pearson would "rebase" its dividend "from 2017 onwards."
Following this news, shares of Pearson fell approximately 29% on
January 18, 2017, from a previous close of $9.99 to a close of
$7.13 per share.

Take Action: if you suffered a loss in Pearson you have until
April 25, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free:  (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: www.zlk.com


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Class Action Over Meal & Rest Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gueguen, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Penske Logistics recently settled a case over wages for meal
and rest breaks for $750,000.

The settlement comes after nine years of legal proceedings.  The
class-action lawsuit was filed by three of the company's drivers
alleging that it failed to pay them for all hours worked under
California labor laws and failed to pay them for meals and rest
breaks.

Richard Pianka, the American Trucking Association's (ATA) vice
president and deputy general counsel, told the Northern California
Record that there are a handful of cases that cover the same or
similar issues.

"This is one case of many, and the fact that it settled doesn't
really, I think, say much beyond that's what the parties thought
was best for them in that case," Mr. Pianka, who is also chief
counsel of ATA's litigation center, said.

The American Trucking Associations told trucks.com it would
continue to fight governments that were requiring interstate truck
drivers to take extra meal and rest breaks.  California has meal
and break requirements for drivers.

Mr. Pianka said ATA holds that federal law stops state and local
governments from imposing regulations on truckers.

"Such as a 1994 law that pre-empts any state or local law that
relates to the prices, routes or services of any motor carrier;
it's a very broad pre-emption provision," Mr. Pianka said.  "The
Supreme Court has interpreted it broadly in many contexts in the
past, and these California break rules very directly affect the
routes and services of motor carriers.  It dictates what level of
service a given driver can provide within the broader constraints
of the federal rules governing hours of service."

Mr. Pianka feels the California break rules reduces the service
drivers can provide in the state.

"Restricts routes to routes on which facilities (where) breaks are
available," he said.  "Most courts that looked at this agreed that
the 1994 law pre-empted these California rules, and that, we
think, is the core issue here.  Unfortunately, one court, in
particular the 9th Circuit, disagreed and interpreted that 1994
law very narrowly, in our view, and held that it didn't pre-empt
these state rules."

Mr. Pianka said ATA filed amicus briefs in the dispute.

"We also filed an amicus brief when Penske sought Supreme Court
review of the 9th Circuit's decision," he said.

Mr. Pianka said ATA thinks Congress needs to correct the 9th
Circuit's decision.

"Congress had deregulated the trucking industry at the federal
level back in 1980," Mr. Pianka said.  "They wanted the industry
to be shaped primarily by market forces with uniform federal
safety regulation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, of course.  And it saw over the intervening years
that the states were still regulating the industry in a way that
was interfering with those market forces, interfering with the
uniformity provided by federal safety regulation.  That's why they
passed the 1994 law. And these state break rules, if they're not
pre-empted, will make it impossible for motor carriers to provide
the services that the federal government has decided that they can
safely provide."

The final decision on the settlement was set to take place on Feb.
27.


PETROBRAS: Settles Four Investor Lawsuits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Your Oil and Gas News reports that Petrobras informs that its
Board of Directors approved on Feb. 27 the conclusion of
settlements to end four individual lawsuits filed before the
Federal Court of New York, USA, by New York City Employees
Retirement System (and others), Transamerica Income Shares, Inc.
(and others), Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Lord
Abbett Investment Trust - Lord Abbett Short Duration Income Fund
(and others).

Petrobras had already entered into settlements to end other
fifteen individual lawsuits before the Federal Court of New York,
as disclosed on October 21, 2016 and November 23, 2016.

As result of the agreements reached and the stage of negotiations
in progress with other plaintiffs of individual actions, the
Company, currently, expects the total amount of the provision for
2016 to be US$ 372 million, of which US$ 364 million had already
been provisioned on September 30, 2016.

These four individual lawsuits were consolidated for purposes of
judgment with twenty three other individual actions and class
action filed against the Company (and others) before the Federal
Court of New York, USA.  With the Feb. 27 announcement, Petrobras
reaches a settlement in 19 individual actions from a total of 27
that were consolidated with the class action.

At the moment, it is not possible for Petrobras to make a reliable
estimate of the outcome of the class action.

These settlements, the terms of which are confidential, have the
purpose of eliminating uncertainties, burdens and costs associated
with the continuity of such disputes and do not constitute any
acknowledgment of responsibility on the part of Petrobras, which
will continue to firmly defend itself in other ongoing actions.


PIZZA HUT: Could Face Class Action Over Wage Theft
--------------------------------------------------
Jere Downs at Courier Journal reports that on Jan. 2016, Pizza Hut
delivery driver Angelo Boone clocked in at 3 p.m., made 11
deliveries, and spent his last hour washing dishes, mopping floors
and emptying the trash before he clocked out at 9:57 p.m.

But Boone's paycheck did not include that last hour at the
Brownsboro Road restaurant. Boone's manager had scrubbed 63
minutes from Boone's electronic time records -- and it wasn't the
first time, court records show.

Over the course of two years, "a rogue" Pizza Hut manager
systematically deleted time from the payroll records of Boone and
81 other workers to save labor costs, according to the vice
president of the Pizza Hut franchise for which Boone once worked.

By Pizza Hut's estimates, Boone alone was cheated out of an
estimated 87 hours, or about $700. Once senior management
intervened, Boone and his co-workers were paid, 2JR Pizza vice
president Brian Reetz told Jefferson Circuit Court judge Eric
Haner last fall.

"We found out (a manager) was going in and deleting time. We
righted a wrong," Reetz said. "There were more than 82 people ...
It was pretty bad."

Boone and a handful of other former Pizza Hut workers contend
those settlement checks are not enough. And they are not sure all
of their co-workers received their back pay. They represent a
handful of former workers preparing to file a class-action
lawsuit. Their goal is to force an independent audit of labor
practices at 2JR Pizza and potentially recover damages for
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and similar
Kentucky laws.

"I want every employee to know what they did," Boone said. "I want
them exposed."

Wage theft is more widespread than one might think, especially
among low-wage, young and uneducated workers, advocates say. In a
2014 poll of nearly 1,100 fast food workers, 89 percent reported
they had been victims of some type of wage abuse. Reported
violations included being denied breaks, being asked to work off
the clock and not being compensated for overtime.

Wage theft "is not uncommon. It is prevalent among low-wage
workers. Workers are entitled to be paid in full for time worked
according to state and federal law," said David Suetholz, who
served as chief counsel of the Kentucky Department of Labor from
2009 to 2011.

Should they prevail with a class action in state or federal court,
workers may be able to recover damages and lawyer fees, Suetholz
said.

"The employer has an obligation to maintain accurate time
records," said Suetholz, now a lawyer in private practice in
Louisville.

Reetz did not return a phone call seeking comment.

2JR Pizza has not been sued for other instances of altering
worker's time records, according to a nationwide check of criminal
and civil litigation. In other disputes about wages, 2JR has
successfully prevailed in federal court in cases where former
delivery drivers claimed their personal reimbursement for mileage
expenses violated minimum wage standards.

2JR Pizza is the longtime owner of roughly 28 Pizza Hut
restaurants in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. Begun in
2000, 2JR Pizza had evolved by 2009 to be run mostly by Brian
Reetz, who had taken the "reins of day to day management," said
his father, company founder Jeffrey Reetz, in an interview with
Franchising.com. The company has an A+ rating with the Louisville
chapter of the Better Business Bureau.

                     Clocking in, Clocking out

Workers who deliver pizza for a living say it's easy to overlook
paycheck errors. Most of their income comes in the form of tips
from each day's shift. Total tips can range between $20 and $200
per day, Boone and other drivers said.

For hours clocked during the workday, Pizza Hut also pays drivers
two different rates during the same shift. When working in the
store, pizza delivery drivers earn around $8.25 per hour, court
records show. When they depart to drive a pizza on the road, they
punch the clock again to earn a lower rate of around $4 per hour.
As a result, a driver might clock in and clock out 10 to 20 times
during a shift, as food orders come and go.

When time was erased, it was usually one or two of those shift
fragments, employee time sheets show.

"You trust them with your time," former delivery driver Pam
Kadouri said. Sometimes, Kadouri said, she made up to $70 per day
in tips delivering pizzas for the Pizza Hut lunch rush while her
9-year-old daughter was at school. Every two weeks, she would also
receive a small paycheck from Pizza Hut for wages.

"The last thing we want to do is spend time checking over our
hours. When you work with a company, you feel they are going to
treat you right," said Kadouri, 47. "Tips made most of my income
while a check from Pizza Hut would come every two weeks for about
$25."

                       Lost Time on The Clock

One year ago, Pizza Hut workers say, there was talk in the
restaurant that a worker had noticed he was not paid for all of
his hours worked. That sparked an investigation, according to a
memo posted inside the restaurant on Brownsboro Road.

"It has been brought to our attention that payroll timekeeping
practices at this unit have been abused," 2JR Pizza human
resources manager Debbie Markland stated in the memo. "Please know
this is unacceptable and we are currently investigating."

Within weeks, the manager of the Brownsboro Road Pizza Hut and a
shift supervisor had been dismissed. A new manager was installed
at the store, workers said. She sought help with repeated requests
from former Pizza Hut workers about their lost wages.

"I am having ex-employees calling about the time keeping," new
manager Karen Barrick wrote to Markland in a memo posted for all
workers to see. "What should I tell them and my employees about
the money they took?"

By mid-March, workers were promised the back pay was coming soon.

"All employees that had time taken away from them should see a
back pay line on the check on the 16th," a new memo said. From 2JR
Pizza headquarters in Louisville, a bundle of 82 checks arrived
for workers to claim from the restaurant office, workers said. In
March, Boone signed a list of affected workers to show he had
accepted two checks for lost wages, one for $85 for time lost in
2016 and a second $659 check for 2015.

When Boone received his reimbursement checks last spring, he still
had doubts whether he had been paid in full. He asked for all of
his time sheets so he could check them for accuracy, but
management declined. To force the issue, Boone filed a lawsuit in
Jefferson County small claims court in July that resulted in the
release of his time sheets. They show Pizza Hut docked Boone at
least once a week for a year. Sometimes, just nine minutes was
erased from Boone's timesheet. In another instance, five hours was
removed, those records show.

Markland did not respond to a phone call seeking comment. In a
court hearing last August, Markland said 2JR Pizza had compensated
workers at the double time rate for any lost overtime hours.

Catherine Carey, 30, picked up a check from Pizza Hut last spring
worth 22 hours of lost pay. After quitting Pizza Hut in November,
Carey said she requested copies of her time sheets from Pizza Hut
for all of her work during 2016. Upon receiving those time records
this month, Carey said she believes she is owed for 52 hours of
time.

Carey is one of the people joining the class action lawsuit in
hopes her time records will be independently evaluated.

"I think it is totally wrong for Pizza Hut to treat people that
way," Carey said. "When you work for a company, you feel they are
going to treat you right."


RACKSPACE HOSTING: "Luger" Dismissed, To Pay $190K to Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you held shares of Rackspace Hosting, Inc. between August 26,
2016 and November 3, 2016, this Notice contains important
information regarding the dismissal of a putative class action
concerning the acquisition of Rackspace Hosting, Inc., and an
agreement to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for
Plaintiff in that action.

The purpose of this notice is to inform former stockholders of
Rackspace Hosting, Inc. ("Rackspace") about developments with
respect to the litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled
Luger v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12819-CB (the
"Action").

On August 26, 2016, Rackspace announced the proposed acquisition
of Rackspace by affiliates of certain funds managed by affiliates
of Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), including Inception
Parent, Inc. and Inception Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively with
AGM, "Apollo"), for $32.00 per share in cash, pursuant to a
definitive agreement and plan of merger filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on August 30,
2016 (the "Transaction").

On September 30, 2016, Rackspace filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC in connection with
the Transaction.

On October 11, 2016, a purported Rackspace stockholder
("Plaintiff") commenced the Action by filing a Verified Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, alleging that Rackspace's Board of Directors (the
"Board") breached its fiduciary duties by disseminating a
materially false and misleading Proxy Statement, and that
Rackspace and Apollo aided and abetted the Board's breaches of
fiduciary duties.

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter (the "Letter") to
defendants in the Action demanding the disclosure of additional
information Plaintiff considered material to the decision whether
to approve the Transaction.

On October 24, 2016, Rackspace filed a supplement to the Proxy
Statement on Form DEFR14A with the SEC that Plaintiff believes
addressed and mooted the claims raised in the Letter and the
Complaint regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures in the
Proxy Statement.

On November 2, 2016, Rackspace stockholders voted to approve the
Transaction, which closed on November 3, 2016.

On November 30, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Stipulation and Order dismissing the Action with prejudice as to
Plaintiff, and without prejudice as to any other putative class
member, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose to
determine Plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses based upon
the alleged benefits provided by certain supplemental disclosures
set forth in the supplement to the Proxy Statement (the "Fee and
Expense Application").

After negotiations, Rackspace has agreed to make a fee and expense
payment to Plaintiff's counsel in the Action in the amount of
$190,000 to resolve the Fee and Expense Application.  The Delaware
Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no
judgment on, this payment of fees and expenses or its
reasonableness.


SERVIS ONE: Court Denies Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
D. Matthew Allen, Esq. -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- at JD Supra
Advisor reports that the Middle District of Florida recently
denied a plaintiff's motion for class certification concerning
claims that a collection agency illegally and intentionally sent
collection correspondence to mortgagees whose debts already had
been discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiff alleged
violations of state and federal consumer protection laws because
the debt collector allegedly made continued and repeated
communications to him directly -- not his counsel -- regarding his
previously discharged mortgage debt. The plaintiff sought to
certify a class of individuals who had filed bankruptcy,
surrendered their homes, obtained a discharge, and received
communications related to the discharged mortgage from the debt
collector after that discharge.

The court agreed with the defendant that the putative class was
unfit for certification on ascertainability, commonality, and
predominance grounds. All three determinations largely turned on
the highly individualized inquiries that would be required for
putative class members to assert their potential claims.

First, on ascertainability, the court rejected the plaintiff's
proposed process for discovering all class members as
administratively infeasible and requiring a "loan-by-loan review"
of all the defendant's customers. The process would entail
determining whether a customer filed bankruptcy, whether his or
her debt was discharged, whether the mortgage covered a residence,
whether the customer had received communications from the
defendant post-discharge, and whether the defendant had actual
knowledge that the mortgagee was represented by an attorney.

Second, on commonality, the court found the proposed class failed
because actionable conduct turned on a litany of individual
issues. For instance, not all of the allegedly improper
communication was in the same form and not every communication
sent to the proposed class necessarily concerned debt collection.
Whether the defendant violated the applicable laws required
analysis of the type of communication delivered to each class
member as well as the content of such communications.

Finally, on predominance, the court noted the proposed class
action required individual inquiries on a broad score of issues.
These individual inquiries -- whether the mortgage debt at issue
was consumer debt for a residence or business debt for a rental or
investment property, whether the defendant had actual knowledge of
the bankruptcy discharge and still attempted to collect on the
debt, and whether the specific circumstances of the attempted
collections triggered the bona fide error defense, to name a few -
- predominated over any common questions and rendered class
treatment inferior to individual litigation.

McCamis v. Servis One, Inc., No. 16-1130, 2017 WL 589251 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 14, 2017)


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New Suit Over Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bell at Biopharma Dive reports that Spectrum Pharmaceuticals
is facing yet another lawsuit for "false and misleading" claims it
made about one of its cancer drugs that one shareholder says hurt
the company's value and reputation.

Stuart Wells, the plaintiff, filed a derivative complaint against
the Las Vegas-based biotech in the U.S. District Court of Delaware
on February 23. Spectrum faces at least one other, class action
lawsuit related to its claims about Qapzola (apaziquone), a drug
aimed at treating non-musclar invasive bladder cancer, as well as
multiple other class action cases calling out statements it made
about other drugs.

The derivative complaint holds that Spectrum mischaracterized the
likelihood Qapzola would gain approval, highlighting that
shareholders were not told the Food and Drug Administration
recommended Spectrum not file a New Drug Application (NDA) for
Qapzola based on two failed Phase 3 studies, the protocols for
which had also been altered without investor knowledge.

The complaint lists 10 Spectrum leaders, including CEO Rajesh
Shrotriya, Chief Financial Officer Kurt Gustafson, Chief Medical
Officer Lee Allen and Chief Operating Office Joseph Turgeon, as
defendants in the case.

Wells said those heads engaged in "unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets," and
Securities and Exchange violations based on their portrayal of
Qapzola, and cited a variety of sources -- from conference calls
to legal documents -- to prove it.

One of the complaint's main points of contention centered on two
Phase 3 trials of Qapzola that were given a green light by the FDA
between 2008 and 2009. Qapzola failed to outperform placebo in
both of those trials, but the bigger issue is that Spectrum didn't
inform shareholders that an analysis of pooled data, which the
company used as evidence to show "statistically significant
treatment effect in favor of apaziquone," was not part of the
original statistical analysis plans the FDA had approved.

What's more, the complaint said the company never signaled the
real probability that the drug would not gain approval.

"The analysis of integrated data from 2 completed clinical trials
has demonstrated statistically significant increases in 2 year
recurrence rates. We have discussed these data with the FDA and
are well on our way with preparing our NDA submission this year,"
Allen said in a May 7, 2015 conference call, according to the
complaint. "[T]here's is a dearth of new therapies, and apaziquone
has the potential to be the first new drug approved to treat
nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer in more than 40 years."

Comments such as that, coupled with ignoring the FDA's guidance
and keeping data analysis decisions from investors, had a lasting,
negative effect on shareholder value, the complaint argued. The
company's stock, for example, fell about 15% after an Oncologic
Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously voted against the drug's
approval.

"As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants'
conduct, Spectrum has also suffered and will continue to suffer a
loss of reputation and goodwill, and a 'liar's discount' that will
plague the Company's stock in the future due to the Company's and
their misrepresentations and the Individual Defendants' breaches
of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment," the complaint said.

Spectrum did not respond to request for comment.


SPOTLESS GROUP: Sued for Breaching Disclosure Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that facility management and services
company Spotless Group is the latest ASX-listed company to wander
into the crosshairs of litigation lawyers after IMF Bentham and
William Roberts Lawyers announced that proceedings had been filed
against it in the Federal Court.

The statement of claim alleges that Spotless's financial results
for the 12 months to June 30, 2015, released on August 25 last
year, were misleading and in breach of Spotless's continuous
disclosure obligations.

Spotless joins a growing throng of publicly listed companies to be
sued by shareholder class action lawyers over financial guidance.

Myer, infant milk group Bellamy's and even ambulance chasers
Slater & Gordon are facing court action.

The claim against Spotless is brought on behalf of all investors
who acquired Spotless shares between August 25 and December 2 last
year -- excluding related parties, bodies corporate, associated
entities and officers or close associates of Spotless.

William Roberts Lawyers principal Bill Petrovski said the case
centred on Spotless breaching its continuous disclosure
obligations.  "This case alleges that by breaching its continuous
disclosure obligations, Spotless concealed its true financial
position," Mr Petrovski said.

"It appears Spotless changed an accounting policy that effectively
inflated its earnings without adequate disclosure of that change.
Such conduct, if proven, is inimical to the company disclosure
laws in place to foster investor confidence in our financial
markets."

IMF Investment manager Ewen McNee said: "Spotless shareholders who
acquired shares from August 25 to December 2 and held those shares
when the price fell on December 2 are included in the claim.
Because this case is being run on an open-class basis, it will
give all these shareholders the chance of recovering losses caused
by Spotless's alleged breaches of the Corporations Act."

Spotless strongly denied the claims.  "Spotless will vigorously
defend the proceeding," the company said.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Allows Driver Wages Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Trucking reports that a class action lawsuit based on
allegations that Swift Transportation shorted driver wages will
proceed, following a January 10 ruling from the Arizona Supreme
Court.

The lawsuit, first brought in 2004, alleges that Swift used an
artificial formula to calculate mileage -- leaving drivers paid
for the shortest distance rather than actual driven miles. The
recent Arizona ruling denied the carrier's request to review a
2016 appellate court order that recertified the class, which was
temporarily halted in 2015 by a state superior court.

Up to 80,000 drivers could be involved. Any driver employed by
Swift Transportation from 1998 until today, and paid by the mile,
could be eligible to join the lawsuit.

Attorneys representing the drivers say a date hasn't been set, but
they plan to go to trial as soon as possible and will provide more
information as it becomes available.


TOMBIGBEE ELECTRIC: Sirote & Permutt Secures Class Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Seale at Biz Journals reports that Sirote & Permutt
attorneys Barry Ragsdale -- bragsdale@sirote.com -- and Cheryl
Howell Oswalt -- coswalt@sirote.com -- secured a significant
victory in a class action lawsuit filed against their client,
Tombigbee Electric Cooperative Inc., an Alabama electric
cooperative serving Marion and Lamar counties. Tombigbee was sued
in 2014 in a major class action lawsuit which claimed that the
cooperative had allegedly violated Alabama law in the handling of
capital credits and/or alleged excess revenue covering a period of
several decades. The lawsuit was one of many similar class actions
filed against electric cooperatives across Alabama. The plaintiffs
have unconditionally surrendered and agreed to dismiss their case
against Tombigbee.


TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Problems in Computer Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Murphy at Portland Press Herald reports that the company
hired to bring Maine's courts into the electronic age has had
serious technology problems in other states, including complaints
that it led to dozens of people being wrongly arrested or held in
jail longer than their sentences.

Teon Wiley, a 34-year-old man from Memphis, Tennessee, said that
was exactly what happened to him.

Wiley was arrested and jailed after a traffic stop last July for
violating probation and failing to pay court costs for theft of
household items from a Home Depot store in Tennessee. He was due
to be released in mid-November, but his release date came and went
-- and he remained in jail.

When he asked jail officials why he was still being held past his
release date, he said he was told that they were having computer
problems and he would "have to wait until the system comes back
up" before they could let him go. He was finally released in late
November, after serving two weeks longer than his sentence
dictated.

That extra time in jail "was worse than the (original) four
months," Wiley said. "I was ready to go home and those two weeks
were like a whole year."

Wiley's was not an isolated case. Dozens of defendants in at least
three different states have been wrongly arrested or been held in
jail longer than their sentences called for, and officials have
blamed problems with Tyler Technologies' Odyssey computer program,
which manages cases and facilitates electronic court filings for
court systems all over the country. It is the same program that
will be installed in Maine courts over the next five years.

Lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. on behalf of those
defendants, both against law enforcement agencies that use
Odyssey, and against Tyler Technologies itself.

In California, the public defender for Alameda County cited dozens
of defendants who were victims of computer problems after Odyssey
was installed, including one who was held for 16 days after the
computer system erroneously said he was to be held without bail.
In another case, a sentence was improperly entered into the system
and a defendant had to spend 20 extra days in jail. In yet
another, a warrant that was supposed to be recalled was not,
leading to the defendant being arrested erroneously.

In each case, the public defender blamed incomplete case files
that had not been updated or had missing documents.

"Minute orders, filings and other documents are frequently missing
from the paperless files," according to a motion filed by Brendon
Woods, the public defender in Alameda County, in November. "The
calendars generated by the system are also persistently incomplete
and . . . regularly conflict with the calendars produced by the
sheriff, the public defender and the district attorney. This
appears to be the result of both inputting errors and Odyssey's
inability to interface with other case management systems."

Tyler officials blame antiquated government computers and
electronic systems and a poorly run interface between the Tyler
software on court computers and jail systems.

John Marr, Tyler's CEO and chairman, said the Odyssey system has
been rolled out in 21 states, including 11 where it is used
statewide, as it will be in Maine.

"They're all successfully implemented," he said, adding that
problems other states are seeing are due largely to difficulties
that localities have had in linking court and jail systems.
Odyssey is only installed on court systems, he said, and doesn't
run the jail systems, even though they are often linked.

"We're not at the root or cause" of those issues, he said. "We are
not the jail system or the integrator between the jail and the
court system. These are things that happen in our industry,
although we certainly take them very seriously."

                Company Employs Hundreds in Maine

Lawsuits in Tennessee, Indiana and Kentucky cite similar issues
involving hundreds of defendants, all complaining of problems with
the Odyssey program.

Wiley, the Tennessee man, is now part of one of those lawsuits, a
class-action lawsuit against the Shelby County sheriff's office in
Tennessee, on behalf of him and other inmates who faced the same
situation. Another class-action suit in Shelby County names Tyler
Technologies as a defendant.

Tyler's niche is creating software for local governments,
including the city of Portland, which just signed a contract with
the company for an upgrade of the software it uses in City Hall.

The company is headquartered in Texas, although its chief
executive officer lives in Maine and the company has more than 650
employees in Falmouth and Yarmouth and is expected to expand here
in coming years. The Maine operations focus primarily on creating
software for administering school districts, while the court
software was developed in and is managed from Texas.

Late last year, Maine signed a $16.9 million, five-year contract
with Tyler to provide electronic services to Maine courts. The
project will enable all state courts to allow attorneys to file
lawsuits and briefs electronically and the public will be able to
track cases online, instead of having to search through paper
records at individual clerks' offices in each courthouse. Judges'
orders will also be entered electronically, and data such as bail
terms and jail sentences will be stored online, so county
officials know when prisoners are supposed to report and when they
are to be released.

But that's where officials in other states said Tyler's software
failed to perform. The lawsuits say erroneous records are filed in
the computers or no information at all is entered until long
delays have already developed.

The incidents vary, but most involve either incorrect information
entered into the system or allegations that the system fails to
stay up to date.

In Alameda County, California, the public defender's office is
asking the court to order officials to make changes to ensure that
record-keeping is up to date. The proposed order cites more than
two dozen cases in just over three months in which people have
been held in jail too long, were arrested on warrants issued
erroneously, remained on probation too long or had misdemeanor
convictions listed incorrectly as felony convictions.

In a court filing, Woods, the public defender, said all the
problems occurred since the Odyssey system went online last
August.

In addition to the lawsuits in Tennessee, county officials have
been sued in Indiana over similar allegations. The lawsuits
generally target county officials, since they are responsible for
making sure court and jail records are accurate and up to date.
Only one Tennessee suit names Tyler.

Joshua Spickler, an attorney with Just City, a criminal justice
reform advocacy group in Tennessee, said the courts and jails in
Memphis operated well until Odyssey went online there in November.

"That's when everything fell apart," he said.

'THEY HAVE NOT FIXED IT'

Wiley, the Memphis man who was held in jail two weeks longer than
his sentence, said jail officials threatened to charge him with
inciting a riot when he insisted that he be allowed to see a judge
to be released. He said other inmates told him that they, too,
were being held longer than they were supposed to be jailed.

Tales like Wiley's "are the story, over and over," Spickler said.
"I still get calls weekly. They have not fixed it."

Mary Ann Lynch, spokeswoman for the Maine Judicial Branch, said
the committee that selected Tyler for the state project was aware
that problems had been reported elsewhere. She also said state
officials are going into the project with their eyes open and know
that there will be some difficulties along the way, given the
scope of the project.

"We have done our best to learn from the experiences, both good
and bad, of other court systems," she said. "I think it would be
the height of either naivete or arrogance, or both, to suggest we
will be immune from hitting some bumps in the road as we implement
an entirely new way of doing business. "

She said that Maine may actually be better off going into the
project now, after problems already surfaced elsewhere, because
that may allow Maine and Tyler to anticipate any issues here and
either head them off or know how to correct them using fixes
developed elsewhere.

"We do believe we will benefit from the experiences of other
courts, and those 'problems' are learning opportunities for us,"
Lynch said. "Sometimes it helps to be at the back of the queue in
implementing change. We are taking to heart the experiences of
others."

TYLER WON BID BY 'A LARGE MARGIN'

Tyler's bid of $16.9 million fell in the middle of six that the
state received to convert the courts to electronic filing. The low
bid was $9.8 million from Journal Technology, and Thomson Reuters
was at the top end, with a bid of $33.6 million.

Lynch said Tyler scored a few more points on the scoring scale
used by the six-member selection committee because it already has
operations in Maine, but she said the difference was minimal --
only a maximum of 50 points on a 1,000-point scale. Lynch said she
didn't have the final scores of the committee, but the points for
local operations did not tip the balance.

"I am told that Tyler won by such a large margin that this was not
a determining factor," she said.

She also said the state consulted with the National Center for
State Courts on the project and also will benefit from having a
unified court system, rather than a system of independently
operated county or municipal courts that are sometimes used in
other jurisdictions. That can result in systems with different
computer backbones and inconsistent funding for the conversion to
an electronic format, Lynch said.

Marr said Tyler will learn from issues encountered in other states
to try to make Maine's implementation smoother. And, Marr said,
he's taken a slightly stronger interest in the Maine project
because he lives here -- for instance, he sat in on the
presentation his company made to the selection committee.

"I'm a Mainer, been here virtually my whole life," he said. "To
have an opportunity here in our home state, we're excited to make
Maine a showplace."


UNITED PARCEL: Faces New FCRA Class Action Over Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica James, Esq. -- jessica.james@orrick.com -- Andrea Johnson,
Esq. -- andrea.johnson@orrick.com -- Tim Long, Esq. --
tjlong@orrick.com -- of Orrick, in an article for JDSupra, report
that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) has created a
flurry of class action complaints in recent years aimed at
employers who fail to comply with the FCRA's hyper-technical
disclosure and consent requirements.  However, a new class action
against UPS reminds us that traditional FCRA claims have not faded
away and employers should remain mindful of the Act's
requirements.

Employers have struggled to understand their responsibilities
under the FCRA as plaintiffs change their focus from traditional
background check compliance to targeting employers' use of social
media accounts and internet search engines.  In one case, the
plaintiffs alleged that even an employer's use of LinkedIn
violates the FCRA.  In another instance, the plaintiff alleged
that he was terminated after his former employer coerced him into
signing an admission statement for refund fraud.  Even though the
plaintiff was not convicted of the crime, his forced admission
made its way into a database used by prospective employers.  These
are just a sampling of the novel FCRA claims that employers did
not anticipate a few years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also faced novel FCRA-related claims
targeted at an employer's use of new technology. In that case,
Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins et al., the plaintiff brought FCRA
claims against Spokeo, a "people search engine" that provides
information like contact data, marital status, age, occupation,
and wealth level, which the plaintiff claimed published inaccurate
information about him that caused him psychological harm while he
struggled to find work. While the Supreme Court's focus was on the
injury required to maintain a suit for willful violations of the
FCRA, and it decided a concrete injury was required, it is clear
that employers must carefully review how they use technology to
investigate prospective and current employees.

But with the new barrage of technology based FCRA claims, a recent
lawsuit against UPS reminds employers to maintain continued
vigilance against traditional FCRA background check claims.  In a
case filed on February 13, 2017, Riley v. United Parcel Service of
America, Inc, Case No. 6:17-cv-00254, the plaintiff alleges that
in November 2016, UPS offered him a job as a customer service
representative, subject to a background check.  Subsequently, on
November 14, 2016, UPS notified plaintiff that the company was
revoking the offer due to information revealed in the background
check report, without ever telling him what the information was or
giving him an opportunity to discuss the information.

Thereafter, Riley brought claims under FCRA alleging that that the
company failed to provide him a copy of the report, failed to
notify him of his rights under the FCRA, and failed to allow him
to respond to the information.  Riley seeks to represent a
proposed class of all UPS "employees and prospective employees in
the United States against whom adverse action was taken based, in
whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer report"
within the last five years.  Plaintiff estimates that the proposed
class will include thousands of individuals and seeks damages
between $100-$1,000 for each violation, punitive damages, attorney
fees and costs.

In conclusion, employers should remain cautious about using
information from internet searches and using social media to make
hiring decisions.  However, this case is a reminder that employers
must not only prepare for new theories of liability that arise as
a result of changing technology, but that they must also carefully
review their existing background check policies to ensure that
even traditional background check methods comply with the
technicalities of the FCRA.


UNITED STATES: Court Allows Medicare Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
JD Supra Advisor reports on February 8, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut declined to fully
dismiss allegations filed by a class of Medicare patients against
the Department of Health and Human Services in Alexander et al. v.
Cochran (formerly Bagnall et al. v. Sebelius). Specifically, the
Court found that the complaint plausibly alleged that HHS
encouraged hospitals to place patients in observation status
rather than admitting them as inpatients, thus causing the
patients to ultimately pay more for their care without providing
an avenue for the patients to appeal that decision.

This class action was originally filed in November 2011 against
HHS, claiming violations of the Medicare Act, the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Due Process
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that CMS
pressured hospitals to treat patients in observation where they
would remain as outpatients rather than admit them and provide
treatment as inpatients. Plaintiffs also argued that HHS failed to
provide sufficient notice to beneficiaries of their status as
outpatients receiving observation services, and that HHS failed to
provide sufficient appeal and administrative review processes.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that CMS directs providers to
apply commercially available screening tools which substitute for
the medical judgment of treating physicians. Further, plaintiffs
allege that CMS exerts pressure on hospitals through billing
policies and through Recovery Audit Contractor reviews,
incentivizing hospitals -- as a cost-savings or compliance measure
-- to place more beneficiaries in observation status for longer
periods of times. The plaintiffs further argue that certain
services provided to patients as observation services are
identical to those provided to inpatients, but the observation
services ultimately require patients to pay more for their care,
so the plaintiffs lost thousands of dollars in coverage.

As previously reported, the case was initially dismissed with the
District Court relying on the finding that HHS leaves the
classification of patient status to the discretion of doctors and
hospitals by tying it to their determination as to whether
formally to admit a beneficiary. However, in January 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowed the
case to proceed, stating plaintiffs had alleged a property
interest sufficient to state a due process claim. The court
explained that if plaintiffs were able to prove their allegations
that CMS channels the discretion of doctors to admit patients as
outpatients, then plaintiffs could arguably show that qualifying
Medicare beneficiaries have a property interest in being treated
as inpatients that is protected by the due process clause. The
case was remanded to the District Court where plaintiffs were
permitted to take discovery limited to the issue of whether
plaintiffs had a property interest in being admitted to the
hospital as inpatients to support their due process claims.

Summary judgment motions filed by the plaintiffs and HHS were both
denied due to the existence of significant factual disputes
material to the question of whether CMS meaningfully channels the
discretion of doctors by providing fixed or objective criteria for
when patients should be admitted. For instance, the District Court
found that there are genuine disputes of material fact about the
extent to which hospitals rely on commercial screening tools in
their patient status decisions, as well as the extent to which CMS
actions and policies have shaped hospital decision-making about
inpatient admissions.

However, the District Court allowed the case to continue,
declining to fully dismiss the plaintiffs' allegations. The court
permitted the case to proceed on due process grounds as the
complaint "plausibly alleged that the inpatient admission decision
is the result of 'significant encouragement' from the Secretary
[of HHS], through CMS,"  relying on allegations that CMS, through
its billing policies and through its retroactive contractor
reviews, pressures and  incentives hospitals to place more
Medicare beneficiaries into observation status for longer periods
of time. The court also noted that the "parties agree there are no
administrative review procedures for Medicare beneficiaries who
seek to challenge their placement on observation status." However,
the District Court disagreed with plaintiffs' argument that
beneficiaries do not receive sufficient notice of observation
services because plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the
adequacy of the notices they received since lack of notice did not
cause plaintiffs' injuries. Further, the District Court noted that
the NOTICE Act moots the plaintiffs' claims with regard to
expedited notice.


UNITED STATES: Trade Groups Appeal Decision to Uphold DOL
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schoeff Jr. at Investment News reports that financial
industry trade groups seeking to stop the DOL fiduciary rule are
appealing a recent decision by a Dallas federal judge to uphold
the measure.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the
Financial Services Institute, the Insured Retirement Institute,
the Financial Services Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
filed the appeal on February 24 in the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals in New Orleans.

In early February, the groups lost at the district court level
when Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the Northern District of
Texas granted summary judgment to the DOL. She shot down each of
the industry's arguments against the rule, which included claims
that DOL lacked authority to promulgate it, violated rulemaking
parameters and created a new "private right of action" for clients
to pursuing litigation against financial advisers.

But the plaintiffs say they can succeed at the appeals level.

"We remain confident in the merits and strength of our case and
stand by our assertion that the Department of Labor exceeded its
authority," the groups said in a joint statement. "We have long
supported a best interest standard, adopted by the appropriate
regulatory authority and across all individual investor accounts,
not just retirement. This is a misguided rule that will harm
retirement savers and financial services firms that provide needed
assistance and options to their clients, including modest savers
and small business employees. Further the 'private right of
action' mechanism creates unwarranted litigation risk for
financial advisers, who will face the threat of meritless class
action lawsuits challenging their every move."

The appeal comes as the Trump administration has ordered DOL to
reassess the rule and modify or rescind it if the agency finds
that it causes harm to investors or firms. The directive echoes
industry concerns that the rule is too complex and costly and will
price investors with modest assets out of the advice market.
Proponents of the rule argue that it is necessary to protect
workers and retirees from conflicted advice that results in the
purchase of inappropriate high-fee investments that erode savings.

The DOL is seeking a delay in the April 10 implementation date of
the rule, which would require financial advisers to act in the
best interests of their clients in retirement accounts.


VCA INC: Faces Suit Over $9.1-Bil. Takeover by Mars
---------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Naso at Law360 reports that VCA Inc. shareholder launched
a putative class action on February 23 against the pet health care
services company, contending in a California federal court that
the disclosures surrounding a planned $9.1 billion takeover by
candy and consumer brands conglomerate Mars Inc. lacked key
financial information and details about a potential private equity
suitor.

Frances Moran, a VCA shareholder, alleges in her complaint that
VCA's proxy statement and other merger-related disclosures are
missing the type of detail that shareholders need in order to make
a fully informed vote on the proposed deal at an upcoming
shareholder meeting.

"Consequently, VCA's stockholders are being asked to vote in
support of the Proposed Transaction based upon the materially
incomplete and misleading representations and information
contained in the proxy," the complaint says.

According to Moran, the company failed to disclose complete
information surrounding VCA's financial projections, a factor of
particular importance given VCA's upward trajectory in recent
years.

"VCA's continued success is best exhibited by the fact that the
company has enjoyed nine consecutive quarters of double-digit
growth in revenue," the complaint says.

"In light of VCA's recent and historical financial performance and
strong growth prospects, it is vital that VCA's stockholders
receive all material information concerning the proposed
transaction, so that they may make an informed vote on the
proposed transaction and/or seek appraisal for their stock," it
continues.

Moran also alleges that while VCA made clear that it was first
approached by a private equity firm about a potential transaction
before Mars started courting the pet health services company, it
failed to make clear whether or not the private equity firm was
barred by any provisions from making a competing offer.

"This omitted information renders statements made in the proxy
materially misleading, as the below-referenced omitted
information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix
of information available to VCA's stockholders," the complaint
says.

A VCA spokesperson declined to comment on the complaint, citing a
company policy against commenting on ongoing litigation.

Mars revealed in January that it planned to scoop up VCA in a $93-
per-share cash deal, as the candy and consumer brand conglomerate
looks to build out a pet care division that already features pet
nutrition brands Pedigree, Whiskas and Royal Canin. Mars also has
a portfolio of veterinary services businesses including Banfield
Pet Hospital, Bluepearl and Pet Partners, which will be bolstered
by the addition of VCA's 800 small veterinary hospitals and
network of 60 diagnostic laboratories.

Moran is advised by Rosemary M. Rivas of Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Counsel information for VCA was not immediately known.

The case is Moran v. VCA Inc. et al., case number 2:17-cv-01502,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
Columbia.


VOLKSWAGEN: Exec Pleads Not Guilty to Emission Scandal Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jurist reports that a Volkswagen executive pleaded not guilty in
the wake of VW's emissions scandal.

Oliver Schmidt, the former general manager of VW's environmental
and engineering office, was arrested in Miami in January and
charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, alleged violations of
the Clean Air Act and wire fraud in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Schmidt has been charged with 11
counts and could face a combined maximum sentence of 169 years in
prison. Schmidt has been accused of being aware that VW's diesel
vehicles had software installed that would recognize when the car
was being tested and alter emissions output. The government claims
Schmidt obstructed the investigation of regulators and lied about
his knowledge of VW's actions. Schmidt also allegedly deleted
incriminating e-mails and other documents against a court order to
preserve such documents. Schmidt was one of six charged, with the
other five living in Germany and facing similar charges.

VW and their employees have been in the spotlight around the world
over the emissions scandal. In early February, VW agreed to plead
not guilty and pay billions of dollars to correct their 3.0 liter
diesel engine vehicles. In December the EU decided to take action
against seven member states over the emissions scandal. A US judge
approved a $14.7 billion settlement in October between VW and the
US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the state
of California and car owners who filed a class action lawsuit over
the company's emissions scandal. In September the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission sued VW and its local
subsidiary for misleading customers. In August a district court in
Germany ruled that a collective complaint against VW may move
forward. Like US-style class-action lawsuits, the collective
complaint was launched on behalf of multiple investors who lost
money following the diesel emissions cheating scandal. In July a
judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of
California gave preliminary approval to a $15 billion settlement
between VW and the US Environmental Protection Agency, California
officials and consumers. In June VW agreed to spend up to $14.7
billion to settle allegations of cheating emissions tests and
deceiving customers in a settlement with US regulators. In March
the US Federal Trade Commission filed suit against VW for false
advertising.


WINDERMERE REAL: Dismissal of Noise Disclosure Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Stensland at Whidbey News Times reports that a lawsuit over
the alleged inadequacy of jet-noise disclosures from Whidbey real
estate companies is back.

A state court of appeals reversed a lower courts' dismissal of the
lawsuit and remanded it back to superior court for further
proceedings.

Attorneys representing Coupeville residents Jonathan Deegan and
Alice O'Grady filed the complaint for damages and injunctive
relief against Windermere Real Estate and Acorn Properties on Nov.
18, 2014. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Consumer
Protection Act.

The complaint was filed in Island County Superior Court as a
possible "class-action lawsuit," but the plaintiffs haven't yet
sought or received class-action certification.

The plaintiffs purchased homes on Whidbey and said they were given
an abbreviated noise disclosure form regarding jet noise by their
listing agents, the lawsuit states.

Island County commissioners previously adopted an ordinance
requiring real estate agents to provide clients with a longer,
more detailed disclosure about the noise from jets associated with
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

A superior court judge dismissed the case under the state Consumer
Protection Act, finding that the disclosure provided was enough to
alert prospective homeowners to the noise impacts and that a
reasonable inspection would have revealed the facts available in
the other disclosure statement.

The judge also found that the plaintiffs "failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted."

Additionally, the judge found that the statute of limitations had
run out on Deegan's claim.

The appeals court, however, disagreed with the judge. Its
published opinion states that, in this case, the prospective
homeowners did not have a duty to inquire further about the noise.
This duty to inquire, described in Douglas v. Visser, does not
apply when there's "an omission of material fact," according to
Mike Daubt, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The appeals court also found that rebuttable presumption of
reliance is applicable in a Consumer Protection Act case.

The statute of limitation decision was reversed by the court
because the defendants didn't establish when Deegan "reasonably
should have known" about the jet noise.

In December 2013, the county planning director wrote a memorandum
to the board of commissioners noting that sellers were not
providing buyers with the lengthier disclosure statement. In
response, the Whidbey Island Association of Realtors took "prompt
action to correct its standard disclosure," according to the
motion to dismiss.

Eric Mitten, broker and owner of Windermere Real Estate/Whidbey
Island, points out that the appeals court decision essentially
says that it was a mistake of the trial court to dismiss the case
so early.

"In other words, the plaintiffs haven't won yet, and we haven't
lost," Mitten said in an email. "The court of appeals has simply
decided that the case should be allowed to proceed farther before
a decision is made whether to dismiss it."

Daudt said the appeals court decision strengthens their case,
however, especially on the issue of rebuttable presumption of
reliance. He said precedence-setting decision shifts the burden to
the defendant to disprove reliance, which is good for the
plaintiffs.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs don't yet know the scope
a class-action lawsuit would take, but it could potentially
involve many homeowners, Daudt said.

The case will head back to superior court unless the defendants
ask for reconsideration or appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"We think the trial court made the right decision in the first
place," Mitten said, "but we respect Court of Appeals' decision
and we are prepared to defend the case on the merits."


* Deceptive Pricing Class Actions Against Retailers Surge
---------------------------------------------------------
Wilson M. Brown III, Esq. -- wilson.brown@dbr.com -- Kathryn E.
Deal, Esq. -- kathryn.deal@dbr.com -- Kate S. Gold, Esq. --
kate.gold@dbr.com -- Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. --
meredith.slawe@dbr.com -- Katherine Villanueva, Esq., of Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that there has been a recent surge in deceptive pricing
class actions filed against retailers.  From so-called perpetual
sales claims to "compare at" pricing challenges, the plaintiffs'
class action bar has aggressively pursued retailers with mixed
results.  Two recent class action complaints in particular offer
new twists on deceptive pricing claims.

The first action, filed against Express, LLC ("Express") on
January 23, 2017, in the Central District of California,
challenges shipping and handling charges for merchandise purchased
online.  The second action, filed against Nordstrom, Inc.
("Nordstrom") on February 16, 2017, in the District of Alaska,
centers on allegations of misleading in-store sales and
promotions.  Although both cases will likely face significant
hurdles on the merits and at class certification (should they
proceed to that stage), they serve to remind retailers of the
possibility of litigation exposure related to pricing practices.

Reider v. Express, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-556 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017)
This class action complaint was filed last month against Express
by a prolific California-based firm, Pacific Trial Attorneys
(formerly known as Newport Law Group).  Many retailers will
recognize this firm from actions and demand letters involving
Americans with Disabilities Act website access claims, New
Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
claims (primarily attacking website terms of use and privacy
policies), and, most recently, contrived Telephone Consumer
Protection Act revocation of consent claims related to retail text
message programs.  The Reider action suggests that this firm may
be pivoting to an attack on shipping and handling charges for
items purchased on retail websites.  Notably, the same plaintiff
and law firm filed a nearly identical complaint against Electrolux
Home Care Products, Inc. a short time ago. Reider v. Electrolux
Home Care Products, Inc. et al, No. 8:17-cv-26 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6,
2017)

In the Express lawsuit, Plaintiff Reider alleges that the
company's shipping and handling charges are fraudulent and
deceptive in violation of Unfair Competition Laws (UCL) and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  He specifically challenges
Express' alleged practice of charging shipping and handling fees
that exceed the actual costs for shipping and handling.  The
complaint also previews a challenge to the enforceability of an
arbitration agreement on the Express website and purports to
assert claims under California's UCL and CLRA on behalf of a
putative class defined as "[a]ll persons in the State of
California who purchased products from express.com and were
charged a fee for shipping, handling, and/or delivery within the
period of the applicable statutes of limitations up to the date of
trial (the "Class")." Compl., 38.

There appear to be several glaring issues with the complaint,
ranging from pleading deficiencies to lack of standing.  Moreover,
Express may seek to have Mr. Reider pursue his claim in individual
arbitration pursuant to the agreement set forth on its website.
There are also several obstacles to class certification, including
but not limited to what would be an individualized inquiry
regarding whether each putative class member believed shipping and
handling charges were limited to the retailer's actual shipping
costs and whether that belief was material.  Notably, the Central
District of California dismissed similar claims against Amazon on
summary judgment because the plaintiff could not demonstrate that
he relied on the shipping policy in deciding to purchase
merchandise. Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 05-cv-8060,
2009 WL 4823368 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009), aff'd, 458 F. App'x 622
(9th Cir. 2011).

Keating v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00030 (D. Alaska Feb. 16,
2017)

In an action filed on February 16, 2017, Plaintiff Maureen Keating
seeks injunctive relief and damages from Nordstrom.
Ms. Keating asserts claims for common law fraud and violations of
UCL Secs. 17200 and 17500.  She purports to represent similarly
situated consumers in Alaska and California.

Ms. Keating alleges she was repeatedly "lured" into purchasing
items from Nordstrom stores in Alaska and California based on
Nordstrom's purported false promises and misrepresentations.  In
particular, Ms. Keating claims that Nordstrom "unfairly" solicited
her and others to purchase items that were (1) improperly marked
as discounted, and/or (2) not marked consistently with what was
actually charged. Among other alleged incidents, Ms. Keating
specifically alleges that she purchased a scarf from a "40% off"
sales display, where the scarf was marked as $23.40. Compl., 5.
According to Ms. Keating, she was actually charged $39.00. Compl.,
5.  Ms. Keating alleges that she "and other similarly situated
customers did not know the falsity of Nordstrom's representations,
and would not have purchased the items had they known that the
savings were illusory and/or otherwise untrue." Compl., 19.

Ms. Keating seeks to enjoin Nordstrom from making "any sales" to
Alaska and California customers "unless and until [Nordstrom] can
demonstrate to the Court's and Plaintiff's satisfaction that it
will no longer overcharge its customers." Compl., p.7.  She also
demands compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees.

Plaintiff Keating's claim appears subject to attack, as the
complaint leaves a lot unsaid.  For example, there may be strong
defenses related to the scope of the alleged pricing practice, the
point of sale disclosures about pricing, and the individualized
inquiries that may be necessary to determine whether shoppers were
actually subject to the challenged pricing practice, and if so,
whether they relied to their detriment upon the alleged discount
price in making their purchases.  Given these issues and others,
Ms. Keating will likely confront strong challenges from Nordstrom
regarding her individualized experience and whether that forms the
basis of any credible claim, much less one that could proceed on a
class-wide basis.

Both of these recently filed lawsuits reflect the continued
efforts of the plaintiffs' bar to impugn retailers and their
pricing practices.  Given their visibility, retailers continue to
be a target of opportunistic plaintiffs who are literally out
shopping for lawsuits.  Retailers should make a concerted effort
to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and regulations,
and provide appropriate disclosures to consumers both online and
in stores.  Although consumer protection laws vary among states,
some states have taken an aggressive stance, even exposing
retailers to criminal charges for certain pricing activities.  The
Federal Trade Commission has also confronted pricing issues; a
January 30, 2014, letter from four members of Congress to the
Commission asking it to investigate potentially misleading pricing
practices by outlet retailers seemingly sparked the wave of outlet
store pricing cases -- some of which remain pending.

Perceived violations of pricing laws and regulations -- regardless
of the merits of such claims -- can therefore land retailers in
hot water.  Unfortunately, retailers are often forced to incur the
costs and reputational damage associated with protracted
litigation where the claims are later confirmed to be
manufactured, lawyer-driven, and frivolous.  Given this legal
landscape, it may be prudent to aggressively defend these cases to
avoid being targeted by predatory lawyers and serial plaintiffs.


* Delay in Supreme Court Review of Waivers to Impact Employers
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Myers, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
United States Supreme Court's decision to delay its review of the
legality of mandatory class action waivers will mean more
uncertainty for employers in the near future.

On Feb. 2, the Supreme Court announced it would delay hearing oral
arguments on three consolidated cases, Murphy Oil USA v. NLRB,
Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. and Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP
until the end of 2017 or the beginning of 2018. All three cases
deal with the issue of the legality of mandatory class action
waivers.

Mandatory class action waivers are agreements between employers
and employees under which employees agree to not pursue claims
against their employers that are on a class or collective basis.
This means that for employees, their only recourse will be a
single-plaintiff arbitration hearing.

The Supreme Court's decision to delay hearing the cases means
employers will continue to struggle with uncertainty surrounding
the issue for now, said Patrick McMahon, associate and litigation
attorney with Foley & Lardner LLP in Chicago.

"Currently there is a circuit split across jurisdictions, and
employers have had to deal with that for a few years now," he
said.

However, even with the existing circuit court split, there has
been some judicial guidance, Mr.McMahon explained.

"Many employers have adapted in the interim depending on where
they employ the most workers, and should continue to stay their
charted course until a new (U.S. Supreme Court) justice is seated
and the case is heard," he said.  "There is no reason employers
should not take advantage of the class action waivers in
jurisdictions that allow it, even if they currently do not have
one on the books right now.  In those jurisdictions, the waivers
are valid and a benefit to employers.  However, they must be aware
that this insulation could be removed depending on the resolution
of these cases."

He said employers would be unwise to read too much into the
Supreme Court's decision to delay the arguments.

"Many commentators speculated that if Chief Justice (John) Roberts
foresaw a split decision, he would push it to the next term," he
said.  "A four-to-four split would do nothing to clarify the
landscape, and a ninth justice could break that tie. This could be
the court signaling its desire to decidedly rule on the issue, but
also its inability to do so as an eight-member court."

For the near future, Mr. McMahon said employers will have to
decide what level of risk they are willing to live with.

"In those jurisdictions that permit class action waivers, there is
no reason employers cannot take advantage of such waivers;
however, there is no guidance on the federal level," he continued.
"Some employers, however, may think a wait-and-see approach is
more appropriate and forgo including them in employment agreements
until the landscape is more certain.

"Including class action waivers can make claims against employers
less appetizing to plaintiff's lawyers because trying employment
claims is typically more expensive than bringing claims as a
class.  The waivers are most often understood as a way to insulate
against class liabilities, not create them."


* Food & Beverage Litigation in Illinois Surges, Report Shows
-------------------------------------------------------------
LocalLabs News Service reports that Illinois, specifically the
Chicago area, traditionally has been home to some of the country's
most famous food companies and, even today, hosts companies that
include Sara Lee, Wrigley, The Kraft Heinz Company and even
Tootsie Roll Industries.

Unfortunately, the state also has become home to a growing amount
of litigation filed against food and beverage companies, according
to a new report from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
(ILR).

The report findings show that Illinois is one of only four states
in which three-quarters of all federal food class actions are
filed.  7% of those class actions were filed in the Land of
Lincoln, while 36% were filed in California, 22 percent in New
York, and 12% were in Florida.

"If you eat, then you are probably a member of a class action,"
according to the report, The Food Court Trends in Food and
Beverage Class Action Litigation.

"In fact, it is likely that without your knowledge, plaintiffs'
lawyers have told courts that they represent you in dozens of
lawsuits," the report continues.  "A close review of the
litigation makes clear that the vast majority of these class
actions result from lawyers shopping for cases, not consumer
fraud."

According to the report, there were more than 425 active cases in
federal courts in 2015 and 2016, a sharp increase from 2008, when
only twenty were filed.  Additionally, about 120 new food class
actions were filed in or removed to federal court in 2015, and
there were more than 170 new food class actions filed in or
removed to federal court in 2016.

This doesn't include the "many additional" suits filed in state
courts, which ILR claims were "drafted to avoid removal to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act."

The most frequent types of suits were against companies who
advertised their products as "natural", as well as a growing
number of suits targeting products labeled with "nothing
artificial" or "preservative free."

In addition, there has been an increase in so-called "slack fill"
litigation.  These lawsuits challenge "extra space" that might
exist in product packaging.  In 2015 and 2016, more than 65 such
slack fill cases were filed -- a sharp increase from the only 10
cases filed in 2013 and 2014.

Food and beverage litigation, however, aren't limited to these
types of claims.

In 2016, Chicago gained notoriety as serving host to one of a
number of high-profile lawsuits against Starbucks.  In the Chicago
case, a woman sued the coffee company for putting too much ice in
their iced coffee.  A similar suit, filed in Los Angeles, was
dismissed last August.

Another case against Starbucks, filed by plaintiffs' in
California, alleging the company's lattes are "25 percent
underfilled", became the source of a public dispute between the
coffee company and NBC News investigative journalist Jeff Rossen
and his "Rossen Reports" team.

"The official Starbucks menu in stores lists a grande latte at 16
fluid ounces," reported Mr. Rossen.  "Rossen Reports bought the
same grande latte at six different Starbucks locations, then
measured them in laboratory-grade beakers after allowing the foam
to settle. The results were revealing."

Starbucks dismissed Mr. Rossen's findings, telling NBC News that
the Rossen tests were "unscientific" and "without merit."

Mr. Rossen also has reported on the "natural" food label issue,
and as recently as this morning reported on claims that candy
companies "underfill" their boxes (i.e., "slack fill" litigation).

Lisa A. Rickard, president of the ILR, said Mr. Rossen's "slack
fill" segment "misses the point."

"These cases are about lawyers making money, not consumers," said
Ms. Rickard.  "In these kinds of cases, lawyers make millions
while only a very small percentage of consumers will see any
money."

In a video about the Starbucks lawsuits posted on ILR's Faces of
Lawsuit Abuse website, John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com
-- partner at the Skadden law firm, echoed Ms. Rickard's
statements, adding that these lawsuits could actually be costing,
not helping, consumers.

"If the company incurs costs in defending the litigation, that's
going to get passed on to consumers," said Mr. Beisner, who leads
his law firm's Mass Torts, Insurance and Consumer Litigation
Group.  "If any change is made in the product that is served to
consumers as a result, and it costs more money, that's going to be
passed on to the consumer, as well."

ILR's report findings give merit to Ms. Rickard's and Mr.
Beisner's statements finding that, in certified class actions,
"about half of the settlement money often goes to the lawyers who
bring the case for their fees and costs, and to pay the cost of
claims administration."

"While plaintiffs' lawyers receive millions in fees, consumers are
usually eligible to seek a nominal cash payment, product vouchers,
or products in the mail," according to the report.

Ms. Rickard said that Mr. Rossen's story -- and her organization's
report findings -- show that legislation is needed to fix the
problem.

"NBC's segment is further proof of the need for class action
litigation reform now headed to the floor of the U.S. House," said
Rickard, referring to the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
of 2017 (H.R. 985).

That bill, which has passed the House Judiciary Committee, was
introduced by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

"Class action lawsuits should pay consumers first, not the
lawyers," added Ms. Rickard.  "If the feeding frenzy on food
marketing class actions continues, consumers will pay the price -
including higher costs for candy at the movies."

* Pending OCR Rule to Impact Data Breach Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for HealthInfoSec, reports that a
pending federal regulation -- called for under the HITECH Act
-- that would allow regulators to share with breach victims money
collected in HIPAA violation cases eventually could have
implications in class-action breach lawsuits, says privacy
attorney Adam Greene.

The Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil
Rights "is working on a new regulation where they would share a
portion of penalties and settlements with 'harmed' individuals --
and they're still trying to figure out what a 'harmed' individual
is," Mr. Greene says.  "It will be interesting to see, when that
regulation gets proposed and ultimately finalized, if that has an
impact on class-action [breach lawsuits]."

In an interview at the HIMSS17 conference in Orlando, Mr. Greene
questions whether judges will say, for example: "Well, if [a
person] is considered a harmed individual under HIPAA, should we
consider them harmed for other purposes, too?"

So far, the courts have mostly dismissed class-action lawsuits
where plaintiffs impacted by a data breach have not shown clear
evidence of harm, such as identity theft, he points out.

During the HIMSS17 conference, Deven McGraw, OCR deputy director
of health information privacy, confirmed that the rule regarding
sharing proceeds of HIPAA settlements with victims is among the
potential rulemaking activities slated by her office in 2017.
Other Issues to Watch

In the interview with Information Security Media Group,
Mr. Greene also discusses:

   -- The potential implications in class-action lawsuits when an
organization has security technology, such as data loss prevention
software, implemented but has failed to turn on certain key breach
prevention features;

   -- Other security-related litigation and court rulings to watch
in 2017;

   -- Challenges faced by covered entities and business associates
in assessing whether some security incidents, such as ransomware
attacks, are reportable breaches.

As a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington,
Mr. Greene specializes in HIPAA and HITECH Act issues.  He
formerly was senior health information technology and privacy
specialist at the HHS Office for Civil Rights, where he played a
significant role in administering and enforcing the HIPAA privacy,
security and breach notification rules.


* Plaintiff's Lawyers, Consumer Advocates to Fight New Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer-rights advocates are trying to
derail a Republican bill to rein in class action lawsuits that is
headed toward a floor vote in the House.

Opponents are urging lawmakers to halt the bill, which they say
would severely limit the ability of citizens to join in lawsuits
to fight grievances in court.


* Securities Class Actions Hitting Lull, NERA Data Show
-------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that
securities class actions may be hitting a lull, according to data
analyzed by NERA Economics Consulting.

The number of securities class actions filed in 2016 was more than
double the amount filed in 2015, but lagged the pace of filings
between 2010 and 2014.

"While some observers once anticipated that Canada would become a
preferred venue for shareholder class actions, the last two years
may indicate otherwise," conclude study authors Bradley Heys and
Robert Patton in a 24-page report to be issued on Feb. 22.  "One
possible interpretation of the trend observed in Canada over the
past two years is that a slower pace of filings is the new norm."

Nine new securities class action cases were filed in Canada last
year, up from four in 2015. But even with last year's jump, the
number of cases was well behind the trend established at the start
of the decade.  In 2010, 12 cases were filed, followed by a record
15 cases in 2011, then 10 cases in 2012, 11 in 2013 and 13 in
2014.

"[B]oth 2015 and 2016 were below the levels observed over the
preceding five years," Messrs. Heys and Patton write.  "This is in
stark contrast with the U.S., where securities class actions
filings have increased in each of the last four years."

Since Ontario created a statutory remedy for secondary market
misrepresentation in 2005, some 76 cases have been filed.  Of
those, 34 remain unresolved, though two of those have resulted in
partial settlements.  Of the remaining cases, 11 were either
dismissed or discontinued, while 33 resulted in settlements,
including the two partial ones.

Just two matters were resolved in Canada last year, down from
seven the year before and the lowest since 2011.

There was a $53-million settlement in a cross-border case
involving Penn West Petroleum.  The other was a $400,000
settlement in a case called RB Energy Inc., formerly known as
Canada Lithium Corp.  The settlement was paid directly to counsel.

Secondary market cases are the most common form of securities
class action in Canada.  If you add in cases that cite other
grounds, some 138 cases have been filed since NERA started
tracking data in 1997.  There are currently 54 active securities
class actions in the country.

According to NERA's data, the median settlement in a Canadian
class action is now $11.4 million.


* U.S. Chamber President Comments on "Slack Fill" Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR), made the following statement about a segment that
aired on NBC's "Today" show about "slack fill" class action
lawsuits, and a related report released on Feb. 22 by ILR:

"NBC's Today show segment on so-called slack fill lawsuits against
candy makers misses the point: These cases are about lawyers
making money, not consumers.

"In these kinds of cases, lawyers make millions while only a very
small percentage of consumers will see any money.

"New research released by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform shows the explosion in the number of food lawsuits over the
past few years where the number of cases has ballooned from 20 in
2008 to over 170 new food class actions filed in or removed to
federal court in 2016.  Among many examples, the report details
questionable lawsuits like the one against Starbucks for putting
too much ice into its iced coffee.

"NBC's segment is further proof of the need for class action
litigation reform now headed to the floor of the U.S. House. Class
action lawsuits should pay consumers first, not the lawyers.  If
the feeding frenzy on food marketing class actions continues,
consumers will pay the price -- including higher costs for candy
at the movies."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- http://www.uschamber.com-- is the
world's largest business federation representing the interests of
more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions,
as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.



                            *********

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  * * *