CAR_Public/170308.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, March 8, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 48



                            Headlines

AAPTIV INC: Faces "Kissel" Class Suit in Calif.
ABT HOLDINGS: Settles California Labor Class Suit for $720,000
AEROCRAFT HEAT: Faces Suit Over Chromium-6 Contamination
ALLERGAN INC: Sued in C.D. of California Over 401(k) Plan
AMAZON.COM: "Louie" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code

AMGEN INC: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Onyx Litigation
AMGEN INC: Wins Preliminary Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ANTHERA PHARMA: Cleven Sues in N.D. Cal Over Share Price Drop
AQUA RESTAURANT: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA

ARCTIC CAT: "Pajnigar" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Textron
AT&T: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Debt
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Shehab Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: "Amburgey" Suit Alleges Improper Drug Handling
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Wages, OT Pay

C R BARD: Class Suit Over Hernia Products Remains Pending
C R BARD: Quebec Class Suit Discontinued
C R BARD: Filter Product Claims by 1,425 Plaintiffs Pending
CANADA: Koskie Minsky Commences Class Action Over "Sixties Scoop"
CEMTREX INC: Hires Lane Powell to Defend Securities Suits

CERNER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued by Convicted Chiropractor
COLORADO: Undocumented Immigrants' Class Action Can Proceed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Advertisements
CSX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Fuel Surcharge Suit

DELTA AIR: Sorenson Files Suit in Georgia Over USERRA Violations
DELTA AIR: Motion for Summary Judgment Underway
DELTA AIR: Antitrust Suit in D.C. Court in Discovery
ELITE ROOF: OT Pay Sought by "Garza," Hits Misclassification
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Combine Melbourne Suit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss Anthem ERISA Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Beeman" Suit Remains Pending in California
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Opposes Reconsideration Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Messaging Privacy Suit Through Agreement
FAIRMONT HOTELS: Macomber Seeks Damages Under Penal Code

FARMCHEM CORP: "Harris" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FEDERAL REALTY: Order Certifying Defendant Class Under Appeal
FINANCIAL CONDUCT: Faces Age Discrimination Lawsuit
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: "Twohill" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
FIRST CHOICE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

GEICO GENERAL: "McDonagh" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Settles Paxil Class Action for $6.2-Mil.
GRANA Y MONTERO: April 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HCP INC: Lead Plaintiff Not Named in Boynton Beach Case
HEIGHTS INSURANCE: Former Employees File Labor Class Action

INVENSENSE INC: Brodsky & Smith Sues Over Proposed Acquisition
INVUITY INC: April 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
JULEP BEAUTY: "Carson" Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal
KANSAS CITY, MO: Judge Certifies Overtime Wage Class Action
KNITOLOGY INC: Hernandez Seeks OT & Minimum Pay Under Labor Code

KROGER CO: Delaware Court Did Not Rule on Counsel Fee Bid
LAND O'LAKES: Individuals Can Claim Milk Case Settlement Payout
LGI HOMES: "Selby" Case to Recover Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
MEMPHIS, TN: ACLU Joins Class Action Over Citizens List
METLIFE INC: Sanford Heisler Expands $50MM Class Suit

MIAMI STRIPING: "Sanchez" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
MID CENTRAL: Faces Suit Over Mishandling of Grant Funds
MLT LLC: "Cleese" Suit Seeks to Recover Rental Payments
MOBILEIRON INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.
MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada

MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Dairy Clawback
MVCI ENERGY: Overtime Pay Sought in "Gleason" Labor Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Not Safeguarding Student-Athletes
NETFLIX INC: Exec Failed to Disclose Rate Hike Impact, Suit Says
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Faces Suit for Cheating Insurance Customers

NOVO NORDISK: Diabetes Patients Sue Over Overpriced Insulin
OMEGA PROTEIN: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Sues Over Drop in Share Prices
PANOLA COUNTY, TX: "Small" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: "Daly" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop

QUALCOMM INC: Herrera Files Anti-trust Suit Over Chipset Monopoly
RH INC: Employees Trust Fund Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
RIVIERA LOFT: "Pupo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Washer Recall
SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: McCarthy Attorneys Discuss Excalibur Ruling

SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation
SHIRE US INC: JM Smith Corp Files Anti-Trust Suit Over Guanfacine
STREAM ENERGY: Sued in N.J. for Solar Energy Panel Overcharges
SUNDANCE INC: Violated FLSA, Suit Says
TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Suit For Over Charging Clients

TRIDENT SEAFOODS: Faces Fish Oil Deceptive Labeling Class Action
UNITED STATES: "Al-Mowafak" Files Discrimination Class Action
UNITED STUDENT: Averts Student Loan Robocall Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ordered to Provide LLNL Retiree List
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Reinstating Some Legacy Scholarships

US SECURITY: Off-the-Clock Work Pay Sought by "Cogburn"
USANA HEALTH: Faces "Rumbaug" Securities Class Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Litigation Management Deal
VERIZON COMMUNICATION: NY App. Div. Revives Class Action Deal
WELLS FARGO: Says Arbitration of Fake Account Claims Fair Forum

WORCESTER TELEGRAM: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on April 25
WORLD MARKETING: WARN Class' Application for Damages Granted

* Attorney Discusses 2017 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
* Bill Seeks Common-Sense Changes to Federal Class-Action Law
* Class Action Litigation Reform Won't Kill Antitrust Suits
* Class Action Reform Bill Aims to Curb Attorney Abuses
* Class Actions Targeting Food Products Surge in New York

* HR 985 Picks Up Where CAFA Left Off to Correct Abuse of System
* McGuireWoods Attorney Discusses MDL Provisions in New Bill
* Securities Fraud Lawsuits Target Life Sciences Companies




                            *********


AAPTIV INC: Faces "Kissel" Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------
VICTORIA KISSEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. AAPTIV INC., a Delaware
corporation; and 15 DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC650275 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
California Business and Professions Code, and the California Code
of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff brought the class action on behalf of herself and a
class of others similarly situated consisting of all persons who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased
subscriptions for products (such as fitness services and related
products) from Aaptiv Inc.

According to the plaintiff, because of Defendant's failure to
gather affirmative consent to the automatic renewal terms, all
goods, wares, merchandise, or products, sent to Plaintiff and
Class Members under the automatic renewal or continuous service
agreement are deemed to be an unconditional gift pursuant to Cal.
Bus. and Prof. Code, and Plaintiff and Class Members may use or
dispose of the same in any manner they see fit without any
obligation whatsoever on their part to Defendant, including, but
not limited to, bearing the cost of, or responsibility for,
shipping any goods, wares, merchandise or product.

Aaptiv provides an on-demand audio fitness Website and/or a mobile
application for audio-based fitness classes with the guidance of a
trainer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com


ABT HOLDINGS: Settles California Labor Class Suit for $720,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABT Holdings, Inc., settled for $720,000 a labor-related purported
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's February 14, 2017, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 27, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to
purchase 76% equity (the "Purchased Shares") of Scoobeez Inc., a
California Corporation and its related businesses for cash and
stock. The total fair value at the date of acquisition is recorded
as $1,296,000. On January 22, 2016 the Company settled Benjamin
Art's note with a face value of $720,000 and rescinded 15% equity
interest of Benjamin Art in Scoobeez for a cash settlement of
$125,000. On March 31, 2016, the Company issued 1,800,000 shares
to Grigori Sedrakyan for a settlement amount against a Convertible
Promissory Note of $540,000 related to the purchase agreement.

On October 27, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in Superior
Court for the State of California in County of Los Angeles against
the Company, Scoobeez, and Amazon alleging that delivery drivers
or drivers' associates for the new Amazon Prime Now service have
been wrongfully paid as independent contractors. The Company is
required to assess the appropriateness of the consolidated
financial statement disclosures regarding this pending litigation.
The Company's ability to assess this contingent liability depends
upon receiving information from the Company's attorneys.

As of February 2, 2017, all parties have agreed to settle the
lawsuit for $720,000 and are pending the final settlement
documents to be signed. Based on this status, the Company
initially record a contingent liability of $700,000 in the
estimated amount as of December 31, 2015 and increased the amount
to actual as of September 30, 2016.

ABT Holdings, Inc., previously known as ABT Mining Co., was
incorporated under the laws of the state of Idaho in 1957 under
the original name of Abot Mining Company.  The Company's legal
name was changed to ABT Mining Co. Inc. with the State of Idaho on
March 1, 2007.  Effective August 14, 2015, the Company's legal
name is now ABT Holdings, Inc.  The Company's overall business
strategy is to operate as a diversified holding company, which is
primarily engaged in investing, acquiring, developing, operating
and growing various revenue generating businesses.


AEROCRAFT HEAT: Faces Suit Over Chromium-6 Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Uranga at Long Beach Press Telegram reports that Paramount
residents filed a class action lawsuit against seven metal
processing companies alleging they endangered the community by
willfully releasing toxic levels of chromium-6 and other
substances.

The lawsuit, filed at the Los Angeles Superior Court on February
28, comes after months of protests from community residents
against city and state officials after air regulators linked two
metal processing companies to alarming levels of hexavalent
chromium.

Long-term exposure to this form of chromium -- made famous by the
2000 movie "Erin Brockovich" about hexavalent chromium in the
water in Hinkley, California -- is linked to lung cancer and
harmful health aliments. And one of the same lawyers involved in
the Hinkley lawsuit, Thomas V. Girardi of Girardi Keese Lawyers,
is also representing Paramount residents.

"The residents felt that they had nowhere to turn," said Laurie
Guillen, one of seven residents named in the suit and a leading
critic of city officials for failing to prevent pollution despite
years of complaints from residents.

"We have to hold these companies accountable," said Guillen, who
is also running for City Council in February 28's election.

The lawsuit accused the companies of operating their facilities
"with a conscious disregard for the lives of the surrounding
residents, " allowing "toxic chemicals to migrate into the
surrounding communities and contaminate the surrounding surface,
and subsurface soil, groundwater and air."

The companies include dozens of metal-related facilities operating
in the working class town of less than five square miles. Many of
the businesses are not far from schools, homes and parks.

They include: Aerocraft Heat Treating Company, Inc., Anaplex
Corporation, Precision Castparts Corporation, Carlton Forge Works
Inc., Weber Metals Inc., Mattco Forge Inc. and Press Forge
Company.

The president of Anaplex said in a statement that the company has
"demonstrated increasing effectiveness" in addressing the concerns
that arose in November.

The lawsuit "changes nothing in our determination to continue to
work closely with regulators and provide local jobs and services
that meet environmental standards with the best interests of the
community in mind," said Carmen Campbell.

Representatives of other companies targeted did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit claims businesses "had a heightened duty of care to
(residents) because of the great danger associated with storing
and using toxic chemical near residential areas and other high-
density centers in Los Angeles County. Defendants maintenance and
operation of their facilities were inherently dangerous, posed a
significant risk of harm to plaintiffs ...and the public."

That issue is at the center of a larger debate across the region
about how to best deal with neighborhoods on the edge of
industrial centers.

Air regulators had ordered Anaplex to partially suspend operations
in February and Aerocraft to do the same in January after both
companies released elevated levels of chromium-6. Carlton Forge
Works has also been cited several times by regulators.

"The seriousness and gravity of the harm associated with the
defendants toxic emissions and continued operations of their
facilities outweigh the public benefit," the complaint states.
"There is not social utility associated with the release of toxic
hexavalent chromium and other toxins in a residential
environment."

Attorneys for the residents are asking for the metal processing
companies to stop releasing toxins into the neighborhood and clean
up contaminants from residents' homes, pay for future medical
monitoring and costs, plus legal fees.


ALLERGAN INC: Sued in C.D. of California Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
JACK XIE, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and BENEFITS OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE of the ALLERGAN INC. SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN and
ACTAVIS INC. 401(k) PLAN, and MARIA TERESA HILADO, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00271 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover many millions of dollars of damages suffered in
Plaintiff's retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary
duties owed to them.

The case is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by participants in the
Plan, and on behalf of the Plan.

The Plan is a defined contribution plan under ERISA sponsored by
Allergan for eligible employees to contribute a portion of their
income towards their retirement savings. Among the investment
options available to Plan participants is an employee stock option
plan (ESOP), which allows Plan participants to buy and own shares
of Allergan stock through the Plan.

During the Class Period, Allergan stock was the largest single
investment purchased and held under the Plan by Plan participants.

The Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty occurred when they knew
or should have known that Allergan's stock had become artificially
inflated by the Company's fraud and misrepresentation, thus making
Allergan stock an imprudent investment under ERISA and damaging
the Plan and those Plan participants who bought or held Allergan
stock.

Allergan is a multi-national pharmaceutical that produces branded
and generic drugs, and performs pharmaceutical research and
development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742 1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742 1177
          E-mail: jake@zamansky.com
                  samuel@zamansky.com
                  eglenn@zamansky.com
                  justin@zamansky.com


AMAZON.COM: "Louie" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHOY WAH LOUIE; ANTHONY NORTH; and YURI ESQUIVEL-PINEDA; on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC.; NEA DELIVERY, LLC, doing business as FIRST
DELIVERY SERVICE and FIRST DELIVERY + LOGISTICS; AVITUS, INC.,
doing business as AVITUS GROUP; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 17849022 (Cal Super. Ct., Feb. 10, 2017),
seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Labor
Code.

The complaint says NEA has failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime
compensation for employment in excess of forty hours in a work
week and/or in excess of eight hours in a work day. NEA has issued
wage statements to Plaintiffs that contain an hourly rate which is
below the correct regular hourly rate. The Plaintiffs' wage
statements list an incorrect hourly rate of $13.00 and an
incorrect overtime compensation rate significantly below $31.88.
During their employment with NEA, the Plaintiffs have worked more
than ten hours in a shift without being provided a second meal
period of not less than 30 minutes, which they have not agreed to
waive. Plaintiffs have not received an additional hour of pay for
the failure to provide a second meal period.

Amazon is an electronic commerce company and is the largest
internet based retailer in the world. Amazon operates delivery
hubs in California, including hubs in San Leandro, San Jose,
and San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Martin Velez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF G. MARTIN VELEZ
          4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 342 4125
          Facsimile: (415) 532 2492
          E-mail: martinvelez@comcast.net

               - and -

          Patrick R. Co, Esq.
          THE CO LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 426 3553
          Facsimile: (415) 477 4032
          E-mail: prco@colavvrmnsf.com


AMGEN INC: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Onyx Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo gave final approval of a
settlement to resolve the Onyx Litigation.

On October 1, 2013, the Company acquired Onyx Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (Onyx), a biopharmaceutical company with several currently
marketed products as well as pipeline candidates progressing
through the development process, and failures or difficulties in
the integration of Onyx could result in a material adverse impact
on the Company's business and results of operations.

Between August 28, 2013 and September 16, 2013, nine plaintiffs
filed purported class action lawsuits against Onyx, its directors,
Amgen and Arena Acquisition Company (Arena), and unnamed "John
Doe" defendants in connection with Amgen's acquisition of Onyx.
Seven of those purported class actions were brought in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the San Mateo County Superior Court), captioned Lawrence I.
Silverstein and Phil Rosen v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(August 28, 2013) ("Silverstein"), Laura Robinson v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (originally filed in the Superior
Court for the County of San Francisco on August 28, 2013, and re-
filed in the San Mateo County Superior Court on August 29, 2013)
("Robinson"), John Solak v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(August 30, 2013) ("John Solak"), Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System and Hubert Chow v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 3, 2013) ("Louisiana
Municipal"), Laurine Jonopulos v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (September 4, 2013) ("Jonopulos"), Clifford G. Martin v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 9, 2013) ("Martin") and
Merrill L. Magowan v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (September
9, 2013) ("Magowan"). The eighth and ninth purported class actions
were brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark D. Smilow, IRA v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
(August 29, 2013) ("Smilow") and William L. Fitzpatric v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 16, 2013) ("Fitzpatric").

On September 5, 2013, the plaintiff in the John Solak case
dismissed his case. On September 10, 2013, the plaintiff in the
Smilow case dismissed his case. On September 10, 2013, plaintiffs
in the Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases filed an amended
complaint alleging substantially the same claims and seeking
substantially the same relief as in their individual purported
class action lawsuits. Each of the lawsuits alleges that the Onyx
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx
shareholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches, by seeking to sell Onyx through an allegedly unfair
process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. The Magowan
and Fitzpatric complaints and the amended complaint filed in the
Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases also alleged that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect
to the contents of the tender offer solicitation material. Each of
the lawsuits sought, among other things, rescission of the merger
agreement and attorneys' fees and costs, and certain of the
lawsuits sought other relief. The Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana
Municipal and Jonopulos cases were designated as "complex" and
assigned to the Honorable Marie S. Weiner of the San Mateo County
Superior Court, who subsequently entered an order consolidating
the Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana Municipal, Jonopulos, Martin
and Magowan cases (the Consolidated Cases).

On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases
filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking certification
of a class and alleging breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
good faith against the Onyx directors and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties against Onyx. The complaint sought
certification of a class of all Onyx shareholders, damages
(including pre- and post-judgment interest), attorneys' fees and
expenses plus other relief. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases simultaneously filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice
of Amgen and Arena. On January 9, 2014, the court sustained a
demurrer without leave to amend as to Onyx. The plaintiff in the
Fitzpatric case dismissed his case on August 22, 2014.

On January 30, 2015, the court granted class certification and
appointed Mr. Rosen as class representative in the Consolidated
Cases. Following a March 2, 2016, notice of settlement filed by
the plaintiffs and the Onyx director defendants, on November 21,
2016, the San Mateo Superior Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement for an amount immaterial to Amgen.

Amgen Inc. markets therapeutics for oncology/hematology,
inflammation, nephrology, bone health and cardiovascular disease.


AMGEN INC: Wins Preliminary Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. wins preliminary approval of its settlement to resolve
the ERISA Litigation, according to the Company's February 14,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 20, 2007, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., was
filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen,
Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry Choate, Frank C.
Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham,
Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul
Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles
Bell as defendants. Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and their duty of
loyalty by continuing to offer the Amgen stock fund as an
investment option in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the
Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the
Plans) despite the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R)
and EPOGEN(R) and despite a number of allegedly undisclosed study
results that allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients
using ESAs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants breached their
obligations under ERISA by not disclosing to plan participants the
alleged off-label marketing and study results. On February 4,
2008, the California Central District Court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed
claims against Amgen. The claims alleged by the second plaintiff,
Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint. On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the decision by the California Central District Court to
dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court).
On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc.,
et al., in the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing,
Limited; Richard Nanula; Dennis Fenton; and the Fiduciary
Committee of the Plans. On July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court
reversed the California Central District Court's decision in the
Harris matter and remanded the case back to the California Central
District Court. In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was
filed by Don Hanks on June 2, 2009 in the California Central
District Court alleging the same ERISA violations as in the Harris
and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et. al. v. Amgen Inc. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added two additional
plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa. Amgen filed a motion to
dismiss the amended/consolidated complaint, and on March 2, 2010,
the California Central District Court dismissed the entire lawsuit
without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March
23, 2010. Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20,
2010. On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court
entered an order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice. On
June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court. On June 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court
reversed the decision of the California Central District Court and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court
for further proceedings. On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned the
Ninth Circuit Court for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. The
Ninth Circuit Court issued an amended opinion and denied Amgen's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 23, 2013.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for
certiorari filed by Amgen and the other named defendants, vacated
the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded this case to
the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
decided June 25, 2014. On October 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
Court reaffirmed its earlier decision of June 4, 2013. On November
13, 2014, Amgen filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the
Ninth Circuit Court. On May 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court
denied Amgen's petition for rehearing en banc. On January 25,
2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen's petition for
certiorari, reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court
for further proceedings.

On June 27, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this case for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2016,
the California Central District Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Amgen Inc. markets therapeutics for oncology/hematology,
inflammation, nephrology, bone health and cardiovascular disease.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. (AFSI) ("AmTrust" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 10,
2016 and February 24, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased AmTrust securities during the Class Period
may, no later than May 1, 2017, petition the Court to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/amtrust-financial-services-
inc#join.

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

AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides
property and casualty insurance in the United States and
internationally.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that AmTrust and
certain of its executive officers made a series of materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects to investors during the Class Period, including the
following: (1) that the Company had ineffective assessment of the
risks associated with financial reporting; (2) that the Company
had an insufficient complement of corporate accounting and
corporate financial reporting resources within the organization;
and (3) that the Company lacked effective controls over financial
reporting. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' statements about AmTrust's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 27, 2017, AmTrust disclosed that it had identified a
"material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting" and reported that it required additional time to file
its 2016 annual financial statements with the SEC. The Company
further disclosed that the material weakness "specifically related
to ineffective assessment of the risks associated with the
financial reporting, and an insufficient complement of corporate
accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the
organization."

Following this news, shares of AmTrust's stock fell $5.32 per
share, or over 19%, to close on February 27, 2017 at $22.34 per
share.

AmTrust shareholders may, no later than May 1, 2017, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/amtrust-financial-services-inc#join.


ANTHERA PHARMA: Cleven Sues in N.D. Cal Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CLEVLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
PAUL F. TRUEX, CRAIG THOMPSON, MAY LIU and WILLIAM SHANAHAN
the Defendants, Case No. (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff's claims are asserted against certain of Anthera's
executive officers and directors.

On November 10, 2016, prior to market opening, the Company issued
a press release announcing that the CHABLIS-SC1 clinical trial
with blisibimod for the treatment of systematic lupub
erythematosus ("SLE") failed to meet its primary endpoint. The
Defendants further revealed that the trial's structure likely
hindered the results by not allowing some patients to increase
their dosage during the testing. As some analysts have stated,
"while the drug was billed as a selective antagonist of BAFF,"
that intended purpose "doesn't look like it holds much water."
Accordingly, Defendants would likely abandon the trial. Upon this
news, Anthera's closing share price fell approximately 32% from
$2.78 on November 9, 2016, to $1.90 on November 10, 2016.

The following month, on December 27, 2016, the Company issued
another press release, announcing the Solution clinical study in
cystic fibrosis patients with EPI missed the CFA non-inferiority
margin of the primary modified Intent to Treat ("mITT"). On this
news, Anthera's closing share price fell approximately 63% from
$2.01 per share on December 27, 2016 to $0.74 per share on
December 28, 2016. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and the Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Anthera is biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing the
development and commercialization of innovative medicines that
benefit patients with unmet medical needs.

The company has two product candidates in development: (1)
Sollupura (also known as Liprotamase), a novel biotechnology-
derived pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy ("PERT") for the
potential treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency ("EPI")
in patients with cystic fibrosis; and (2) Blisibimod, a B-cell
activating factor ("BAFF") Inhibitor for the potential treatment
of IgA nephropathy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291 2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


AQUA RESTAURANT: "Lian" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LIAN HUI QI, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, c/o Mann & Mann, LLC, 30 Garfield Pl., Suite
920, Cincinnati, OH 45202, the Plaintiff, v. ICHIBAN AT MT.
LOOKOUT INC. d/b/a/ "Ichiban Japanese Cuisine", 1020 Delta Ave.,
Cincinnati, OH 45208; AQUA RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a "Ichiban Japanese
Cuisine"; QING SONG PAN; QING LIN PAN; MEI LING NI; CHANG JAN NI;
LIANG TUAN PAN; YONG XING CHEN; and YU BIN LIN, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00102-MRB (S.D. Ohio., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The case is an action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and
on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act (OMFWSA), and the Ohio Constitution, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and OMFWSA by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Ichiban is Japanese Steakhouse and Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Mann, Esq.
          Mann & Mann, LLC
          30 Garfield Pl., Suite 920
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621 2888
          Facsimile: (513) 345 4449
          E-mail: michael@mannandmannlaw.com


ARCTIC CAT: "Pajnigar" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Textron
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZAHEER PAJNIGAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARCTIC CAT, INC., KIM A.
BRINK, TONY J, CHRISTIANSON, ANDREW S. DUFF, SUSAN E. LESTER,
CHRISTOPHER T. METZ, JOSEPH F. PUISHYS, AND KENNETH J. ROERING,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-00443-WMW-HB (D. Minn., Feb. 10,
2017), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction or, in the event the
proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations. The Plaintiff brings the action
on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Arctic Cat,
Inc. against Arctic Cat's Board of Directors.

The complaint says the Defendants solicit the tendering of
stockholder shares in connection with the sale of the Company to
Textron, Inc. ("Parent") through Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary,
Textron Specialized Vehicles, Inc., through Specialized Vehicles
wholly-owned subsidiary Aces Acquisition Corp. through a
recommendation statement that omits material facts necessary to
make the statements not false or misleading. Stockholders need
this material information to decide whether to tender their shares
or pursue their appraisal rights.

On January 25, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement (Merger Agreement) on January 24,
2017, by which Textron would commence a tender offer to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Arctic Cat common stock for
$18.50 per share in cash. The Tender Offer, commenced on February
2, 2017, is set to expire at 5:00 P.M. New York City Time on March
3, 2017. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $247
million. In connection with the commencement of the Tender Offer,
on February 2, 2017, the Company filed a Recommendation Statement
on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. The Recommendation Statement is
materially deficient and misleading because it fails to disclose
material information about the financial projections prepared by
the Company and relied upon by the Company's financial advisor,
the potential conflicts of interest faced by the financial
advisor, and the potential conflicts of interest faced by Company
management. Without all material information Arctic Cat
stockholders cannot make an informed decision to exchange their
shares in the Tender Offer. The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange
Act as stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully-informed decision regarding tendering their shares in
connection with the Proposed Transaction about whether to tender
their shares.

Arctic Cat is a North American manufacturer of snowmobiles and
all-terrain vehicles. The company was formed in 1960 and was
originally based in Thief River Falls, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941 4005
          E-mail: mspence@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, D. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


AT&T: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Debt
---------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Northern Claifornia Record reports that a
Sacramento County woman alleges AT&T charged her for a service she
did not use.

Susan Whiting filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated on Jan. 26 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California against the AT&T Corp. and Does
1-10 alleging violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants charged her for using its internet equipment beginning
in August 2016 and sent her collection letters. The plaintiff
alleges she never used the defendants' equipment and instead used
her own modem. The plaintiffs holds AT&T Corp. and Does 1-10
responsible because the defendants allegedly attempted to collect
on a debt that was not authorized by law or any agreement, and
used deceptive means in connection with the collection of debts.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, certify case as a class action, statutory damages of
$1,000 for every class member, actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, interest, and further relief as the court deems
necessary. She is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R.
Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-00179


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Shehab Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SHEHAB, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC;
and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No.
601225/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 10, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to New
York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The Plaintiff typically worked five days per week. In particular,
he typically worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on
Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesdays, and from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. For each
such shift, The Plaintiff took a half-hour lunch break. In total,
Plaintiff typically worked approximately 48.5 hours per week.
Despite typically working approximately 48.5 hours per week, The
Plaintiff's paystubs typically reflected he was only being
compensated for some of those hours. The number of hours Plaintiff
was typically compensated for varied, typically in proportion to
the actual amount of time he spent servicing automobiles during
such workweek. Moreover, even in workweeks where Plaintiff was
compensated for more than 40 hours in a given workweek - which was
occasionally - he received only his regular hourly rate of pay of
$18.00 per hour for all hours worked, including the hours over 40,
instead of time and one half his regular hourly rate.

Bridgestone Retail owns and operates a chain of auto care and tire
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: "Amburgey" Suit Alleges Improper Drug Handling
------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Amburgey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Caremarkpcs Health, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-CV-00183, (C.D. Cal., February 2, 2017), seeks
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, actual and
statutory damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law and the California Health & Safety Code.

Plaintiff accuses Caremark of failing to store and distribute
Actimmune (interferon gamma 1B), Avonex (interferon beta-1a),
Betaseron (interferon beta 1B), Copaxone (glatiramer), Enbrel
(etanercept), Epogen (epoetin alfa), Genotropin (somatropin),
Humatrope (somatropin), Humira (adalimumab), Infergen (interferon
alfacon-1), Kaletra (lopinavir/ritonavir), Neulasta
(pegfilgrastim), Neupogen (filgrastim), Norditropin (somatropin),
Norvir (ritonavir), Procrit (epoetin alfa), Rapamune (sirolimus),
Rebetol (ribavirin), Sandostatin (octreotide) and Sandostatin LAR
(octreotide) in the specified temperature ranges during transit
between specialty pharmacies, failing to disclose that mail order
pharmacies such as Caremark do not have adequate policies and
procedures to ensure that the Specialty Drugs are maintained
within the specified temperature range, failing to disclose that
Specialty Drugs shipped by specialty pharmacies such as Caremark
may freeze during transit and no longer be suitable for use,
failing to disclose that these drugs may have been shipped in
temperatures exceeding the upper limit and therefore cannot be
again refrigerated upon receipt and may only suitable for use for
a certain short number of days.

Amburgey was diagnosed with severe rheumatoid arthritis in or
around 2012 and was prescribed and began using Enbrel in or around
January 2015. Her insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, requires her to
obtain specialty drugs from Caremark's specialty pharmacy.
Plaintiff obtained Enbrel from Caremark's specialty pharmacy in
Redlands, California throughout 2015.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Caleb Marker, Esq.
      Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
             hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com


CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Wages, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
LUZ SANDOVAL, ARACELI JIMINEZ, and CRISTINA FLORES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; CORPORATE
STAFF LEASING, INC., a Delaware corporation; BARONHR, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation; NATIONAL RETAIL
TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; NATIONAL RETAIL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC 650320 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 10, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiffs and
other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation
of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including
but not limited to, unevenly rounding off time worked.

Citistaff Solutions Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line
of business includes providing employment services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


C R BARD: Class Suit Over Hernia Products Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
C R Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that its Composix(R) Kugel(R)
and other product liabilities are currently pending against the
company as of December 31, 2016.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 25 federal and 65 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 90
plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United
States, are currently pending against the company with respect to
its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June
2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other
hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped
accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was
terminated in November 2016, at which time the remaining federal
lawsuits were remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction
for trial.

As of December 31, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions
pending against the company was dismissed. The remaining putative
class action pending against the company has not been certified
and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages;
(iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and
causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company. Approximately 50 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 50 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.

In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

C. R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiaries are engaged in the design,
manufacture, packaging, distribution and sale of medical,
surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.


C R BARD: Quebec Class Suit Discontinued
----------------------------------------
C R Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has approved the
discontinuance of the proposed Quebec class action in January
2017.

As of December 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 6,235 plaintiffs are pending
against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions
alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of
the company's surgical continence products for women, which
includes products manufactured by both the company and two
subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to
Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company.

Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company
with respect to any product defect liability for products its
subsidiaries had manufactured.

In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or
asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions.

The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class
actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled
or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to
settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek
damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.
The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)
punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation;
and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian
putative class action.

In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of
a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the
company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016.

In January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the
proposed Quebec class action.

C. R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiaries are engaged in the design,
manufacture, packaging, distribution and sale of medical,
surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.


C R BARD: Filter Product Claims by 1,425 Plaintiffs Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
C R Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 1,425 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona. There are approximately 1,375 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL, including one medical monitoring class action. The
remaining approximately 50 Filter Product Claims are pending in
various state courts.

In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against
the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putative
Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia,
respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action
was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number of lawsuits set
forth above does not include approximately 25 claims that have
been threatened against the company but for which complaints have
not yet been filed.

In addition, the company has limited information regarding the
nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims.
The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other
unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could
materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims
or lawsuits against the company.

The company expects that trials of Filter Product Claims may take
place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to
vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle,
including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.

C. R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiaries are engaged in the design,
manufacture, packaging, distribution and sale of medical,
surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.


CANADA: Koskie Minsky Commences Class Action Over "Sixties Scoop"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto has commenced a class action against
the Attorney General of Canada in the Federal Court on behalf of
individuals affected by the "Sixties Scoop" in Canada.

The term "Sixties Scoop" refers to the practice in Canada whereby
Aboriginal children were taken ("scooped up") from their families
for placing in foster homes or adoption with non-Aboriginal homes.
As a result, it is alleged these "scooped" children lost their
identity as Aboriginal persons and suffered mentally, emotionally,
spiritually, and physically. The plaintiff also claims, among
other things, that she and class members were deprived of their
status and other Aboriginal-related benefits, which Canada
unjustly retained. Aboriginal communities describe the Sixties
Scoop as destructive to their culture.

The claim alleges that by virtue of the Sixties Scoop in Canada,
the Defendant was negligent and breached fiduciary duties owed to
the Aboriginal class members.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of "all Aboriginal persons in
Canada, save for Excluded Persons, who were taken and placed in
the care of non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive parents who did not
raise the children in accordance with the Aboriginal person's
customs, traditions, and practices."

"Excluded Persons" constitute "all Aboriginal persons in Ontario
between December 1, 1965 and December 31, 1984 who were placed in
the care of non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive parents who did not
raise the children in accordance with the Aboriginal person's
customs, traditions, and practices."

The lawsuit seeks $500 million in damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence and $100 million in punitive damages.

As stated by Kirk Baert, Esq. -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- lead counsel
at Koskie Minsky LLP, "the Sixties Scoop was a problem throughout
Canada and this case represents a powerful and practical means for
finally achieving access to justice for these aging and vulnerable
class members, whom have all been deprived of their due recourse
for far too long."


CEMTREX INC: Hires Lane Powell to Defend Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc., said it is aware of three alleged securities class
action complaints filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, as well as
press releases by the plaintiffs' law firms concerning the
litigation. The Company understands that these three alleged class
actions, as well as any further alleged class actions, will be
consolidated into a single lawsuit, under the requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The allegations contained in these three complaints are based on
the blog post published by Richard Pearson on the Seeking Alpha
website, on which the Company commented in its February 22, 2017
press release. As stated in that press release, the Company denies
the assertions contained in the Seeking Alpha blog post and is
considering options to seek redress for the harm the blog post has
caused the Company and its shareholders.

The Company also believes the alleged securities class action
litigation is meritless and intends to defend itself vigorously.
The Company has retained Doug Greene of Lane Powell PC, a national
securities class action defense lawyer, to defend the litigation,
and intends to seek dismissal of the litigation at the earliest
possible stage.


CERNER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that a lawsuit alleging
Cerner Corp. improperly failed to pay hundreds of employees
overtime wages has been certified as a class action.

Jackson County Circuit Judge W. Brent Powell issued the ruling on
Feb. 28, finding that common issues predominated over individual
ones and there were enough would-be class members to warrant class
certification.

The suit was filed in 2015 by Laura Scott and alleges that Cerner
exempted so-called delivery consultants and system analysts from
overtime pay.

Ms. Scott contends the jobs are entry level positions requiring
little or no training in systems analysis, software engineering or
computer programing.

Cerner argues the positions are not menial but call for analyzing
large amounts of information and training clients how to use
custom software.

In his decision, Judge Powell said additional discovery in the
case may support Cerner's position.  But for purposes of
determining whether to certify the class, he accepted Scott's
allegations as true.

The lawsuit says that Cerner employed 350 delivery consultants in
2013 and hired 400 delivery consultants in 2015.

The case is one of several that have been filed against Cerner
over its overtime policies.

Three of the cases, filed in federal court, were settled on
undisclosed terms, according to Kansas City attorney Eric Dirks,
who represents Scott and has been involved in some of the other
cases.  Another case was filed recently in federal court and is
pending.

A sixth case is pending in Cass County.  The judge ruled that it,
too, could proceed as a class action on behalf of so-called
learning consultants at Cerner.

Each of the lawsuits, while sharing common allegations that Cerner
misclassifies employees as exempt from overtime, involves
different job descriptions.

"Cerner uses a lot of terms and titles throughout its organization
that sound fancier than what we think they are,"
Mr. Dirks says.  "For example, the learning consultants and the
delivery consultants in the Cass and Jackson (county) cases --
these are folks that are entry-level, straight out of college,
with no real minimal requirements other than a college degree and
a willingness to relocate to Kansas City."

A spokeswoman for Cerner says the company does not comment on
pending litigation.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued by Convicted Chiropractor
--------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien and Chandra Lye at Legal Newsline reports that a
well-known restaurant chain has been accused of putting customers'
private information at risk by a chiropractor who once pleaded
guilty to defrauding the government and has recently used a
Florida federal court to file several class action lawsuits over
receipts and faxes.

Dr. David Muransky, of Broward County, FL, is working on his
second individual class action lawsuit while a settlement in the
first that would pay him $10,000 and his lawyers $2.1 million is
fought by fellow class members.

Also, Aventura Chiropractic Care Center filed four class actions
of its own over faxes it received while Muransky was listed on
business records as the company's president.

Most recently, Muransky apparently opened a new practice in Cooper
City, FL, then filed a class action lawsuit against the Cheesecake
Factory in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Jan. 30, claiming it has violated a federal law with
its receipt policy.

Muransky alleges that the restaurant gives out receipts that have
sensitive customer information on them. The accusation falls under
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) of 2003.

The complaint came after Muransky allegedly received a receipt on
Jan. 22 that contained too much of his credit card information.
The complaint specifically states that the receipts from the
Cheesecake Factory contain the first six digits of their cards and
the last four digits. The plaintiff argues that this puts
customers at risk for identity theft.

A spokesperson for the restaurant said it is planning to exhibit a
strong defense.

"We are aware of the complaint filed by Mr. Muransky. We intend to
vigorously defend against this complaint but are not able to
comment specifically regarding this matter due to the pending
litigation," Alethea Rowe, senior director, public relations for
the Cheesecake Factory Inc. told Legal Newsline in a written
statement.

COLORADO: Undocumented Immigrants' Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hoover, writing for Christian Science Monitor, reports that
a class action suit alleging that as many as tens of thousands of
undocumented immigrants were coerced to perform free labor in a
privately operated Colorado detention center has been given the
green light to move forward in a federal district court.

On Feb. 28, a district judge ruled to grant the 2014 lawsuit class
action certification, marking the first time a class action suit
alleging forced labor has been brought against a private prison.
The suit was launched by nine former and current detainees at the
Aurora Detention Facility, a holding center near Denver, Colo.,
operated privately on behalf of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).

The lawsuit may now encompass as many as 60,000 people detained at
the center between 2004 and 2014, according to Andrew Free, one of
the plaintiff's attorneys.

Roughly 34,000 people are in immigration detention centers on any
given day in the United States, 60 percent of whom in privately
operated facilities.  Running those centers proves a pricey task,
and private prison operators -- which stand to gain by employing
cheap labor to maintain the centers and turn a profit -- resort to
legal, cheap labor on part of detainees.

But the first-of-its-kind case could shed further light on an
ongoing issue.  As more argue that detainees and prisoners must be
paid -- and at wages higher than $1 per day -- a shakeup of the
system could take place.

While low-wage work has long been a feature of the United States
prison system, there's a legal difference between forcing those
who have committed a crime and therefore foregone some 13th
Amendment protections to earn their stay in prison, and those
being held on civil matters, like immigrants.  Coercing detainees
to perform labor would violate ICE work standards, which guarantee
the protection from workplace hazards as well as discrimination in
voluntary programs.

"Residents will be able to volunteer for work assignments, but
otherwise not be required to work, except to do personal
housekeeping," the agency's standards state.

"The private prison immigration detention center and ICE
collaboration doesn't really work without the forced labor of
these detainees in Aurora," plaintiff's attorney Mr. Free told The
Christian Science Monitor.

"The question is, if the business model relies on having detained
people clean, cook, do laundry, cut hair, maintain the facility
-- that's what the business model requires in this particular case
-- are we able to shift that business model? Is the American
taxpayer comfortable footing that bill?"

Could you pass a US citizenship test?

While novel in its scope, the suit also comes at a time when
immigration policy is slated to shift under President Trump's
administration.  Immigration officials have increased enforcement
activity, the administration plans to expand its number of
detention facilities, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions made
clear that much of the prison system will remain privately
operated.

The suit "sheds light on the way in which the detention system
operates," Carl Takei, a staff attorney with the American Civil
Liberties National Prison Project, tells the Monitor in a phone
interview.

"We have a name for the practice of locking people up and forcing
them to work without paying them real wages," he adds.  "It's
called slavery. And companies like GEO group stand to profit
immensely from the expansion of detention centers that the Trump
administration has laid out in its executive orders."

The suit alleges that GEO, the private-prison giant operating the
Aurora facility, violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,
a measure passed in 2000 with the intention of shielding
undocumented immigrants who are victims of trafficking and
violence, as well as forced labor.  The plaintiffs contend that
they were forced to work "without any compensation and under the
threat of solitary confinement."  The suit also notes that when
paid $1 per day, detainees made much less than Colorado's minimum
wage of $9.30 per hour.

GEO moved to dismiss the case.  While a judge threw out the piece
of the case involving a call for minimum wage earnings in prisons,
he allowed the segment involving coerced labor to stand.

The company has denied allegations that it threatened inmates with
solitary confinement in order to obtain free labor.

"We have consistently, strongly refuted these allegations, and we
intend to continue to vigorously defend our company against these
claims," Pablo Paez, a GEO spokesman, said in a statement to the
Monitor.  "The volunteer work program at immigration facilities as
well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
are set by the Federal government.  Our facilities, including the
Aurora, Colo., facility, are highly rated and provide high-quality
services in safe, secure, and humane residential environments
pursuant to the federal government's national standards."

Whether at the Aurora facility or elsewhere around the country,
experts say coercion plays a large role in getting detainees to
work, but uncovering it can prove a nearly impossible task.

"You can't underestimate the level of coercion involved,"
Mr. Takei says of detention centers and prisons around the nation.
"If you refuse to work as a detainee, you can be thrown in
solitary confinement.  There is no parallel to that in the free
world.  If I were to call my boss tomorrow morning and say I'm not
showing up to work, he might be able to fire me, but he couldn't
throw me in a cell the size of a parking spot."

Whether inmates were coerced at the Aurora facility remains to be
proven in court proceedings, but concerns linger for those who
choose to work and only bring home between $1 and $3 a day.

"It was voluntary," Delmi Cruz, a detainee at a GEO-run facility
in Texas, previously told the Los Angeles Times of her stint
cleaning bathrooms and hallways where she made $3 a day. "[But] it
wasn't fair."

While some cite the benefits behind the programs, such as putting
extra cash in detainees' commissary accounts or teaching them a
new skill, many argue that ICE-mandated earnings should increase,
or that private companies should pay a higher rate.

That debate has brewed around both prisons and detention centers.
And as Mr. Trump pivots away from Obama-era policies regarding
private ownership, calls for better wages for detained and
incarcerated works will only grow louder.

"The spotlight has certainly been on private corporations running
and managing prisons. It certainly was last year under the Obama
administration, and the momentum has changed under Trump," says
Lauren-Brooke Eisen, senior counsel for the Justice Program at the
Brennan Center for Justice in New York.

"Paying $1 to $3 a day is incredibly low," she says.  "Just like
in a state prison, if someone wants to participate in a work
program, they should be compensated at a higher wage."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Junk Fax Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses and Emily Field, writing for Law360, report that The
Backer Law Firm LLC asked a Missouri federal judge on Feb. 28 to
certify a class of people and companies whom Costco Wholesale
Corp. sent unsolicited fax advertisements that violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, saying the allegations are best
handled as a class action.

The Missouri-based firm seeks to serve as the representative of a
class of about 1,550 individuals and entities who received
unsolicited Costco junk faxes purportedly lacking the opt-out
language required by the TCPA from April 2011 to April 2015.

"In this case, there are numerous issues of law and fact common to
all members of the class including, but not limited to, whether
Costco sent faxes to the plaintiff class and whether Costco's
faxes complied with [provisions of the TCPA]," the firm said.

According to the firm, Costco sends out a variety of marketing
materials, including onsite invitations and letters, tour
invitations, promotions and special offers, with the ultimate goal
of getting people to sign up for memberships, the firm alleged.

The firm received two of those sorts of advertisements from Costco
in December 2012, triggering its April 2015 proposed class action,
according to court filings.

The suit, removed to federal court the following month, accused
Costco of violating the TCPA and the Missouri Computer Tampering
Act, as the retailer allegedly tampered with the firm's fax
machine in order to send its advertisements, also bringing
conversion and negligence claims.

However, the firm is abandoning all claims except for the TCPA
allegation, according to the Feb. 28 motion.

A class action is the best way to handle the claim, the firm
argued, saying multiple state and federal courts have approved
certification in cases alleging TCPA violations that were nearly
identical to the allegations at hand.

After all, the firm explained, statutory damages under the act are
only $500 per violation, which can be trebled if the defendant's
actions were willful or knowing, meaning the litigation costs for
an individual class member might surpass their maximum recovery,
making individual litigation illogical.

The proposed class meets all of the requirements for
certification, including being large enough that joinder of all
the members would be impractical and sharing common issues of law
and fact, the firm said.

The firm is also a reasonable class representative, bringing a
claim that's typical of the rest of the class, it argued.  In
addition to asking to be appointed class representative, the firm
asked that Noah K. Wood -- noah@woodlaw.com -- and Ari N.
Rodopoulos -- ari@woodlaw.com -- of the Wood Law Firm LLC be
appointed lead class counsel.

The class excludes a Chicago-based company called ABC Business
Forms Inc., which hit Costco with a similar suit over a faxed
flier on the same day the firm's action was removed to federal
court.  ABC agreed to drop its individual claims in October,
according to court filings.

Ultimately, there are likely more than 10,000 victims of Costco's
fax-blast telemarketing who may have claims under the TCPA and who
aren't included in the proposed class, the firm said.  The motion
didn't elaborate on who those victims might be, and the list of
class members was filed under seal because it includes information
that Costco has deemed confidential.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on March 1.

Costco had previously asked to pause the case pending a Federal
Communications Commission ruling.  In October 2014, the FCC
confirmed that opt-out language was required on solicited faxes,
but found that its inconsistent statements constituted good cause
for modification of its rules and granted certain petitioners a
retroactive waiver of the rule, according to court filings.

The retailer petitioned for one of those waivers and asked U.S.
District Judge Stephen R. Bough to pause the firm's action while
the FCC reached its decision, but the judge declined.

The FCC ultimately granted Costco's petition in December 2015,
retroactively waiving the applicability of the TCPA's fax opt-out
language requirement for Costco for solicited faxes sent through
April 30, 2015, according to court filings.

However, the order reserved the question of whether Costco had the
prior express permission of the recipients to send the faxes for
the triers of fact in private litigation, according to court
filings.  The commission also emphasized that the waiver doesn't
affect the ban on sending unsolicited fax ads, Costco said.

The firm is represented by Noah K. Wood and Ari N. Rodopoulos of
Wood Law Firm LLC.

Costco is represented by Rebecca J. Schwartz -- rschwartz@shb.com
-- and Todd W. Ruskamp of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The suit is The Backer Law Firm v. Costco Wholesale Corp., suit
number 4:15-cv-00327, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.


CSX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Fuel Surcharge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation awaits ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 14, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2016.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX's
principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT"),
and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court
remand proceedings are underway and the class certification
hearing was held in September 2016. The District Court has delayed
proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the
class certification remand proceedings. The court has given no
indication of timing on its ruling regarding class certification.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the
merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that
particular period.

Based in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX Corporation is one of the
nation's leading transportation companies.  The Company provides
rail-based transportation services including traditional rail
service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


DELTA AIR: Sorenson Files Suit in Georgia Over USERRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SORENSON, an individual, RANDAL REEP, an individual,
RANDAL SMITH, an individual, and ADAM MCLEAN, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00541-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover prejudgment interest, lost wages and compensatory
and/or liquidated damages from Defendants.

The case is a civil class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
It is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide Class of all
persons similarly situated, including current and former employees
of Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("DAL"), who were or are currently
serving in the United States Armed Services or National Guard.

According to the complaint, DAL has a wide-ranging pattern of
harassment against its pilots who have military service
obligations that not only violates USERRA, but shows a systemic
policy or practice of discrimination. This culture of
discrimination is not limited to the acts of a few rogue
employees. Instead, it evidences that DAL's numerous USERRA
violations are intentional, and designed to intimidate and cause
difficulties for employees so that they perform less military
service, or leave the uniformed services entirely.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a major American airline, with its
headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220 9994
          Facsimile: (404) 665 3090
          E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW, P.C.
          1551 9th Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (866) 512 2465
          Facsimile: (619) 231 4984
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

              - and -

          Charles M. Billy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          CHARLES M. BILLY, P.C.
          22706 Aspan Street, Suite 305
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 357 9636
          Facsimile: (949) 715 4311
          E-mail: cbilly@cmblawcorp.com

               - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, P.C.
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235 7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235 714
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com


DELTA AIR: Motion for Summary Judgment Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment in antitrust lawsuits against Delta and
AirTran Airways remains pending.

In 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits
were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways ("AirTran"), alleging
that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon
certain public statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at
an analyst conference concerning fees for the first checked bag,
Delta's imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November
4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12,
2008.

The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after
December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages. All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings and remain pending in the Northern District of
Georgia.

On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 7, 2016,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of this order, and
that appeal remains pending.

In addition, the defendants have filed motions for summary
judgment, which also remain pending. Delta believes the claims in
these cases are without merit and is vigorously defending these
lawsuits.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a major American airline, with its
headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.


DELTA AIR: Antitrust Suit in D.C. Court in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a District Court has
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims in an antitrust
lawsuit against airline companies, and the case is now proceeding
through discovery.

In July 2015, a number of purported class action antitrust
lawsuits were filed alleging that Delta, American, United and
Southwest had conspired to restrain capacity. The lawsuits were
filed in the wake of media reports that the U.S. Department of
Justice had served civil investigative demands upon these carriers
seeking documents and information relating to this subject. The
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single Multi-District
Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

In November 2016, the District Court denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims, and the matter is now proceeding through
discovery. Delta believes the claims in these cases are without
merit and is vigorously defending these lawsuits.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a major American airline, with its
headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.


ELITE ROOF: OT Pay Sought by "Garza," Hits Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Garza on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elite Roof Solutions, Inc. and
Evan M. Ellison, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00446, (S.D. Tex.,
February 10, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hour works
in excess of forty per week, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Elite Roof Solutions, Inc. is into the installation and repair of
residential and business roofs. Plaintiff worked as a quality
inspector for the Defendants. He claims to be misclassified as an
independent contractor, thus denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
       SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
       5612 Chaucer Drive
       Houston, TX 77005
       Telephone: (281) 885-8844
       Facsimile: (281) 885-8812
       Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

              - and -

       John Neuman, Esq.
       SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
       5612 Chaucer Drive
       Houston, TX 77005
       Telephone: (281) 885-8830
       Facsimile: (281) 885-8812
       Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Combine Melbourne Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company awaits ruling on its motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the
case initiated by Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund along with the Anthem-related litigations to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for
consolidated or coordinated proceedings, according to the
Company's February 14, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Melbourne Municipal
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Express Scripts Holding
Company, George Paz, Timothy Wentworth, Eric Slusser, David
Queller, and James Havel (United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York) (filed May 4, 2016), filed the
putative securities class action complaint on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's publicly traded common stock between February 24, 2015
and March 21, 2016 ("Securities Action"). Plaintiff adopts many of
Anthem's Allegations in support of its claims that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a
scheme to defraud the investing public, including but not limited
to engaging in the following alleged activities: deceiving the
investing public, causing plaintiff and class members to purchase
the Company's stock at artificially inflated prices, making untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material
facts, and engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business
that operated as a scheme to defraud the investing public into
paying inflated prices for the Company's stock. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and other class
members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief.

On July 27, 2016, the court appointed the Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America as the lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff"). On August 15, 2016, the Company filed a motion to
transfer venue to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
which was fully briefed as of September 8, 2016.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on October
14, 2016. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended class
action complaint on December 7, 2016, on the grounds that
Plaintiffs fail to allege scienter and fail to allege any
actionable misstatements or omissions and plaintiffs filed a reply
in opposition on February 7, 2017.

On January 17, 2017, the Company filed a motion before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this case,
along with the Anthem-related Shareholder Derivative Litigation
and Anthem-related ERISA litigation to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for consolidated or
coordinated proceedings.

Express Scripts Holding Company and its subsidiaries are the
largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit management company in the
United States, offering a full range of services to the Company's
clients, which include managed care organizations, health
insurers, third-party administrators, employers, union-sponsored
benefit plans, workers' compensation plans, government health
programs, providers, clinics, hospitals and others.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss Anthem ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company awaits ruling on a bid to dismiss
the consolidated lawsuit entitled In re Express Scripts/Anthem
ERISA Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Two cases were consolidated on August 1, 2016: John Doe One and
John Doe Two v. Express Scripts, Inc., filed May 6, 2016, and
Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich v. Express
Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc., filed June 24, 2016), and
captioned In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation (United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York).

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of health plan
beneficiaries who are enrolled in health care plans that are
insured or administered by Anthem. Plaintiffs adopt many of
Anthem's Allegations in support of its claims that the Company and
Anthem breached fiduciary duties and otherwise violated their
legal obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act by failing to provide Anthem's plan participants the benefit
of competitive benchmark pricing, that Express Scripts, Inc.,
engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other racketeering activity
through its invoicing system with Anthem, that ESI breached its
contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are entitled to equitable
relief under theories including unjust enrichment, that ESI
violated unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, that
Anthem breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in health plans, and that ESI violated the anti-
discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief, equitable relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 30, 2016, ESI filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and Anthem
filed its motion to dismiss same on December 1, 2016.

Express Scripts Holding Company and its subsidiaries are the
largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit management company in the
United States, offering a full range of services to the Company's
clients, which include managed care organizations, health
insurers, third-party administrators, employers, union-sponsored
benefit plans, workers' compensation plans, government health
programs, providers, clinics, hospitals and others.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Beeman" Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the lawsuit entitled
Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 021327)
(filed December 2002), remains pending.

The complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc., NextRX LLC
f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. and several other pharmacy benefit management companies by
several California pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging
rights to sue as a private attorney general under California law.
Plaintiffs allege ESI and the other defendants failed to comply
with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section
2527 to provide California clients with the results of a bi-annual
survey of retail drug prices, and seek money damages. In July
2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of
standing.

In June 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and
remanded the case. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss
on first amendment constitutionality grounds and following the
district court's denial of the motion, defendants appealed to the
Ninth Circuit. In March 2014, following a determination by the
California Supreme Court that California Civil Code Section 2527
does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech
protections, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. Defendants' objections based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing and the unconstitutionality of the
California law due to defendants' first amendment rights were
rejected by the courts and appeals were exhausted. Plaintiffs also
filed a motion for class certification in 2007 that was not fully
briefed until August 2016. On August 26, 2016, defendants filed a
motion to deny class certification.

On November 14, 2016, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, holding that the proposed class
representatives and counsel were inadequate to represent a class.

Express Scripts Holding Company and its subsidiaries are the
largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit management company in the
United States, offering a full range of services to the Company's
clients, which include managed care organizations, health
insurers, third-party administrators, employers, union-sponsored
benefit plans, workers' compensation plans, government health
programs, providers, clinics, hospitals and others.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Opposes Reconsideration Bid in PBM Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it filed a
memorandum of law in opposition to the Brady Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration in the multidistrict litigation styled In re:
PBM Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

Two cases involving the Company were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in August
2006: (i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. and
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (filed August 2013); and (ii)
North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama), consolidated with North Jackson Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed in
October 2003). The Brady case, filed against Merck and Medco, was
filed by plaintiffs seeking class certification of retail
pharmacies and included allegations that defendants conspired
with, acted as the common agents for, and used the combined
bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the
market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs by
engaging in various forms of anticompetitive conduct including,
among other things, setting artificially low pharmacy
reimbursement rates. The North Jackson case alleges that certain
of ESI's and Medco's business practices violate the Sherman
Antitrust Act and plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages,
including treble damages and injunctive relief, on behalf of
independent pharmacies within the United States.

The North Jackson plaintiffs' motion for class certification
against ESI and Medco was granted in March 2006. Following oral
arguments on ESI's motion to decertify the class in 2007, the case
remained dormant until April 2011, when it was reassigned to a new
judge who ordered supplemental briefing. Oral argument of all
defendants' class certification motions was heard in January 2012.

On January 18, 2017, the court entered an order denying class
certification in the Brady case and decertifying the class against
ESI and Medco in the North Jackson case. On January 30, 2017, the
Brady plaintiffs filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the
court's denial of class certification.

The Company filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Brady
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on February 13, 2017.

Express Scripts Holding Company and its subsidiaries are the
largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit management company in the
United States, offering a full range of services to the Company's
clients, which include managed care organizations, health
insurers, third-party administrators, employers, union-sponsored
benefit plans, workers' compensation plans, government health
programs, providers, clinics, hospitals and others.


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Messaging Privacy Suit Through Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee at Law360 reports that Facebook Inc. has reached a
non-monetary settlement with a national class of users in which it
has agreed to cease the practice of using and sharing data
exchanged in private messages to boost targeted advertising,
according to a filing in California federal court.

The social media giant has further agreed not to take a position
on plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees application of nearly
$3.9 million, according to the motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement.

The proposed settlement only releases claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief, not monetary or damages claims, according to
the motion, leaving the window ajar for plaintiffs to pursue such
claims down the road.

"In sum, the settlement achieves significant business practice
changes, and benefits the settlement class now, without the
inherent risks of continued litigation and without requiring class
members to release any claims they may have for monetary relief,"
the filing states.

Facebook has confirmed that it ended the practices first
challenged in litigation more than three years ago by plaintiffs
Mathew Campbell and Michael Hurley. The social media giant was
sued for allegedly taking data from URLs users shared with one
another via private messages to generate recommendations for users
on their feeds, sharing this user data with third parties and
relying on such shared URLs to increase the "like" counter numbers
on third-party pages.

The lawsuit, which challenged these practices under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act,
California's unfair competition law and its business and
professions code, won partial class certification in May.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton certified the injunctive-
relief class but not the proposed damages class, and further
ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint revising
the class definition and adding allegations regarding the sharing
of data with third parties.

Judge Hamilton said when it came to seeking monetary damages, not
all users suffered the same amount and therefore that issue would
require an individual inquiry.

That May ruling prompted a round of mediation talks between the
plaintiffs and Facebook regarding the injunctive-relief claims.
Under the proposed settlement, the social media company is brought
into compliance relating to its use of URLs in private messages
under the ECPA and CIPA, according to the filing.

Facebook stopped its method of increasing the like count meter on
third-party sites from the private URLs in December 2012, the
sharing of URL data with third parties in October 2012 and its use
of URLs to generate recommendations in July 2014, according to the
motion.

The company also confirmed through the proposed settlement that it
is no longer using these private messaging-shared URLs for
targeted advertising. Furthermore, since the filing of the suit,
it has updated its data policy to be more transparent about how it
collects and uses content people share with another via the
messaging tool.

Under the proposed deal, Facebook is also required to post
language on its U.S. website Help section that indicates it "uses
tools to identify and store links shared in messages, including a
count of the number of times links are shared."

Additionally, the company will not take a position on plaintiffs'
class counsel's upcoming fees bid of $3.9 million, plus service
awards of $5,000 each to class representatives Campbell and
Hurley, according to the filing.

The suit was launched in December 2013, accusing the company of
violating users' privacy by mining private messages for URLs to
create targeted ads to boost revenue.

The settlement class comprises all persons living in the U.S. who
received or exchanged a URL with another Facebook user via private
messaging from which Facebook created an attachment between Dec.
30, 2011, and March 1, 2017.

A representative for Facebook declined to comment. Representatives
for the settlement class also didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Facebook is represented by Christopher Chorba, Joshua Jessen,
Jeana Maute, Priyanka Rajagopalan and Ashley Rogers of Gibson
Dunn.

The Facebook users are represented by Michael Sobol, David
Rudolph, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman and Nicholas Diamand of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Hank Bates, Allen
Carney and David Slade of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC.

The case is Campbell et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 4:13-cv-
05996, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FAIRMONT HOTELS: Macomber Seeks Damages Under Penal Code
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MACOMBER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMONT HOTELS
& RESORTS (U S.) INC.; FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS MARYLAND) LLC;
FRHI HOTELS & RESORTS (U S.) INC.; FRHI HOTELS & RESORTS (U S.)
LLC; FAIRMONT HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY; FAIRMONT HOTEL MANAGEMENT
L.P.; ACCOR BUSINESS AND LEISURE NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ACCOR
BUSINESS AND LEISURE MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17849216 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 14, 2017), seeks judgment or/and an award of statutory
damages of $5,000 per violation to Plaintiff and the members of
the Class under California Penal Code.

The case is class action lawsuit arising out of the policy and
practice of Defendants to record and/or monitor, without the
consent of all parties, consumer-initiated telephone calls made or
routed to Defendants' toll-free reservation and customer service.
The Defendants intentionally and surreptitiously recorded and/or
monitored telephone calls made or routed to Defendants' toll-free
telephone numbers. Defendants did so without warning or disclosing
to inbound callers that their calls might be recorded or
monitored.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts is a Canadian operator of luxury hotels
and resorts. Currently, Fairmont operates properties in 22
countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Rachael G. Jung, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eaurover@kellergrover.com
                  rjung@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          SCOT BERNSTEIN, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447 0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933 5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbersteinlaw.com


FARMCHEM CORP: "Harris" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Cory Harris, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, v. Farmchem Corporation, Case No. 6:17-cv-00038, (W.D.
Tex., February 10, 2017) seeks all unpaid overtime compensation
and liquidated damages, penalties and/or interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FarmChem is a farming equipment and services company operating in
multiple states, including Iowa, New Mexico and Texas where Harris
worked for FarmChem as a technician.

Defendant is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FEDERAL REALTY: Order Certifying Defendant Class Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Realty Investment Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the defendants
in a class action lawsuit are pursuing a Writ of Mandamus before a
Maryland Court of Appeals to challenge the certification of a
defendant class.

The Company said, "In November 2016, we were included as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit related to predatory towing by
a third party company we had retained to provide towing services
at several of our properties in Montgomery County, Maryland."

"We were not named as a defendant in the litigation prior to the
certification of the defendant class."

"In December 2015, the towing company defendant reached a
settlement with the plaintiff class that resulted in a $22 million
judgment being entered against them. After the judgment was
entered, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland
certified a defendant class of approximately 600 property owners,
including us.

"We believe this is the first time a Maryland court has certified
a defendant class that has resulted in a complete denial of due
process to the members of that class and together with others in
the defendant class, filed a Writ of Mandamus challenging the
certification of the defendant class.

"The hearing of the Writ by the Court of Appeals is discretionary.
Because of the specific facts and circumstances of our contractual
relationship with the towing company, we do not believe we should
have been included in the defendant class nor do we believe we
should have any liability in this matter.

"We are currently pursuing all available legal remedies and intend
to vigorously defend ourselves in the matter, including defenses
based on the total lack of due process afforded to us to present
our unique facts and circumstances."

"We believe our potential loss in this matter ranges from $0 to an
undetermined share of the $22 million judgment. The judgment does
not provide any guidance for how the judgment amount is to be
shared amongst the defendant class."

Based in Rockville, Md., Federal Realty Investment Trust is an
equity real estate investment trust specializing in the ownership,
management, development and redevelopment of retail and mixed-use
properties. Its properties are located primarily in densely
populated and affluent communities in strategic metropolitan
markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United
States, as well as in California.


FINANCIAL CONDUCT: Faces Age Discrimination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Michigan-based civil rights law firm, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, has
filed an age class action discrimination lawsuit against FCA.

The lawsuit claims that employees ages 55 and older have been
discriminated against during their performance evaluations.  The
lawsuit further claims that as a result of receiving poor ratings,
employees in the class have experienced losses in merit pay,
bonuses and termination.

These allegations are similar to a recently filed class action
discrimination lawsuit against FCA on behalf of African Americans.
Both suits stem from the FCA's human resources own findings that
older age employees and African American employees have been
adversely affected for at least the years of 2014 through 2017.

The suit is currently pending at the United States Federal Court,
Eastern Division. Copies of both FCA lawsuits are available at
https://www.fiatchryslerclassaction.com/.

For more information, please contact Shereef Akeel at (248) 269-
9595 or can email at Shereef@akeelvalentine.com



FIRST ACCEPTANCE: "Twohill" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER TWOHILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION and FIRST
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 14, 2017),
seeks payment for unpaid overtime work and liquidated damages as
compensation for Defendants' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
violations.

The Plaintiff Twohill, and other similarly-situated Agents,
performed non-manual, clerical tasks for which Defendants paid
them a fixed, bi-weekly amount for 80 hours of work, regardless of
whether these employees worked overtime. The Defendant violated
the FLSA when they failed to pay Plaintiff Twohill, and other
similarly situated Agents, at time and one-half their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of
40 hours.

First Acceptance provides insurance products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250 2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250 2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 766 5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 328
          Kansas City, MI 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569 2629
          Facsimile: (816) 447 3939
          E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com


FIRST CHOICE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
MARY SMITH, 428 Kestrel Way, Amherst, OH 44001, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST
CHOICE HOME HEALTH AND PERSONAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A FIRST CHOICE
HOME HEALTH c/o Statutory Agent George W. Hairston 65 E State
Street Columbus, Ohio 43215, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00290
(N.D. Ohio., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and disbursements for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
(OMFWSA).

The case is a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a
result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its
non-exempt home health aides, including Plaintiff, overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Since January 1, 2015, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated home health aides for all of the hours
they worked during their workday, including work performed between
client appointments. Such work includes. but is not limited to,
driving to and from client homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


GEICO GENERAL: "McDonagh" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS McDONAGH, 222 W Central Ave. Pearl River, NY 10965,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, the PLAINTIFFS, v. GEICO General Insurance Company,
5260 Western Ave., Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (Montgomery County),
Government Employees Insurance Company, 5260 Western Ave., Chevy
Chase, MD 20815 (Montgomery County), the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
8:17-cv-00391-DKC (D. Md., Feb. 10, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly failed to accurately record, report,
and/or preserve records of hours worked by Plaintiff McDonagh and
the Collective Class. Defendants have failed to make, keep, and
preserve records with respect to each of their employees
sufficient to determine such employees' wages, hours, and other
conditions and practice of employment, in violation of the FLSA.

GEICO provides personal automobile insurance products. The company
operates as a private passenger auto insurer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Katz, Esq.
          Lucy B. Bansal, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone (301) 608 0880
          Facsimile (301) 608 0881
          E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com
                  lbansal@ggilbertlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile (612) 215 6870
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  rdesai@nka.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Settles Paxil Class Action for $6.2-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed settlement has been
reached in a lawsuit filed by a woman who alleges her daughter
suffered a birth defect after she was prescribed the anti-
depressant Paxil during pregnancy.

Rosenberg Law, a Vancouver firm that filed the class-action
lawsuit involving about 50 mothers and their children, says it has
reached a $6.2-million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline Inc.

In a statement, the company says it has agreed in principle to
settle the lawsuit but it does not admit to any liability or
wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement, which must still be
approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Faith Gibson of British Columbia was named as the representative
plaintiff in the suit after her daughter Meah Bartram was born
with a hole in her heart in 2005.

Gibson's initial statement of claim filed in the B.C. Supreme
Court in 2012 alleged that Paxil increased the risks of damage to
the heart and lungs of newborns, who it contends were unable to
breath properly due to constricted blood vessels.

GlaxoSmithKline says patient safety is its "highest concern" and
it continues to believe that it provided accurate and updated
information on Paxil to regulators, and also communicated safety
information to regulatory agencies, the scientific community and
health-care professionals.

The company says it agreed to the proposed settlement "to avoid
the time and expense associated with the trial and the subsequent
steps in the class-action proceeding."

"We continue to be of the view that the scientific evidence does
not establish that exposure to Paxil during pregnancy causes
cardiovascular birth defects."

Rosenberg Law says as many as 200 children in Canada could benefit
from the settlement.


GRANA Y MONTERO: April 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Grana y Montero
SAA (American Depositary Shares (ADSs) during the period between
April 30, 2014, and February 24, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved in
the litigation have until April 28, 2017 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
aware that its Brazilian partner paid bribes to former Peruvian
President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a road
traveling from Peru to Brazil.

According to the complaint, following a February 24, 2017 article
highlighting a report that the Company knew about $20 million in
bribes, the value of GRAM ADSs declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in GRAM ADSs purchased on or after April 30, 2014 and held through
the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of
the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit
and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost
or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

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


HCP INC: Lead Plaintiff Not Named in Boynton Beach Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The HCP Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a lead plaintiff has not
yet been named in the Boynton Beach case.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company and certain of its officers, and HCRMC and certain of
its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made
certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of
and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing
to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by
the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act.

The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an
unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees
and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

HCP is a real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on the
healthcare industry.


HEIGHTS INSURANCE: Former Employees File Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that former employees for various insurance agencies allege they
were misclassified as independent contractors and have filed a
class-action suit.

Kevin Gou, Candice Ngai and Gloria H. Liu filed a complaint on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Feb. 22 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Heights Insurance Group Inc., doing business as Kcal Insurance
Agency; Good Deal Insurance Services; Best Option Insurance
Services; AMAS Insurance Agency; Kenny Changa and Does 1 through
100 alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state
labor laws.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages from not being provided meal and rest breaks,
were not paid overtime wages or provided itemized wage statements.
The plaintiffs holds Heights Insurance Group Inc., doing business
as Kcal Insurance Agency; Good Deal Insurance Services; Best
Option Insurance Services; AMAS Insurance Agency; Changa and Does
1 through 100 responsible because the defendants allegedly
misclassified their employees as independent contractors in order
to avoid paying them overtime ages.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek nominal damages,
actual and compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
liquidated damages, unpaid wages, interest, disgorgement of
profits, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.  They are represented by Tom C. Tsay and Helen W. Quan of
Law Offices of Tom C. Tsay Inc. in San Gabriel.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-01402-CAS-GJS


INVENSENSE INC: Brodsky & Smith Sues Over Proposed Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, disclosed that on February 24,
2017, a class action was commenced on behalf of all holders of
InvenSense, Inc. (INVN) common shares in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California relating to
the proposed acquisition by TDK Corporation ("TDK") (the "Proposed
Transaction").

The complaint charges InvenSense and the Board of Directors of
InvenSense (the "Board"), with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
promulgated thereunder, as well as for breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint further asserts claims against TDK. If you
are an InvenSense common shareholder and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days. Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

InvenSense designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells
sensor systems on a chip in the United States, China, Taiwan,
South Korea, Japan, France, Canada, Slovakia, and Italy. The
Company offers accelerometers, gyroscopes, and microphones for the
mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and automotive
market segments.

The complaint alleges that InvenSense, the Board, TDK and TDK
Sensor Solutions Corporation ("Merger Sub") breached their duties,
and/or aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with their
attempt to consummate the Proposed Transaction pursuant to an
unfair process and for an unfair price. In addition, the complaint
alleges that defendants disseminated a false and misleading Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") in violation of
Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder regarding the Proposed Transaction.

On December 21, 2016, InvenSense and TDK jointly announced they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") that will culminate in TDK, through Merger Sub,
acquiring all of the outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will
receive $13.00 in cash for every share of InvenSense common stock
held, for an approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion.
Thereafter, on February 3, 2017, defendants caused the Proxy
Statement to be filed with the SEC. Plaintiff's complaint was
filed on February 24, 2017.

The complaint alleges, among other claims, that the Proxy
Statement contains a number of false and misleading statements
that are material to shareholders who are expected to rely on the
Proxy Statement to determine whether to approve the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits a number of material facts
necessary to make statements made therein not false and
misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement,
the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and
InvenSense's prospective financial information.

If you own shares of InvenSense stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions,
you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC
which will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer
your questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan
J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/invensense-inc-nyse-invn-2/or
calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders across the country in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have
successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
a similar outcome.


INVUITY INC: April 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Invuity, Inc.  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Invuity shares between July 19, 2016, and November 3,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact
the firm in advance of the April 28, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

On November 3, 2016, Invuity announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2016 and, recognizing in part a decrease in
average revenue per account, the Company lowered its guidance.

When this information was announced to the investing public,
Invuity stock dropped, causing investors harm.

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


JULEP BEAUTY: "Carson" Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JULEP BEAUTY, INC., a Washington 15
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC650552 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks an injunction
prohibiting defendants from continuing their business practices
that violate the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Defendants never obtained plaintiff's consent to enroll plaintiff
in defendants' automatically renewing monthly membership program.
Neither the marketing materials that directed plaintiff to the
checkout page for the "free" gift, nor the checkout page itself,
contained any information indicating to plaintiff that, upon
placement of an order for the "free" gift, defendants would enroll
her in an automatically renewing subscription and would thereafter
make charges to plaintiff's credit card.

Had plaintiff been informed that defendants intended to enroll her
in an automatically renewing monthly membership program, plaintiff
would not have provided her credit card information, would not
have paid for the shipping cost of the supposedly "free" gift,
would have declined to be enrolled in defendants' automatically
renewing monthly membership program, and would not have incurred
the credit card charges posted by defendants.

Julep Beauty operates as an ecommerce beauty products company. It
also offers beauty, makeup, skincare, body, and hair care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com


KANSAS CITY, MO: Judge Certifies Overtime Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Dietsche at Becker Hospital Review reports that Jackson
County Circuit Judge W. Brent Powell certified a lawsuit alleging
Kansas City, Mo.-based Cerner didn't pay certain employees
overtime wages as class action, according to KCUR.

Laura Scott filed the lawsuit in 2015. The suit alleges Cerner
considered delivery consultants and system analysts exempt from
receiving overtime wages.

Ms. Scott alleged the delivery consultant and system analyst
positions are entry-level positions, while Cerner claims the
positions require analysis of large amounts of information.

Judge Powell issued the ruling Feb. 28. He said additional
discovery in the lawsuit could sustain Cerner's position, but he
accepted Ms. Scott's allegations as accurate for the purpose of
certifying the case as class action.

A Cerner spokesperson told Becker's Hospital Review the company
does not comment on pending litigation.


KNITOLOGY INC: Hernandez Seeks OT & Minimum Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA LILIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNITOLOGY, INC., a California
corporation; HANWEN MO, an individual; and DOES 1
Through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC650382 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties,
unpaid reimbursements, unpaid interest on deposits made,
prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under Labor Code.

Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages,
including overtime wages, minimum wages, a separate hourly wage
for "non-productive time," as well as wages for rest and recovery
periods, separate and aside from any piece-rate compensation, to
Plaintiff and other nonexempt employees who were paid on a piece-
rate basis in the State of California in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.

Knitology is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running a freight hauling business from South El Monte,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. FILED
          287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  mehrdad@tomorrowtaw.com


KROGER CO: Delaware Court Did Not Rule on Counsel Fee Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, that the
Delaware Court of Chancery has passed no judgment on the payment
of fee to plaintiffs' counsel in a class action lawsuit.

On January 11, 2017, The Kroger Co. ("Kroger") reached an
agreement with plaintiffs relating to a Petition for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses that was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on behalf of plaintiffs in three purported class
actions related to Kroger's merger with Vitacost.com, Inc., which
merger was completed in August 2014.

The cases were captioned Ernst v. Vitacost, et al., Case No. 2014
CA 008318 AJ (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cnty., July 7, 2014); Heim
v. Vitacost.com, et al., Case No. 9883-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct. July 15,
2014); and Takis P. Dionisos v. Vitacost.com, et al., Case No.
9945-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct. July 24, 2014) (collectively, the
"Actions").

Each of the Actions has been dismissed following Vitacost's filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the merger, with the Delaware
Court of Chancery retaining jurisdiction over the Delaware actions
solely with respect to plaintiffs' Petition for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, which sought an award of $350,000 on
behalf of plaintiffs in both the Delaware actions and the Florida
action.

The parties have reached an agreement pursuant to which Kroger
will pay $162,500 in attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs'
counsel.

On February 9, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order regarding the resolution of plaintiffs' Petition for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, pursuant to which Kroger is
providing notice to its stockholders.  The Delaware Court of
Chancery has passed no judgment on the payment of the fee to
plaintiffs' counsel that will be made as a result of the parties'
agreement.

The Kroger Co. operates a supermarket chain throughout the United
States.


LAND O'LAKES: Individuals Can Claim Milk Case Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
WBALTV reports that individuals who filed claims as part of a $52
million class-action settlement that alleged milk price fixing may
only be getting $6 to $6.50 back.

A 2011 lawsuit claimed that some dairy co-ops and others conspired
to fix prices by reducing the size of their herds, thus raising
the price of milk.

Courthouse News Service also reported the class affects consumers
who purchased cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese or sour
cream in California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

"The more claims received, the lower the expected payout amounts,
because there is a fixed settlement fund," the Fresh Milk Products
Anti-Trust Litigation said on its site.  "Please note that the
number of claimants has exceeded original predictions, so the
expected payout will be lower than originally anticipated.
Individuals may receive between approximately $6 to $6.50, and
entities may receive between approximately $168 to $182."

The $52 million dollar pool will be divided among the lawyers and
every consumer who signs up.

The suit was originally filed in 2011 against big name food
conglomerates, agribusinesses and the nation's largest dairy
producers, ranging from Land O' Lakes to Dairy Farmers of America
Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc. and Agri-Mark Inc., according to
the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.


LGI HOMES: "Selby" Case to Recover Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrie Selby and Sonia Aguirre, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LGI Homes Corporate,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00100, (E.D. Tex., February 10,
2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages equal to the amount in lost
wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, court costs,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the rate set by law and
all legal or equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as Office Managers at Defendant's construction
projects in Forney, Royse City, Anna and Howe, Texas. They are
primarily responsible for entering daily sales leads, and
preparing paperwork and handling all administrative tasks related
to closings on newly constructed homes within the respective
subdivisions where they worked. Plaintiffs frequently were unable
to take a lunch break during which time they were completely
relieved of all their work duties. Despite this, Defendant
automatically deducted thirty minutes from Plaintiffs' time each
day for a lunch break.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
      Javier Perez, Esq.
      SCOTT PEREZ LLP
      Founders Square
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 965-9675
      Fax: (214) 965-9680
      Email: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
             javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com


MEMPHIS, TN: ACLU Joins Class Action Over Citizens List
-------------------------------------------------------
Micaela Watts reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of
Tennessee is joining a class action lawsuit against the City of
Memphis over the creation of a list of citizens who require a
police escort into City Hall. The list includes ex-City Hall
employees as well as local political activists -- including Mary
Stewart, the mother of Darrius Stewart who was killed my Memphis
Police in 2015.

The lawsuit, Blanchard v. City of Memphis, was filed by Bruce
Kramer of Apperson Crump, PLC, and alleges that the creation of
the "blacklist" violates a 1978 consent decree forbidding the city
to use local intelligence to continuously spy on individuals who
were exercising their protected first amendment rights.

The decree was established in the wake of an 1976 lawsuit,
Kendrick v Chandler, in which the ACLU-TN sued the City of Memphis
on behalf of citizens and organizations that wished to exercise
free speech without the risk of government surveillance.

ACLU-Tn's legal director, Thomas H. Castelli, said that many
people on the list have no criminal record, but have merely
participated in protected free political speech, and this implies
that the city is once again engaging in "political intelligence
actions" against its residents.

"If any surveillance was conducted for the purpose of gathering
political intelligence, it would flout the consent decree that has
been in place for nearly forty years," said Castelli.

Memphis Police Department Director Michael Rallings had the names
of all political protestors removed from the list on March 1, but
ACLU-TN maintains that "their original presence on the list still
indicates potential violations of the decades-old decree."

So far, the MPD has declined to make public any criteria that
would offer an explanation why those without a criminal history
and without any known incidents at City Hall would be listed as
requiring a police escort.

Mayor Jim Strickland has said that he did not know about the full
City Hall list, but his name appears at the top of it as part of a
original authorization of agency- a decree he signed that was
meant to keep some protestors off of his private property after
they staged a "die-in" on Strickland's lawn last year and
allegedly peeked in his windows.


METLIFE INC: Sanford Heisler Expands $50MM Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP, filed a $50 million amended complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of Plaintiffs Debra Julian and Stephanie McKinney, against
MetLife, Inc., the nation's largest insurance company, and two of
its subsidiaries, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife
Insurance Company USA.

Plaintiffs Julian and McKinney both worked for the Defendants on
long term disability insurance claims as Claim Specialists ("LTD
Claim Specialists"). Plaintiffs allege that they and other LTD
Claim Specialists regularly worked between 45 and 60 hours per
week, yet haven't received overtime compensation since November of
2013 when MetLife misclassified them as "exempt," salaried
employees.

Plaintiffs Julian and McKinney originally filed separate actions.
Plaintiff McKinney, who worked for MetLife in Connecticut, first
filed a nationwide collective action on February 7, 2017 under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action of Connecticut
employees. Plaintiff Julian, who worked for MetLife in New York,
filed her first Complaint on February 8, 2017 as an overtime class
action under New York law on behalf of a class of New York
employees. The Amended Complaint consolidates Plaintiff McKinney's
and Plaintiff Julian's claims in one action.

"Combining Ms. McKinney's and Ms. Julian's actions will result
significant litigation efficiencies," explained Jeremy Heisler,
Managing Partner of Sanford Heisler's New York Office. "Those
efficiencies will benefit the Plaintiffs and the classes of
employees they seek to represent."

"The Amended Complaint alleges MetLife misclassified LTD Claim
Specialists in all of its offices," explained Andrew Melzer, Co-
Chair of Sanford Heisler's Wage & Hour Practice. "This
misclassification affected employees in New York, in Connecticut,
and in other states, including Illinois. We are seeking nationwide
relief for these current and former MetLife employees."


MIAMI STRIPING: "Sanchez" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Sanchez and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Miami Striping, Inc., Frank Y. Rivera, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-20537, (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2017), requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment,
costs, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants are engaged in the business painting road markings
where Sanchez worked as a laborer/helper from on August 1, 2015
through January 15, 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
      100 S. Pine Island Road, Ste 132,
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (800) 719-1617, Ext 2107
      Fax: (954) 585-4886
      E-mail: Jloren@goldbergloren.com


MID CENTRAL: Faces Suit Over Mishandling of Grant Funds
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wyland at Non Profit Quarterly reports that a state class
action lawsuit has been filed by two Native American students who
claim mishandling of grant funds by a South Dakota public
educational agency and a nonprofit organization caused them to be
denied the opportunity to benefit from the state's GEAR UP federal
grant-funded program. The educational agency, in turn, has filed
court papers asking the court to blame its auditors for not
informing the agency of embezzlement by employees and other
financial irregularities.

NPQ has reported about the GEAR UP grant scandal involving up to
$64 million in federal and matching grant funds intended to help
Native American students in South Dakota prepare for and be
successful in college. Three individuals have been indicted in
connection with the scandal, and not all investigations have been
completed.

This scandal is especially tragic because it first came to public
attention in September 2015 when Mid Central Educational
Cooperative business manager Scott Westerhuis killed his wife,
Nicole, and their four children in their home in Platte, SD. He
then set their house on fire and committed suicide.

As one might expect, the students' 24-page class action complaint
outlines the scandal and asks for monetary compensation and
penalties as well as legal costs. One unusual aspect of the suit
is that in addition to naming Mid Central Educational Cooperative
(MCEC) and the nonprofit American Indian Institute for Innovation
(AIII) as defendants, it lists each of their board members
individually as defendants. It also names the estates of Scott and
Nicole Westerhuis as defendants.

In response to the unfolding lawsuit, MCEC has taken the unusual
step of filing papers with the state court asking that the
education cooperative's auditors be held liable of any damages
resulting from the class action lawsuit. In the court filing, MCEC
says:

That should Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Mid-Central be found
liable for the damages alleged to have been sustained by
Plaintiff, Mid-Central is entitled to complete indemnity and/or
contribution from Schoenfish & Co., Inc. because of Schoenfish &
Co., Inc.'s negligent auditing/accounting of Defendant/Third Party
Plaintiff and/or its committing of accounting malpractice because
Plaintiff's alleged injuries are a proximate result of said
negligence/malpractice.

The filing goes on to say if MCEC is found to be at fault in the
class action, "such fault is slight in comparison to the fault of
Schoenfish & Co., Inc."

Blaming the auditors is highly unlikely to be successful for at
least three reasons. First, audits are not designed to uncover
criminal activity such as embezzlement. Second, audits are
dependent upon management's representations of the organization's
finances. If management misrepresents the finances with skill, the
auditors won't know it. Third, the auditors in this case noted
material weaknesses in MCEC's financial controls as well as
missing or incomplete management reports expected of federal
grantees. The 2014 audit prepared for MCEC included a note from
the auditors that it was the eighth year material weaknesses had
been reported to the MCEC board of directors.

The tragedy of GEAR UP is more than the deaths of six people and
the alleged embezzlement of millions of dollars. The real damage
done to Alyssa Black Bear, Kelsey Walking Eagle-Espinoza, and
other Native American plaintiffs likely to join the class action
is in the misadministration of the GEAR UP program from its
inception in 2005 through the following decade. They likely can't
recover from that harm, but their lawsuit might result in a
financial award and send a chilling message to grant
administrators and individual board members that there is real
liability in not paying proper attention.


MLT LLC: "Cleese" Suit Seeks to Recover Rental Payments
-------------------------------------------------------
CAMILLA CLEESE, an individual, and MATTHEW BILINSKY, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MLT, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; MAY LING YU, an individual; THOMAS YU, an
individual; JAY ROSHAN, an individual; PEMCO, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES l through 400, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC650407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover overpayments of rent equal to the value of the
consideration that Plaintiffs did not receive as a result of MLT's
failure to perform under lease agreements.

The case arises from Plaintiffs' tenancy at a 99-unit apartment
complex located at 8811 Burton Way, Los Angeles, California 90048
("Versailles Apartments") which is billed out as "a premier luxury
apartment complex prestigiously nestled between Beverly Hills and
West Hollywood" with rents that start at $2,100 for "Deluxe
Studios" and go up to .$7,900 for "2 Bedroom Executive Suites."
Among the amenities included with each lease, as stated on
Versailles Apartments' website, are a rooftop lounge with pool and
Jacuzzi, an events room with a courtyard and a baby grand piano,
and at least one balcony in every apartment.

However, says the Plaintiff, this purportedly luxurious building
is and, during the class period, was plagued by a litany of
chronic issues including, inter alia, lack of on-site management,
incessant fire alarm activations, defective and/or non-functional
fire alarms, non-functional security cameras throughout the
building, cockroach infestation throughout the building, non-
operative pool and Jacuzzi, and various Building & Safety Code
violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Rome, Esq.
          Sridavi Ganesan, Esq.
          ROME & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C.
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282 0690
          Facsimile: (310) 282 0691

               - and -

          Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq.
          Douglas D. Winter, Esq.
          Justin J. Eballar, Esq.
          MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338
          Telephone: (310) 474 1582
          Facsimile: (310) 475 7871


MOBILEIRON INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's February 14, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public
offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs on behalf of the putative class.

On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated
complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as
defendants. On August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the
corrected consolidated complaint.  The court overruled the
demurrer on October 4, 2016.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively
provide a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy and a native user experience.


MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit commenced in Canada by David Hughes and 631992 Ontario
Inc. remains pending, according to Molson Coors Brewing Company's
February 14, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company's Canada segment includes its partnership arrangements
related to the distribution of beer in Ontario, Brewers' Retail
Inc. ("BRI"), and in the Western provinces, Brewers' Distributor
Ltd. ("BDL"). BRI and BDL are accounted for under the equity
method of accounting. The majority of ownership in BRI resides
with MCC, Labatt Breweries of Canada LP (a subsidiary of ABI) and
Sleeman Breweries Ltd. (a subsidiary of Sapporo International).
BDL is jointly owned by MCC and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Brewers' Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson
Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario
("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action. The plaintiffs
allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and operated by
BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices
and market allocation within the Ontario beer market to the
detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have
the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario
beer consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in
the amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion.

The Company says: "We note that The Beer Store operates according
to the rules established by the Government of Ontario for
regulation, sale and distribution of beer in the province.
Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are independently set by
each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis.
Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights
in this lawsuit."

Molson Coors Brewing Company is principally a holding company with
its reporting segments including: MillerCoors LLC, operating in
the United States; Molson Coors Canada ("MCC" or Canada segment),
operating in Canada; Molson Coors Europe, operating in Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, Republic of Ireland,
Romania, Serbia, the United Kingdom and various other European
countries; and Molson Coors International, operating in various
other countries.  The Company is one of the world's largest
brewers and have a diverse portfolio of owned and partner brands,
including core brands Carling, Coors Light, Miller Lite, Molson
Canadian and Staropramen, as well as craft and specialty beers
such as the Blue Moon Brewing Company brands, the Jacob
Leinenkugel Brewing Company brands, Creemore Springs, Cobra and
Doom Bar.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Dairy Clawback
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclay White at Shepparton News reports that disgruntled dairy
farmers angered at last year's dairy price clawbacks have teamed
up to take on the processors in court.

Melbourne-based class action law firm Adley Burstyner announced it
would go ahead with a class action against Murray Goulburn and
Fonterra, to fight what it claimed was an illegal clawback.

They will be joined by Harwood Andrews, Victoria's oldest rural
law firm, with proceedings expected to be filed in the Federal
Court in the next few months.

Solicitor David Burstyner said farmers had been hit hard by the
clawbacks and he wanted to make sure that big processors could
never do something similar again.

"They will just keep up this type of behaviour unless farmers get
up and take a stand against them," he said.

"We want to stop them from ever thinking that a clawback is okay."

Interest in a potential class action started brewing after the
clawbacks were announced by the big processors last year.

Staff from Adley Burstyner met with dairy farmers around the
Goulburn Valley, as well as across regional Victoria, southern NSW
and Tasmania.

"We are not the only ones who think this is illegal," Mr Burstyner
said. "There is the ASIC inquiry, the senate inquiry and two ACCC
inquiries. It is not for nothing that there are these four
government investigations."

A number of farmers have already signed up for the class action,
which will be on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Farmers can still express their interest in joining the action,
but Mr Burstyner warned that they would need to get in contact
quickly.

"We are going to proceed with what we have got, so those that have
not signed up will miss out," he said.


MVCI ENERGY: Overtime Pay Sought in "Gleason" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gleason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MVCI Energy Services, Inc., Kelly Mcclellan, Greg
Vick and Chuck Banks, Case No. 1:17-cv-00204, (D.N.M., February
10, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.

MVCI is an oil and gas service company providing flowback and well
testing services to clients throughout the United States. Gleason
worked for MVCI as a Flowback Operator and Well Tester since 2014.
He never received overtime pay from MVCI.

Defendant is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mparmet@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Not Safeguarding Student-Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO ROMAN, the Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00450-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks
restitution and/or disgorgement of all monies Defendants have
unjustly received as a result of their alleged conduct.

By the early 2000s, Defendants were aware of over 20 scientific
studies documenting the relationship between concussions and long-
term brain injury. These studies recommended prevention,
screening, and treatment regimens the Defendants ignored or
actively tried to discredit. Defendants failed to meet their legal
responsibility to safeguard student-athletes, despite being aware
that the NCAA and its member conferences have a "legal obligation
to use reasonable care to protect athletes from foreseeable harm
in any formal school sponsored activity." Defendants engaged in a
long-established pattern of negligence and inaction with respect
to concussions and concussion-related maladies sustained by its
student-athletes, all the while profiting immensely from those
same student-athletes.

Defendants should not be permitted to retain the profits they
receive at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class while refusing
to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their unlawful
actions or otherwise failing to prevent such injuries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          George Parker Young, Esq.
          Kelli Walter, Esq.
          CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
          Tindall Square Warehouse
          500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2246
          E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com
                  vinny@cwylaw.com
                  kelli@cwylaw.com


NETFLIX INC: Exec Failed to Disclose Rate Hike Impact, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee at Law360 reports that Netflix Inc. executives violated
federal securities laws by failing to timely disclose the negative
impact a 2014 rate hike for its monthly streaming service had on
the number of new subscriptions, a proposed investor class action
filed in California federal court on February 1 alleges.

The lawsuit by investor James Ziolkowski contends that even though
Netflix's chief executive and chief financial officers knew as of
July 2014 that a May 2014 $1 increase in the monthly subscription
rate was creating a shortfall in its projected subscriber growth,
they waited until October that year to say so. When they
eventually slashed 2014 fourth-quarter projected earnings, the
company's stock dramatically plunged, leading to steep investor
losses to the tune of $5 billion, the suit says.

"The impact was hugely negative," the complaint alleges. "In fact,
Netflix's subscriber growth numbers were so low that they caused
defendants to slash their projected earnings by nearly half."

Named in the proposed class action are the entertainment streaming
company, CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells. The suit contends
the executives made material misstatements and omissions through
their purported failure to inform investors about the negative
impact of the price hike at the time they became aware of one.

Netflix hiked its monthly streaming subscription fee from $7.99 to
$8.99 in May 2014 to fund an expanding content obligation to
viewers. While the dollar increase may seem small, investors were
closely following this development since the last time Netflix
raised its monthly subscription rate, in 2011, subscription growth
slowed and the company's stock fell, according to the suit.

In a letter to shareholders in July 2014, several months after the
rate hike took effect, Netflix reported strong subscriber growth,
according to the complaint, even going "out of their way to assure
the market that their May 2014 price increase" had not diminished
subscriber growth in "any meaningful way," according to the
complaint.

That assurance buoyed Netflix's stock between July and October
2014 to well above $400 per share, according to the suit. But by
the time the executives announced third-quarter results, they
revealed a 35 percent shortfall from the projected new subscriber
levels, the suit says.

The company then "slashed their [fourth-quarter 2014] earnings by
nearly half," the suit says, causing the market to "react
violently to all of these after-hours disclosures on Oct. 15."

On Oct. 16, 2014, the company's stock plunged from $448.59 to
close at $361.70 per share, which diminished the company's market
value by more than $5 billion, the suit alleges.

Ziolkowski claims the executives knew as of late in the second
quarter and early in the third quarter of 2014 that there was a
"substantial, negative impact" from the May 2014 pay hike but only
chose to inform the market much later on.

Netflix says it didn't notice the negative impact of the price
hike until later in the year because it believed it would be
offset by positive audience reception to season two of the Netflix
series "Orange is the New Black," according to the complaint. But
the investor said this was no excuse, since the company knew from
past experience with new seasons of "Arrested Development" that
these kinds of releases lead to an uptick in subscriber growth and
shouldn't come as a surprise.

A representative for Netflix didn't immediately return a request
for comment.

Netflix has previously ducked an investor suit over changes to its
streaming services -- namely, its decision to separate its
streaming and DVD rental businesses in July 2011, a move the
company later backed away from.

The investors in that suit alleged that between October 2010 and
October 2011, Netflix misled investors about the prospects for its
streaming model, leading them to believe it would continue to
drive revenue as the joint business unit.

A California federal judge tossed that suit in August 2013,
finding the investors failed to allege the company made false
statements.

More recently, the company was sued last year by a proposed class
of consumers over the increased $8.99 monthly streaming rate. The
lawsuit said the company breached its contracts with consumers,
who were allegedly told their rates would stay the same as long as
they didn't end and restart their subscriptions.

Ziolkowski is represented by Ramzi Abadou --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- of Kahn Swick & Foti LLP, and
Jeffrey R. Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com , David J. Harris Jr.
-- djh@classactionlaw.com -- and Trenton R. Kashima --
trk@classactionlaw.com --of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Counsel information for Netflix wasn't immediately available.

The case is James Ziolkowski v. Netflix Inc. et al., case number
3:17-cv-01070, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Faces Suit for Cheating Insurance Customers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser partners Mark Chalos and Annika K. Martin, and
Montgomery Ponder partners Luke Montgomery and Brad Ponder, have
filed a class action lawsuit in Tennessee federal court on behalf
of Marietta McClendon of Nashville, Tennessee alleging that North
Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company (NCM) cheated her family
and potentially thousands of other life insurance customers, often
minority individuals and families, for financial gain.

The complaint alleges that NCM shorted Ms. McClendon's family and
other beneficiaries of life insurance policies after the deaths of
their loved ones. NCM, according to the complaint, charged higher
interest rates on customers' policy loans than originally promised
and failed to credit payments from customers on policy loans,
making life insurance payouts lower than the beneficiaries were
entitled to receive. The lawsuit applies to life insurance
policies purchased through 2009 and alleges breach of contract and
violations of North Carolina's Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

Nashville-area resident Marietta McClendon, the named Plaintiff,
was the beneficiary of a $10,000 life insurance policy originally
bought by her mother, Bessie Mae McDaniel, on behalf of her son
(and Ms. McClendon's brother), Willie Charles McDaniel, Jr. Ms.
McDaniel paid the premiums faithfully. In 1995, Ms. McDaniel took
out a policy loan against the life insurance policy for
approximately $1,500.

Ms. McDaniel continued to pay the premiums on that policy and on
the policy loan until her death in 2005. From then on, her son
Willie continued taking care of the policy, paying premiums and
paying back what was owed on the loan.

When Willie passed away in March 2016, NCM said they only owed the
family about half of the $10,000 face value of the policy. The
family investigated and discovered that NCM was attempting to
short them money that NCM owed. Despite the family asking for full
payment, NCM has failed to make it right.

Ms. McClendon said: "My mother and brother worked hard to protect
our family. Losing them was hard on our family. We expected the
life insurance company to stand behind their policy and to pay
what they owed. We want to hold the insurance company accountable
and are fighting to keep other families from being cheated."

"Taking unfair advantage of families who bought life insurance is
both wrong and illegal," said Lieff Cabraser partner Mark Chalos.
"The families deserve a square deal; they never expected to get
ripped off."

"These families bought life insurance policies to provide their
children and other loved ones in their time of need," Montgomery
Ponder partner Luke Montgomery, said. "It's especially unfair to
cheat grieving families."

In 2009, NCM assumed over 52,000 life insurance policies from
Alabama insurance companies Booker T. Washington Insurance
Company, Inc., Protective Industrial Insurance Company, and
Universal Life Insurance Company. At the time of the assumption,
the Alabama insurers were in receivership proceedings.

A large number of the life insurance policies had modest face
values, around $10,000, and many policy holders were encouraged to
take out "policy loans" based on the value of the policies. As
noted in the complaint, these policy loans had specified interest
rates in loan documents, many of which are believed to have an
interest rate of 5 percent. When NCM took over the policies, it
allegedly did not apply the interest rate promised in the loan
documents to the policy loans. Instead, NCM intentionally applied
a 6 percent interest rate to all policy loans, the complaint
states. As a result, policyholders were charged an interest rate
higher than the agreed upon rate, again as noted in the complaint.

In addition, payments made on the policy loans were pocketed by
the insurance companies and allegedly not applied properly to the
loans. As a result, when life insurance proceeds were eventually
paid following the death of a loved one, NCM did not pay the full
amount owed to the beneficiaries, according to the complaint.

Policyholders or beneficiaries of life insurance policies
originally sold by Booker T. Washington Insurance Company, Inc.,
Protective Industrial Insurance Company, or Universal Life
Insurance Company in Alabama or elsewhere, who believe they have
been cheated, are urged to contact us about their experiences.


NOVO NORDISK: Diabetes Patients Sue Over Overpriced Insulin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Chaires, George Denault, Jane Doe, John Doe, Brittany
Gilleland, Gerald Girard, Sara Hasselbach, Lindsey Kinhan, Joseph
Mclaughlin, Marilyn Person, Matthew Teachman and Karyn Wofford,
Plaintiffs, v. Novo Nordisk Inc., Eli Lilly and Company and Sanofi
U.S., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00699, (D.N.J., February 2,
2017), seeks to recover damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful monopolization of the
United States market for insulin in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various state
consumer protection laws.

Sanofi U.S., Novo Nordisk Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company
manufacture insulin used to treat diabetes and sell through bulk
drug distributors known as pharmacy benefit managers that serve as
middlemen between health insurers and drug manufacturers and are
alleged of excessive profiting of the said drug.

Plaintiffs are diabetes patients claiming to have bought insulin
at exorbitant prices, thus, seeking redress.

Sanofi U.S. is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business located at 55 Corporate Drive,
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. Sanofi manufactures Lantus used for
the treatment of diabetes.

Novo Nordisk Inc. is a Delaware corporation and has its principal
place of business at 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, New
Jersey 08536. It manufactures Novolog and Levemir, which are used
for the treatment of diabetes.

Eli Lilly and Company is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Indiana and has a principal place
of business at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
46285. It manufactures Humalog, which is used for the treatment of
diabetes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Hannah Brennan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             hannahb@hbsslaw.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Omega
Protein Corporation ("Omega" or the "Company") (OME). Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Omega shares between June 4,
2013 and March 1, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the May 1, 2017 lead
plaintiff deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian
Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights
free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website
at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

On March 1, 2017, Omega revealed that the Company had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding an investigation of an Omega subsidiary's compliance
with probation terms and the Company's protection of
whistleblowers.

When this information was revealed to investors, the value of
Omega fell, causing investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Sues Over Drop in Share Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Afshin Galestan, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Onemain Holdings, Inc, Jay N.
Levine and Scott T. Parker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01016
(S.D. N.Y. February 10, 2017) seeks compensatory damages including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

OneMain provides consumer finance and insurance products and
services. OneMain Financial Holdings was sold to Springleaf
Holdings, Inc. for $4.25 billion. The sale came five months after
OneMain Financial filed a registration statement with the SEC for
an initial public offering, which was later withdrawn.

Defendants allegedly artificially inflated and manipulated
OneMain's stock price. Prior misrepresentations and fraudulent
conduct became apparent to the market on November 7, 2016, causing
its stock price to fall precipitously as the prior artificial
inflation came out of the stock price.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46til Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 490-9550
      Fax: (212) 986-0168
      Email: Ctrinko@trinko.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      Marshall P. Debs, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
                 (770) 392-0029


PANOLA COUNTY, TX: "Small" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA SMALL, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. PANOLA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00031-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., Feb. 14,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant and worked as 911
dispatcher and performed related activities for Defendant.
The Plaintiff performed services for Defendant for which no
provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff for
those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week.

Panola County is a county located in the U.S. state of Texas. As
of the 2010 census, its population was 23,796. The county seat is
Carthage. Located in East Texas, the name of the county is derived
from a Native American word for cotton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
          4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 718 2087
          Facsimile: (601) 718 2102
          E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


PYSCHEMEDICS CORP: "Daly" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Daly, on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
Pyschemedics Corporation, Raymond C. Kubacki, James Dyke, And Neil
Lerner, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10186, (D. Mass., February 2,
2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Psychemedics is a provider of hair testing for the detection of
drugs of abuse, such as marijuana, cocaine, and opiates. The
Company's patented process is used by thousands of U.S. and
international clients, including over 10% of the Fortune 500
companies, for pre-employment and random drug testing. The Company
completes the laboratory testing and analysis of all samples at
two facilities in Culver City, California.

On January 31, 2017, a press release was published reporting that
a Brazilian court had found Psychemedics Brasil, a long-time
business partner of the Company, in violation of Brazilian anti-
competition laws and, as a result, it owes a competitor millions
for losses caused by the anticompetitive practices. On this news,
the Company's stock price dropped from $25.62 per share on January
30, 2017 to close at $18.87 per share on January 31, 2017, or 26%
with a more than 5,000% increase in trading volume as compared to
the previous day.

Daly purchased Psychemedics common stock and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: shopkins@zlk.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029


QUALCOMM INC: Herrera Files Anti-trust Suit Over Chipset Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Herrera, Eden Wagner, And Neil Wagner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00273, (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and
violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state
antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and
of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular
standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      Email: manifold@whafh.com
             rickert@whafh.com

             - and -

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      Email: isquith@whafh.com
             burt@whafh.com

             - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      Email: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

             - and -

      Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq.
      LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
      61 Broadway, Suite 510
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 608-1900
      Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
      Email: fisquith@lshllp.com


RH INC: Employees Trust Fund Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RH, INC., Gary Friedman, Karen Boone
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00554, (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other further relief for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

RH is a luxury retailer in the home furnishings marketplace that
operates an integrated business with multiple channels of
distribution, including over 70 retail stores in the United
States, source book magazines and websites. To address declining
sales, the company launched its critical new product line, RH
Modern. RH failed to disclose that RH Modern was plagued by a
severe lack of inventory leading to numerous shipping delays, and
customers cancelling orders and returning defective RH Modern
furniture. As a result of these disclosures, RH stock declined by
$7.66 per share, wiping out over $311 million in market value.

City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust invested in RH securities and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Tel: (858) 793-0070
      Fax: (858) 793-0323
      Email: blairn@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1493
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com


RIVIERA LOFT: "Pupo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE R YGUALA PUPO and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. RIVIERA LOFT HOTEL LLC, JORGE MORENOS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20565-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The case is brought as a collective action. The Defendants have
employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff
who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this
complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked an average of 58 hours a week for Defendants
and was paid an average of $16.16 per hour but was never paid the
extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff therefore
seeks payment of the half time overtime rate for each hour worked
above 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Washer Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sell, writing for WZZM 13, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in Grand Rapids on behalf of customers
affected by last year's Samsung washer recall.

The federal case was filed in U.S. District Court-Western District
on behalf of a woman in Gwinn, Mich.  It says Samsung's fix isn't
really a fix, and the rebate being offered doesn't cover the cost
of a new washer.

The lawsuit also lists retailers like Home Depot, Lowe's, Best Buy
and Sears, saying they sold the defective machines.

The issue came to light in September 2016, Samsung was getting
complaints about its top-load washing machines.  In some cases,
the heavy cycle was spinning so violently it caused the machines
to explode.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning later that
month.

"We're talking about 730 reports of very serious hazards from
these washers and lids -- many of them blowing off," Elliot Kay
with the CSPC said.

In November, Samsung announced a voluntary recall of 34 models.
That's roughly 2.8 million washers made between March 2011 and
2016.

"For some of these units it's too much speed," Mr. Kay said.  "The
top is not secure enough."

In November, WZZM 13 On Your Side showed you how local consumers
were being affected. Samsung told them to only use the delicate
cycle.  Pat Fosburg was afraid to use her washer at all.

"It could be dangerous," she said.  "So, when I do put in a load,
I'm shutting the doors and walking away and not coming back until
its done spinning."

Samsung's options for the recall are to get the washing machine
fixed.  In most cases, customers say a Dish Network repairman came
out to install a kit from Samsung. The company admits in
contracted with Dish technicians to do the repairs.

The other options were to earn a rebate toward a new washer.
That's what Melissa Hinkhouse did per the federal lawsuit.  It
says Ms. Hinkhouse bought a new washer, but to date she has not
received any money from Samsung.

It goes onto say the nurse, who needs her washer daily for work
clothes is out $1,310.  So far, Samsung has not commented on the
lawsuit.

WZZM 13 On Your Side also reached out to the Detroit-area attorney
who filed the federal lawsuit. We wanted to know how others could
join the class action lawsuit. We have not heard back, but will
update the story as soon as we get the information.


SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: McCarthy Attorneys Discuss Excalibur Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis, Esq. -- pdavis@mccarthy.ca -- and Brandon Mattalo,
Esq. -- bmattalo@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that in December 2016, the Ontario
Court of Appeal had an opportunity to clarify the requirements for
certifying a global class in Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v.
Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP.  In a series of decisions over
three levels of court, Ontario judges adopted shifting analyses of
the global class issue, and a majority of the Court of Appeal
appears to have further complicated the law on this issue by using
language which suggests that it applied the conventional test for
assumed jurisdiction over an individual action to the separate
issue of whether to certify a global class.  With a strong
dissent, the law is ripe for further development in the future.

American Investors Rely on a Canadian Audit Report about a Chinese
Hog Farm

Excalibur Special Opportunities LP ("Excalibur"), a Toronto-based
partnership, was one of fifty seven investors in a Nevada
corporation that owned and operated hog farms in China. In
addition to Excalibur, only one other investor was based in Canada
(in British Columbia).  The vast majority (50 of 57) of the
investors were based in the United States. Excalibur and the other
investors allegedly relied on an audit report prepared by a
Toronto and Montreal-based accounting firm, Schwarts Levitsky
Feldman LLP ("SLF"), when deciding to invest.

After certain American securities disclosures, the investors lost
all of their money.   Excalibur sought to certify a global class
action against SLF in Ontario for negligence and negligent
misrepresentation for alleged false statements contained in the
audit report on which they allegedly relied to invest.

The Motion Judge Denies Certification and the Divisional Court
Agrees

At first instance, Perell J. denied Excalibur's motion for
certification.  After canvassing the law on certification of
global classes, Perell J. outlined several factors that, in his
view, ought to be considered when determining whether it is
appropriate to certify a global class:

   -- whether the Ontario court has jurisdiction simpliciter over
the defendant;

   -- whether the Ontario court can assume jurisdiction over a
non-resident Class Member, which largely depends upon whether
Ontario has a real and substantial connection with the subject
matter of the claim and on principles of order and fairness and
comity;
whether it would be reasonable for the non-resident Class Member
to expect that his or her rights would be determined by a foreign
court;

   -- whether the non-resident plaintiff can be accorded
procedural fairness, including adequate notice and a meaningful
opportunity to opt-out; and

   -- the likely enforceability of the Ontario judgment in the
non-residents' local courts.

Justice Perell refused to certify the class because the action did
not, in his view, have a real and substantial connection to
Ontario.  Ninety-eight percent of the investors were non-
residents, making investments in American dollars in an American
transaction governed by American corporate and securities law.
Justice Perell therefore concluded that the identifiable class
criterion was not satisfied.

Excalibur appealed Perell J.'s decision to the Divisional
Court.[2] Lederer J., writing for the majority, did not find any
errors of fact or law in his refusal to certify a global class and
accordingly dismissed the appeal.[3]

In dissent, Sachs J. disagreed. She reviewed the law following
from the Supreme Court's decision in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van
Breda, which established four presumptive connecting factors to
resolve the question of whether the court may assume jurisdiction
in tort cases.  She observed that three of them were present --
the defendant was resident in Ontario, carried on business in the
province and, on the claim as pleaded, committed the tort of
negligent misrepresentation in the province.  Since there were
factors presumptively connecting the claim to Ontario, Sachs J.'s
view was that SLF had the onus to establish that another
jurisdiction was clearly more appropriate and Ontario was
therefore forum non conveniens.  It had not done so.  Finally, she
concluded that there were no procedural or fairness issues that
would inhibit certifying the global class.

The Court of Appeal Certifies the Global Class

Excalibur sought, and was granted, leave to appeal to the Ontario
Court of Appeal.  Like the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal
was divided.

Justice MacFarland, writing for the majority held that Perell J.
erred by failing to find a real and substantial connection between
Ontario and the subject matter of the dispute.  She also concluded
that it was an error in law for the motion judge to consider the
reasonable expectations of the non-resident class members in
determining whether to take jurisdiction in a global class
proceeding,[8] and that he erred in exercising "restraint" when
applying the real and substantial connection test.

Justice MacFarland agreed with Sachs J.'s dissent at the
Divisional Court that the critical question was whether the court
had jurisdiction over the dispute in accordance with the
principles in Van Breda.  Given that three of the four presumptive
connecting factors were present on the claim and the defendant had
failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction or show that
Ontario was forum non conveniens, she certified the global class.

Justice Blair dissented. In his view, Perell J. did not make any
errors in refusing to certify the global class and deference ought
to be shown to his conclusion.  Justice Blair reasoned that the
majority and Sachs J.'s dissent had placed undue emphasis on
Perell J.'s use of the language of "real and substantial
connection", because there was never a real dispute about whether
the Ontario courts had jurisdiction simpliciter over the
representative plaintiff's claim against the defendant.  Instead,
in his view, Perell J. used the words "real and substantial
connection" to determine whether the court "should, not whether it
could assume jurisdiction over a global class".  It was in this
context that Perell J. considered whether it would be reasonable
for the non-resident class member to expect that his or her rights
would be determined by a foreign court.  Justice Blair accepted
that it was appropriate for him to exercise restraint in assuming
jurisdiction over a matter with a foreign element.[

Implications

The Ontario Court of Appeal's two sets of reasons have the
potential to create uncertainty for the issue of global class
certification in the future.  Justice Blair identified the heart
of the problem in his dissenting reasons: the majority of the
Court -- and Sachs J. at the Divisional Court -- stopped after
determining that Ontario had jurisdiction over Excalibur's claim
against SLF. In other words, those judges applied the framework
from Van Breda to resolve the distinct question of whether the
court ought to certify a global class.  However, as Blair J.A.
pointed out, and Perell J. implicitly emphasized, the narrow
question of jurisdiction pertaining to the representative
plaintiff's claim against the defendant should not be the only
inquiry in deciding whether to marshal the resources of the
Ontario court on behalf of a global class of persons, many of whom
may know nothing of the proceeding and receive no notice of its
progress.

Nonetheless, Blair J.A. also used language that has the potential
to create confusion in future cases. Justice Blair explained:

In the post-Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1
S.C.R. 572 era, "real and substantial connection" has a particular
connotation.  Where one or more of the four presumptive factors
outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in that case are
established, a real and substantial connection between the
jurisdiction and the subject matter of the proceeding -- the
hallmark of a court's competence to assume jurisdiction over a
case with a foreign element -- is presumed to exist and the court
acquires jurisdiction simpliciter.  That is not the end of the
matter, however.  The presumptive factors may be rebutted, and,
even if they are not, the court may still go on to consider
whether, in spite of the fact that it has jurisdiction, it should
take the next step and assume jurisdiction over the foreign
element in the proceeding. [Emphasis in original.]

Justice Blair's language of "assum[ing] jurisdiction" in this
context is unfortunate because the Supreme Court in Van Breda was
deciding precisely the test for when a court should "assume
jurisdiction".  Assumed jurisdiction is one of three traditional
common law bases for a court's jurisdiction (together with a
defendant's presence in the jurisdiction or the parties' consent
to the court's jurisdiction).  Although Blair J.A.'s language may
be open to question, the core notion that jurisdiction is merely
the first step in the analysis of global class certification seems
persuasive.  Otherwise, any plaintiff with an individual claim
over which an Ontario court may assume jurisdiction would be
entitled to certification of a global class, if the other
certification criteria are met.  The majority of the Court of
Appeal's reasoning appears to open the door to this far-reaching
and presumably unintended consequence.


SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two California
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against a Los Angeles
company, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Roseanne Hansen and Jennifer Oh filed a complaint, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Feb. 23 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Scram of California Inc., Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, alleging they offer defective alcohol
monitoring device to consumers.

According to the complaint, Hansen and Oh sustained monetary
damages from purchasing a defective alcohol monitoring services
that shows inaccurate results. The plaintiffs allege the
defendants knew of the defects associated with their alcohol
monitoring tests but chose not to correct theses errors for their
own monetary gain.

Hansen and Oh seek trial by jury, pay restitution, general and
special damages, punitive damages, court costs and all  further
relief the court grants. They are represented by attorney Edwin I.
Aimufua -- eia@aimufualaw.com -- of Law Offices of Edwin I.
Aimufua in Encino, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-01474-CAS-PLA


SHIRE US INC: JM Smith Corp Files Anti-Trust Suit Over Guanfacine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J M Smith Corporation d/b/a Smith Drug Company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shire
U.S., Inc., Shire, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10229 (D.
Mass., February 10, 2017), seeks damages, including reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Sherman Act.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of guanfacine hydrochloride, a non-
stimulant branded medication for attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. Shire marketed this drug under the brand name Intuniv.
Guanfacine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Intuniv, is in
the public domain; it is not new or proprietary. Guanfacine was
first marketed and sold in 1986 for the treatment of hypertension.
Nevertheless, Shire obtained three patents that purportedly
protected Intuniv from generic competition.

Shire U.S., Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with principal place
of business and headquarters at 300 Shire Way, Lexington,
Massachusetts 02421.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER &URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 439-3939
      Fax: (617) 439-0134
      Email: tshapiro@shulaw.com

             - and -

      Bruce E. Gersein, Esq.
      Joseph Opper, Esq.
      Elena K. Chan, Esq.
      Ephraim R. Gerstein, Esq.
      GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
      88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 398-0055
      Fax: (212) 764-6620
      Email: echan@garwingerstein.com
             jopper@garwingerstein.com
             bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
             egerstein@garwingerstein.com

             - and -

      Stuart Des Roches, Esq.
      Andrew Kelly, Esq.
      Dan Chiorean, Esq.
      ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
      Poydras Center, Suite 202
      650 Poydras Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 522-0077
      Fax: (504) 522-0078
      Email: stuart@odrlaw.com
             akelly@odrlaw.com
             dchiorean@odrlaw.com

             - and -

      David P. Smith, Esq.
      Susan C. Segura, Esq.
      David Raphael, Esq.
      SMITH SEGURA &RAPHAEL LLP
      3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
      Alexandria, LA 71303
      Tel: (318) 445-4480
      Email: dsmith@ssrllp.com
             ssegura@ssrllp.com
             draphael@ssrllp.com

             - and -

      Russell Chorush, Esq.
      Miranda Jones, Esq.
      HEIM PAYNE &CHORUSH LLP
      111 Bagby, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 221-2000
      Fax: (713) 221-2021
      Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com
             mjones@hpcllp.com


STREAM ENERGY: Sued in N.J. for Solar Energy Panel Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that two utilities
that service New Jersey have been slapped with a putative class
action alleging they're overcharging their customers who use solar
energy panels, in violation of the state's consumer fraud and
contract laws.

Stream Energy New Jersey LLC and Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
have also run afoul of the state energy law requirement that a
monthly electricity bill must be reduced on a one-to-one basis by
the number of kilowatt-hours generated by the customer's solar
generation system, with any unused credits being carried forward
each month, according to the complaint, filed on Feb. 27 in Camden
County Superior Court.

The companies have a "uniform policy" of failing to carry forward
those credits, the complaint alleges.  The lawsuit asserts claims
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the state's Truth in
Consumer Contracts, Notices and Warranties Act.

"At a time when many people are wondering if the federal
government is abandoning efforts to encourage investment in
alternative energy, it is more important than ever that the New
Jersey laws which aim at making it more affordable for consumers
to invest in solar panel systems be vigorously enforced,"
plaintiff Mark Morgan's attorney, Joseph Osefchen of DeNittis
Osefchen Prince PC, said in a statement.

"This lawsuit aims at making sure that New Jersey electric
customers who shell out thousands of dollars to 'go green' get all
the credits to which they are legally entitled," Mr. Osefchen
said.

The complaint seeks $100 per class member.

Stream Energy provided the following statement: "Our legal team is
looking into this matter. At Stream, we're committed to doing
right by our customers as we deliver all of our products and
services, including our energy plans."

A spokeswoman for PSE&G said the company doesn't comment on
pending litigation.

The Garden State has served as a "model" of encouragement for the
use of renewable energy in that it ensures customers who have
solar panels can easily connect to the grid and recoup their
investment in renewable energy technology, the complaint says.

New Jersey uses a "net metering" system to track the amounts of
electricity that a solar panel-powered home draws from the grid
and provides to the grid, the complaint says.  By law, a customer
can only be billed for electricity if the net meter shows it
pulled more energy off the grid than it put on it.

Conversely, customers who put more energy into the grid than they
take out shouldn't be billed, according to the complaint.  That's
usually the case in summer months and fair-weather months.  In the
winter and during overcast weather, however, customers usually
draw more from the grid than they produce for it.

According to the New Jersey law aiming to equalize these effects,
credits racked up during good-weather months need to be carried
forward to the next billing cycle throughout the year, the
complaint said.

Stream Energy refuses to carry the credits forward, according to
the complaint.  Rather, it gives customers credits accrued during
the current month, but not the previous ones.  Those banked
credits would have eliminated or reduced the customers' bills, the
complaint says.

The suit says PSE&G actively participates in the system as the
entity that actually bills Stream Energy customers for the
electricity Stream Energy sells them, "including the illegal
overcharges at issue in this complaint."

Further, the bills state in preprinted language that failure to
pay will result in termination of service, the complaint says.

Last year, Mr. Morgan was charged $40.45 for the billing period of
July 16 to Aug. 16. During that billing cycle, Mr. Morgan used 321
more kilowatt-hours of energy from the grid than his system
returned to the grid.

Yet Mr. Morgan's solar generation system had returned more
kilowatt-hours to the grid in the previous four months than it had
taken, so he should have owed nothing, he says.  In fact, the bill
even correctly noted that he had banked 2,905 kilowatt-hour
credits, and after the deduction of the 321 kilowatt-hours, he
still had a cumulative balance of 2,584, the complaint said.

The unlawful billing continued through January, totaling $275.96,
the complaint said.

"What happened to the plaintiff was not an accident, an isolated
incident or the result of a mathematical error," the complaint
says.

Mr. Morgan is represented by Joseph Osefchen of DeNittis Osefchen
Prince PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was unavailable.

The case is Mark Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Stream Energy New Jersey LLC and Public
Service Electric & Gas Co., case number unavailable, in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Camden.


SUNDANCE INC: Violated FLSA, Suit Says
--------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against a Taco Bell franchisor owning
restaurants in six states for multiple violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The collective action complaint, filed
on behalf of workers by Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers in U.S.
District Court, names the Brighton-based Sundance, Inc., as
defendant.

Sundance, Inc. operates over 170 Taco Bell restaurants in
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio.

According to the complaint, Sundance doesn't compensate employees
of its Taco Bell outlets for all hours worked in a given week nor
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The lawsuit also
alleges that salaried general managers and assistant managers were
misclassified as exempt employees and not paid for their overtime,
even though they didn't have the managerial authority or
responsibility to meet exemptions from overtime pay set forth in
the FLSA.

"The defendant regularly shifted the hours worked by its employees
in one week over to the following week so that time records
wouldn't show when they worked more than 40 hours in a given
week," said co-counsel Megan Bonanni of Pitt McGehee Palmer &
Rivers in Royal Oak, Mich.

Bonanni also noted that the practice of shifting hours and
misclassifying workers to avoid paying them full wages is
widespread among Taco Bell franchises and throughout the fast food
industry.

"Numerous lawsuits citing similar violations of the FLSA have been
filed against Taco Bell franchises throughout the country going
back 15 years or more. Wage theft seems to be a standard operating
procedure at many Taco Bell outlets," said Bonanni.

The complaint alleges that the Sundance-owned Taco Bell
restaurants used a variety of tactics to avoid paying employees
for time worked, including requiring managers and others to clock
out of the company's timekeeping system while continuing to work
so that the outlet's total labor hours didn't exceed set quotas.

"The plaintiffs reported that they and other hourly workers at
these Taco Bell outlets were regularly instructed by managers to
clock out and continue working. Each restaurant has a labor budget
and managers are under a lot of pressure to limit the number of
hours paid, no matter how much time employees actually work," said
Jennifer MacManus, co-counsel for the plaintiffs of Fagan McManus,
also located in Royal Oak, Mich.

McManus said that many salaried managers of Sundance-owned Taco
Bell restaurants worked well over 60 hours per week and often more
than 80 hours weekly. As a result, the salaried managers were
regularly paid an effective hourly rate that was lower than the
crew members they oversaw.

The lawsuit asks for an award of unpaid overtime and regular
wages; damages; interest; a declaratory judgement that the labor
practices are unlawful; costs and attorneys' fees.


TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Suit For Over Charging Clients
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt at The Telegraph reports that a local lawyer
has filed a class action suit against Trickey's Service, Inc.,
claiming the towing company charged a client $100 per mile for a
tow after his Jeep was stolen.

Thomas Maag claims that a Jeep belonging to Michael Ledbetter was
stolen Feb. 15, found, and towed to Trickey's. "The defendant
Trickey's did not notify plaintiff of the towing or storage on
Trickey's lot, but rather, plaintiff became aware of same only
after a friend saw the Jeep on Trickey's lot," the suit alleges.

Ledbetter is the named plaintiff, but the suit seeks class action
status on behalf of others "similarly situated." This would be
Maag's second class action against Trickey's.

The suit claims Tricky charged Ledbetter a $458 towing charge,
approximately $100 per mile, and charged $40 per day in storage
for two days for a total charge of $538. "This charge is
substantially in excess of similar charges for privately
contracted consensual tow," the suit claims.

Ledbetter paid the fee because he was told he could not get his
vehicle back if he did not, but he paid under protest.

The suit claims Trickey's, and co-defendant Jean P. Krats, the
president of Trickey's, "routinely and without lawful
justification, charges tows at the direction of law enforcement
hundreds of dollars more than tows voluntarily requested by the
vehicle owners, even when the owner of the vehicle is innocent of
any crimes."

"The defendant Jean is personally aware of the impropriety of her
conduct and has freely admitted to others that her conduct is
wrong and that she has been advised to cease the foregoing conduct
by her lawyers and bankrupt the corporation, but that she will not
do so because she makes so much money doing it," the suit claims.

Management at Trickey's had no comment.

A judge must certify the case as a class action. The certification
requires that the class includes hundreds of members, making it
impracticable to file as individual suits. The questions involved
would be similar with respect to all members, according to the
complaint.

Ledbetter claims in an affidavit that his Jeep was stolen on Feb.
14 and left on the side of the road near Wanda Road and Shady Lane
in Roxana. He claims the usual charge for towing a vehicle left on
the side of the road is between $120 and $130.

Maag is also the attorney in a proposed class action filed last
May against Trickey's Service, claiming the company charged a
plaintiff $100 extra for a police-initiated tow, plus a storage
fee for a Sunday, on which the company was closed.

A Wood River man was arrested on a driving-under-the-influence
charge Saturday, March 19, but he could not reclaim the vehicle
the following Sunday, March 20, because Trickey's was closed, the
suit claims.

The man also claims the tow service charged him $358, which is
allegedly $100 more than would be charged had an owner voluntarily
asked the vehicle to be towed. The total bill for storage was
$120, in addition to the $358 towing charge. The suit claims a tow
initiated by police requires no more work or expense by the
defendant towing company.

The suit claims that state law allows for towing of cars that
police suspect may be used in a subsequent violation, such as
driving under the influence, but the officer may not impound the
vehicle for more than 12 hours.


TRIDENT SEAFOODS: Faces Fish Oil Deceptive Labeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Stewart, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that a
nationwide consumer class action lawsuit filed in US district
court on Feb. 27 alleges Trident Seafoods and Costco Wholesale
engaged in false, deceptive and misleading practices with the
labeling of their "Kirkland Signature Wild Alaskan Fish Oil"
product.

"According to independent lab tests, [the] defendants' product
does not contain the listed amount of 'other omega fatty acids'
(omega-5, 6, 7, 9 and 11)," the class action complaint states.

The plaintiffs -- New York resident Ricarlos Guzman and other
consumers across the US -- seek economic damages equaling the
aggregate purchase price, among other damages.  The complaint
demands a trial by jury.

Trident CEO Joe Bundrant declined to comment specifically on the
lawsuit to Undercurrent News, adding, "we dedicate tremendous
resources to ensure that all the products we produce meet the
labeling laws that are required in each country we do business".

When pressed on whether the products contain the omega fatty acids
the label lists, he said, "if they're on the label, they're in
there," noting the product lists fatty acids 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Michael Gabrielle, alleges in the
complaint Trident and Costco are "fully aware" their product does
not contain the listed amount -- 720mg -- of fatty acids 5, 6, 7,
9; and he claims there is no scientific literature available
saying omega 11 fatty acids are typically found in fish.

Gabrielle did not respond to request for comment from
Undercurrent, and a spokesperson with Costco told Undercurrent the
company is unable to comment at this time.

In the complaint, Mr. Gabrielle demands a refund for each client
and other monetary damages, as well as attorney's fees, among
other damages related to the alleged false claims, which he says
violated 35 different states' unfair and deceptive practices laws.

Central to his argument is that the allegedly false claims caused
plaintiffs to pay for a product that he calls "valueless", for
allegedly lacking all 720mg of the aforementioned fatty acids.

In total, the bottle advertises having 1,050mg of whole omega
fatty acids, including omega 3.

"Defendants' misrepresentations were material to plaintiffs' and
class members' decision to pay a significant premium for the
product," Mr. Gabrielle states.

He argues the product's alleged lack of the fatty acids advertised
diminishes the value of the product so much that they would not
have purchased the product because "countless other proven and
less-expensive fish oil supplements exist."


UNITED STATES: "Al-Mowafak" Files Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb and John Doe, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated; ACLU of Northern
California; Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay,
Plaintiffs, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S.
Department of State; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S.
Customs and Border Protection; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of
State; John Kelly, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol; Carrie Azurin, Field Director, San Francisco Field
Office of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00557, (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2017), seeks (i) a
declaration that the Executive Order and the Provisional
Revocation Letter are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and
Plaintiff Class members; (ii) an injunction that the Executive
Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter may not be enforced as
against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members in connection with
their entry or re-entry into the United States; and (iii)
reasonable costs and attorney's fees and such other and further
relief that the Court may deem fit under the First and Fifth
Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Plaintiffs are Yemenis and Iranians lawfully present in California
and who have the lawful right to travel to and from the United
States but who have been barred from entering the U.S. Plaintiffs
also include organizations that wish to hear from and associate
with people barred from entering the nation under the Executive
Order completely prohibiting for at least 90 days the entry or re-
entry of all persons who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen regardless of whether such persons
hold valid visas or are lawful permanent residents of the United
States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julia Harumi Mass, Esq.
      Michael T. Risher, Esq.
      William S. Freeman, Esq.
      Novella Y. Coleman, Esq.
      Christine P. Sun, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
      OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
      39 Drumm Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 621-2493
      Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
      Email: jmass@aclunc.org


UNITED STUDENT: Averts Student Loan Robocall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Steven Trader and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360,
report that a student loan administrator beat a suit by a group of
borrowers accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act when a California federal judge ruled on Feb. 28
the borrowers couldn't pin a collector's activities on the loan
administrator.

U.S. District Judge Janis M. Sammartino ruled that the consumers
couldn't blame their woes over an alleged bombardment of
collection attempts that violate the robocalling law on United
Student Aid Funds Inc., saying that just because the loan
administrator contracted out collector Navient Solutions Inc. and
its army of collectors doesn't mean it's then liable for those
collection activities, according to the decision.

USA Funds does review Navient's and its collectors' work and makes
recommendations for improvement, but that doesn't constitute
control over how Navient achieves results for the administrator,
the judge said.  And Navient isn't required to, and doesn't
always, take USA Funds' recommendations anyway, the judge said in
the order.

"To extend vicarious liability to such a circumstance would result
in almost any long-term contract automatically creating an agency
relationship unless the hiring entity turned a completely blind
eye to the contract once it was signed," Judge Sammartino wrote.

The judge simultaneously granted summary judgment to USA Funds and
killed lead plaintiff Shyriaa Henderson's second bid for class
certification with the Feb. 28 order.

Henderson had alleged in her 2013 suit she was one of millions of
borrowers who took out student loans guaranteed by USA Funds and
received incessant unauthorized calls from the company to collect
payment. Those calls, made by an autodialer instead of a human,
violated the TCPA, according to the suit.

In May, Henderson had asked Judge Sammartino to certify her
proposed nationwide class, which would consist of borrowers who
defaulted on their loan and were called on their cellphone by one
of more than a dozen collection agencies using an automated dialer
on behalf of USA Funds since mid-2009.

The borrower wrote that members of the proposed class are easily
ascertainable because each of those criteria is objective and can
be answered with a simple yes or no, which can then be verified
through the company's records.

Likewise, whether USA Funds violated the TCPA revolved around
common questions, like whether its calls were made using an
automated telephone dialing system, whether those calls were made
to cellphones and whether class members consented to those calls,
Henderson contended.

USA Funds answered in July, saying that company records can't
identify consumers who were called by an autodialer rather than a
human, so there was no way to draw out which called borrowers were
subjected to the alleged TCPA violations, court records show.

Meanwhile, the collection agency in question, Navient, has struck
a separate deal with student loan borrowers over alleged
autodialing to their cellphones, according to a recent filing in a
different case.

Two Indiana plaintiffs asked a federal court in that state to
preliminarily approve a $17.5 million all-cash deal to end two
different suits over the alleged TCPA violations, according to a
late-January filing.  The proposed class for that deal consists of
all people and entities in the U.S. whose cellphone numbers
Navient called using an automatic telephone dialing system after
the company designated the number called as a wrong number from
May 4, 2011, to the present, according to the motion.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment on March 1.

The consumers are represented by Ronald Marron, Alexis Wood and
Kas Gallucci of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, and Benjamin
Richman and J. Dominick Larry of Edelson PC.

USA Funds is represented by Lisa Simonetti and Charles Nerko of
Vedder Price PC.

The case is Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds Inc., case
number 3:13-cv-01845, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ordered to Provide LLNL Retiree List
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that Superior Court Judge George Hernandez
gave the University of California 30 days to provide a full list
of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retirees and their
survivors who might benefit from the class action lawsuit aimed at
returning them to University health benefits.

Judge Hernandez's order came after months of back-and-forth debate
over whether UC incorrectly left names off the list when the class
action was certified on Oct. 30, 2014.

The retirees formed a grass-roots organization, raised funds and
sued in 2010 after they lost UC health care following a late-2007
contract change.  As a result of that change, a private
organization, Lawrence Livermore National Security, or LLNS, took
over management of the big laboratory.

In a key ruling in 2015, Judge Hernandez found that UC had clearly
intended to make health care commitments to its retirees and had
actually done so.

The task of establishing the lawsuit class has proved challenging;
that is, specifying who might be entitled to benefit from the
lawsuit, should the retirees prevail.  The job has been made more
difficult by University privacy rules, by a lack of clarity over
the exact date when retirees lost their right to UC health care
and by the existence of records at both UC and the new contractor,
LLNS.

UC attorneys maintained that the list the University provided in
October 2014 was sufficient.  Retiree attorneys argued that it was
not and that the delay in compiling a complete list is having
damaging consequences, with more than 200 potential beneficiaries
dying since the class was established.

The ruling by Judge Hernandez supports the retiree position.
Assuming a complete list is provided as ordered, the retirees
group will then be able to notify those who are living and the
heirs and estates of those who have died that they are potential
members of a class that could benefit from the lawsuit.


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Reinstating Some Legacy Scholarships
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Davis and Jeff Charis-Carlson, writing for Press Citizen,
report that after hearing from hundreds of affected students and
their families, the University of Iowa is reinstating some legacy
scholarships to students after announcing that they would not be
renewed.

The decision, however, is likely to increase UI's efforts to
persuade the Iowa Board of Regents to raise base tuition and fees
for Iowa students by 33 percent over the next five years.

UI officials announced on March 1 that they decided to reinstate
the Iowa Heritage Award and other recently canceled scholarships
for current and incoming students in fall 2017.  The scholarships
will be discontinued for new students starting in 2018.

"Over the past few days, we heard from many families who were
unaware that these were renewable scholarships reliant on state
support," according to a UI news release.  "Though these were
never need-based, we also heard from families who budgeted for
college based on these scholarships and feared financial hardship
with the programs' elimination."

Two students had filed class-action lawsuits against UI concerning
the pulled non-merit, non-needs-based financial awards. Both suits
were filed on behalf of all 3,015 students who would have been
affected by the scholarship cuts -- 2,440 of them being Iowa
residents.

UI President Bruce Harreld told Iowa lawmakers that the university
decided to cancel the legacy scholarship program in response to an
$8 million cut in state funding for the current fiscal year.
Since that time, UI's share of cuts has increased to $9.24
million.

"I want to thank the students and parents who contacted me and
shared their concerns," Mr. Harreld said in the news release. "The
University of Iowa takes its relationship with students and alumni
very seriously and wants to honor the awards previously made to
those currently receiving these awards."

The Iowa Board of Regents, which oversees Iowa's three public
universities, issued a statement on March 1 supporting UI's
decision to reinstate the scholarships.  None of the nine members
of the board had any questions for Mr. Harreld during the board
meeting, in which he informed them of UI's plans to cut $4.3
million worth of promised scholarships for the 2017-18 academic
year.

Other belt-tightening steps already taken by the university
include reducing its Summer Hawk Tuition program, tightening
residency requirements for out-of-state students seeking to pay
in-state tuition, and increasing the minimum number of credit
hours required for students to live in the dorms.

"The board looks forward to working with the UI to resolve this
short-term issue," Bruce Rastetter, president of the board, said
in the statement.  "We also realize that a longer-term funding
solution is needed that allows the UI to reach the strategic plan
we recently approved.  Moving forward, if the state chooses not to
adequately fund the UI's five-year strategic plan, the board is
committed to work with the UI to bring its tuition in line with
its national peer group."

Mr. Harreld told lawmakers that UI would be willing to commit
every state dollar above the current appropriation level to be
used to support resident students.  That promise, he said, was
conditional upon UI receiving permission to raise its tuition and
fees over the next five years from nearly $9,000 to nearly
$12,000.

The Board of Regents alone has the authority to set tuition levels
at the public universities, but state lawmakers and the governor
set and approve the state funding levels of each of the three
institutions.

The thousands of students and their families affected have reached
out to state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Speaker of the
House Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, accused UI of playing politics
with students' education.

State Sen. Tod Bowman, D-Maquoketa, a member of the Senate
Education Committee, said on March 1 that he's thankful the
university reversed course.

"I think President Harreld looked at a lot of different things and
heard from parents and families and understood the impact this
would have, and he's trying to deal with providing world-class
services for less dollars," Mr. Bowman said.  "He's put in a no-
win situation, and we need to find a way to appropriate the
necessary dollars so (the university) can maintain great
services."

Sen. Rob Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, issued a statement denouncing state
Republican legislators who, he said, since the session began in
January, "have twice taken back millions of state dollars already
allocated to Iowa's public universities and community colleges."

Jim Larew, an attorney representing UI sophomore Jenna Pokorny in
one of the class-action lawsuits, said his client received a
letter from the university confirming the scholarships would be
reinstated. He said the lawsuit would likely be dropped.

"Assuming that all parties are reinstated fully to the program,
the goal of the litigation was to make sure that would happen, and
if that's occurred then there would be no reason to continue (the
suit)," Mr. Larew said.  "We'll want to have it confirmed exactly.
. . . I know my client and her peers would love that and they can
get back to a life of being faithful and productive students."

Steve Wandro, an attorney representing UI freshman Benjamin Muller
in a separate suit, said he also was working to confirm the
scholarships had been reinstated for his clients.

"This is really good news, but we'll have to see.  I have no
reason to believe that they will not restore everybody's," he
said.

UI's legacy scholarships were expanded in 2014 after the regents
approved a new formula for dividing state funding among the three
universities.  The formula more directly tied the total funding a
university received to that university's in-state enrollment.

The Iowa Legislature, however, has never used the formula when
making appropriations to UI, Iowa State University and the
University of Northern Iowa.


US SECURITY: Off-the-Clock Work Pay Sought by "Cogburn"
-------------------------------------------------------
Jared Cogburn, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00029, (E.D. Tenn., February 10,
2017), seeks unpaid straight time, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Tennessee Law.

Plaintiff worked as a security guard for Defendant and was
assigned at the Home Shopping Network at 1915 Snapps Ferry Rd,
Greeneville, TN 37745. Cogburn regularly and repeatedly worked off
the clock, rendered pre-shift work, including but not limited to,
shift updates, pass down logs, and bills of lading. They were
given strict instructions to only write down the time of their
scheduled shift on their time sheets, regardless of the actual
time that Plaintiff actually arrived and began working.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
             eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


USANA HEALTH: Faces "Rumbaug" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
APRIL RUMBAUGH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USANA HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., DAVID A.
WENTZ, and PAUL A. JONES, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00106-
BCW (D. Utah., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired USANA securities between March 14, 2014 and
February 7, 2017, both dates inclusive.

On August 16, 2010, USANA announced that it had acquired BabyCare
Ltd. ("BabyCare"), a China-based manufacturing company that
develops and sells nutritional products primarily for infants.
Over the next six years, USANA steadily expanded BabyCare's market
presence in China. In February 2013, the Company announced that it
had received official government approval from the Ministry of
Commerce People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") for direct selling
activities in the provinces of Jiangsu and Shaanxi, and the
municipality of Tianjin. In May 2016, USANA announced MOFCOM
approval for direct selling activities in the provinces of
Liaoning, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, and Guangdong, as well as the
municipalities of Dalian, Qingdao, and Shenzhen.

The complaint asserts that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper
reimbursement practices in China; (ii) these practices constituted
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); (iii) as
such, the Company's China revenues were in part the product of
unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable; (iv) the
foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely to subject the
Company to significant regulatory scrutiny; and (v) as a result of
the foregoing, USANA's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells
science-based nutritional and personal care products primarily to
reduce the risk of chronic degenerative disease. The Company was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
USANA's stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "USNA."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
          Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
          9980 South 300 West, Suite 200
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: (801) 285 7491
          Facsimile: (888) 569 2786
          E-mail: zane@christensenyounglaw.com
                  steven@christensenyounglaw.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Litigation Management Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. said in its Form 8-
K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 13, 2017, that on February 10, 2017, the Company, Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International (together with the Company,
"Valeant") and J. Michael Pearson ("Pearson" and, together with
Valeant, the "Valeant Parties") and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P., Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., Pershing Square
International, Ltd., Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing Square II,
L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square GP,
LLC (together, "Pershing Square"), and William A. Ackman ("Ackman"
and, together with Pershing Square, the "Pershing Square Parties")
entered into a litigation management agreement (the "Litigation
Management Agreement").

Pursuant to the Litigation Management Agreement, the Valeant
Parties and the Pershing Square Parties agreed to certain
provisions with respect to the management of the litigation with
respect to the putative class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California captioned In
re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Secs. Litig., Case No. 8:14-cv-
2004-DOC (KESx) (C.D. Cal.) (the "California Action"), including
(i) all cases currently consolidated with the California Action
and (ii) any opt-out litigation or individual actions brought by
members of the putative class in the California Action asserting
the same or similar allegations or claims (the "Allergan
Litigation"):

     * In respect of any settlement relating to the Allergan
Litigation that receives the mutual consent of both the Valeant
Parties and the Pershing Square Parties, the payments in
connection with such settlement will be paid 60% by the Valeant
Parties and 40% by the Pershing Square Parties. The agreement does
not provide for any allocation of costs in a settlement that is
not consented to by both parties;

     * The first $10 million in legal fees and litigation expenses
incurred by the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties
after the date of the Litigation Management Agreement in
connection with the Allergan Litigation will be paid 50% by the
Valeant Parties and 50% by the Pershing Square Parties; and

     * The Litigation Management Agreement will terminate on
November 1, 2017 if a stipulation of settlement with regards to
the California Action has not been executed by that date (unless
the Litigation Management Agreement is extended by mutual written
agreement of the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties).

In addition to the agreements set out with respect to the Allergan
Litigation, the Litigation Management Agreement includes an
undertaking by the Pershing Square Parties to forbear from
commencing any action or actions that arise out of, or relate to,
the claims alleged or facts asserted in the Allergan Litigation or
to the purchase or acquisition of, or transactions with respect
to, the Company's securities against any of the Valeant Parties
from February 3, 2017 until the date that is thirty days after the
termination of the Litigation Management Agreement. Any statute of
limitations applicable to such actions or tolled claims is
suspended during this period. If the Litigation Management
Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, the parties will
meet and discuss whether any tolled claims should be submitted to
confidential arbitration or mediation.

In connection with the entrance into the Litigation Management
Agreement, on February 10, 2017 the Valeant Parties and the
Pershing Square Parties entered into a mutual release of claims
(the "Mutual Release").

The Mutual Release will go into effect upon the later of
satisfaction of the payment obligations that each party would have
in connection with any settlement of the California Action
pursuant to the Litigation Management Agreement described above
and the date of entry of final judgment, and will not occur if the
Litigation Management Agreement is terminated.

If the Mutual Release becomes effective, each party will release
the other parties and their respective attorneys, accountants,
financial advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their
capacities as such and to the extent they provide a mutual
release) from any and all claims relating to or arising out of (a)
any purchase of any security of Valeant, (b) any one or more of
the claims asserted in and/or the facts alleged in (i) the
Allergan Litigation, (ii) a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of Valeant securities captioned In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
3:15-cv-07658- MAS-LHG, currently pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "U.S. Class
Action"), (iii) certain enumerated individual actions and/or (iv)
certain enumerated actions in Canada or (c) the Valeant business.

In addition, each party covenants not to sue the other parties
with respect to any claims covered by the Mutual Release upon the
effectiveness of the Mutual Release. Each party also covenants not
to sue the other parties' attorneys, accountants, financial
advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their capacities
as such) with respect to any of the claims covered by the Mutual
Release from the date of the signing of the Mutual Release, except
to the extent that (i) a claim has been asserted against such
party by any such attorney, accountant, financial advisor, lender
and/or securities underwriter or (ii) the Litigation Management
Agreement has been terminated in accordance with its terms.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is incorporated in
British Columbia, Canada and trades publicly in the New York Stock
Exchange.


VERIZON COMMUNICATION: NY App. Div. Revives Class Action Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that in Gordon v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., No. 653084/13, 2017 WL 442871 (N.Y. App.
Div. Feb. 2, 2017), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, First Judicial Department (the "First
Department"), reversed an order denying plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of a proposed non-monetary settlement in a
shareholder class action litigation related to Verizon
Communication Inc.'s ("Verizon") acquisition of Vodafone Group
PLC's ("Vodafone") stake in Verizon Wireless ("VZW").  With its
decision, the New York Appellate Division breathed new life into
beleaguered disclosure-only class action settlements, and
modernized what it believed had become an outdated analytical
framework for approving class action settlement agreements.  It
also appeared to accord special weight to provisions in such
agreements whereby corporations promise to obtain fairness
opinions in connection with future transactions in determining the
overall fairness of the agreements.  Thus, while non-monetary
class action settlements are increasingly disfavored in other
courts -- most notably, in the Delaware Court of Chancery -- New
York courts remain receptive to their utility.

                         Facts of the Case

On September 2, 2013, Verizon announced it had entered into an
agreement to acquire Vodafone's subsidiaries, holding as their
principal assets a 45% interest in VZW, for $130 billion in cash
and Verizon stock.  Three days later, plaintiff Natalie Gordon
filed a putative shareholder class action alleging Verizon's board
of directors breached its fiduciary duty by overpaying in the
deal.  Following negotiations, the parties reached an agreement
whereby the suit would be dropped if Verizon disseminated
additional disclosures and agreed to obtain a fairness opinion if
it sold or spun-off assets in a certain manner in the following
three years.  Notably, Verizon shareholders would receive no
settlement payment in the exchange, but their attorneys would be
paid up to $2 million for their services.  After Verizon's filing
of additional disclosures with the SEC, on January 28, 2014, 99.8%
of Verizon shareholders voted to approve the issuance of shares to
acquire Vodafone's interest in VZW.  The parties to the litigation
filed a written stipulation of settlement in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York, Commercial Division
(the "Commercial Division"), on July 21, 2014.

In New York, courts must approve class action settlements
following a "fairness hearing."  At the fairness hearing held on
December 2, 2014, two objectors opposed the settlement.  On
December 22, 2014, the Commercial Division declined to approve the
settlement, finding it insufficiently beneficial to the
shareholders.  Plaintiffs appealed to the First Department.

Court Approval of Non-Monetary Class Action Settlement Agreements

Historically, non-monetary class action settlement agreements have
waxed and waned in their popularity with the courts.  In the 1980s
and 1990s, shareholder classes began accepting agreements to drop
their class action suits against companies in exchange for
equitable relief from the company, such as governance reform or
additional disclosures, and attorneys' fees.  Courts approved
these settlements, viewing them as a means to remedy the corporate
misconduct scandals at the time.  However, courts and commentators
subsequently grew suspicious of non-monetary settlements, claiming
that they provided minimal benefits to shareholders and companies,
but proved fruitful for the plaintiffs' class action bar in their
receipt of large attorneys' fees.  In recent decisions and debate,
some courts and commentators have pushed back against the notion
that non-monetary settlements are categorically unfair.

In approving a class action settlement, the court must determine
whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and
in the best interest of class members.  See Klein v. Robert's
American Gourmet Food, Inc., 28 A.D.3d 63, 73 (2d Dep't 2006).  To
this end, New York courts have applied a test developed in In re
Colt Industries Shareholders Litigation, 155 A.D.2d 154 (1st Dep't
1990), mod. on other grounds, 77 N.Y.2d 185 (1991).  The five-
factor "Colt Test" considers: (1) the likelihood of success on the
merits, (2) the extent of support from the parties, (3) the
judgment of counsel, (4) the presence of bargaining in good faith,
and (5) the nature of the issues of law and fact.


WELLS FARGO: Says Arbitration of Fake Account Claims Fair Forum
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Doctorow, writing for Boingboing, reports that Wells Fargo
admits that its employees opened more than 2,000,000 fake accounts
in order to run up fraudulent charges against its customers
(employees who balked at committing fraud were fired and
blacklisted for life from the banking industry); it also says that
the customers it stole from can't sue the company because fake
account paperwork bearing their forged signatures includes a
promise to enter into binding arbitration rather than suing.

Binding arbitration is a system created to allow giant companies
to settle their differences without costly litigation, but a
Supreme Court decision has allowed it to be applied to the
dealings between individuals and giant companies -- leading to a
plague of companies that make you surrender your constitutional
legal rights as a condition of shopping with them (it took me six
months to find LA doctors and dentists who'd see me without
signing one of these agreements!).

Notably, binding arbitration clauses kill class action lawsuits,
which are critical in this kind of mass fraud.  Alas, Wells Fargo
had good luck convincing judges that they couldn't be subjected to
class actions, even after admitting massive, criminal frauds.
Prior to the 2016 election, there was some hope that federal
finance regulators would crack down on them, but since Donald
Trump owes Wells Fargo more than $500,000,000, that seems unlikely
(indeed, one of Trump's first acts after his inauguration was to
flush the Department of Labor's whistleblower site for Wells Fargo
employees down the memory hole.

Wells Fargo told Consumerist that forcing its customers to seek
justice one at a time, through the arbitration system's kangaroo
courts, was good for them: "Our goal is to do what's right for
every customer and team member, every day.  If we are unable to
resolve a dispute directly, arbitration is a forum in which a
customer or a team member dispute is heard and resolved within a
neutral third-party legal process.  Arbitration is generally
faster and less expensive than litigation.  It is a fair,
efficient and effective forum available for a customer and a team
member to pursue and resolve a legal claim."

As Consumerist points out, courtrooms are also forums "in which a
customer dispute is 'heard and resolved within a neutral third-
party legal process."  And while arbitration might be faster than
courts for settling a single claim, 2,000,000 arbitration
proceedings are going to be a lot slower than one class action
suit.

In a follow-up question, we asked Wells how it could claim that
arbitration is more efficient, unless the bank is indeed hoping
that only a small number of customers will enter into this
process. The response was even more baffling.

"By resolving legal disputes through arbitration, both the
consumer and the business have the ability to reach a positive
resolution at a lower cost," explained the bank.

Once again, this doesn't seem to compute.

With the exception of the very few (sometimes only one) named
plaintiff in a class action, the members of the plaintiff class
don't have to do anything to mount a case. That's the point: The
named plaintiff represents the class.

Requiring that customers enter into arbitration on an individual
basis means that Wells is asking each affected person to put in
the time, effort, and expense of bringing a case against a bank
with nearly $2 trillion in assets.

Rosemary Shahan, President of the Consumers for Auto Reliability
and Safety Foundation, and a member of the We Do Count coalition
tells Consumerist that Wells Fargo's justification for forcing
arbitration reminded her of the old line "'Welcome to my parlor,'
said the spider to the fly."


WORCESTER TELEGRAM: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on April 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in a class action lawsuit captioned as Driscoll, et.
al. v. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation (nka NEMG T&G,
Inc.) Docket Number 09-0043, pending before the Massachusetts
Superior Court, has been preliminarily approved.

IF YOU DELIVERED DAILY NEWSPAPERS FOR THE WORCESTER TELEGRAM &
GAZETTE AND ENTERED INTO A HOME DELIVERY SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JANUARY 8, 2006 AND APRIL 3, 2011, YOU COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE, YOU
MAY RECEIVE $17 PER WEEK IN PAYMENT FOR EACH WEEK YOU WORKED AT
LEAST FIVE (5) DAYS DURING THIS PERIOD, AND 20 CENTS PER MILE FOR
SUCH WORK UP TO 120 MILES PER WEEK FROM JANUARY 8, 2006 THROUGH
APRIL 3, 2011.

The lawsuit is about whether Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Corporation ("T&G") misclassified the Carriers as independent
contractors instead of as employees, in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Independent
Contractor Law, also known as General Laws Chapter 149, Sections
148, 148B and 150, and failed to provide them with the legal
rights which employees have under Massachusetts law.

T&G has agreed to provide a $3.6 million Class Settlement Fund to
be divided among and on behalf of all Class Members who will be
asked to file Claim Forms at a later date.  In addition, T&G will
pay $2,225,000 for Plaintiffs' lawyers' fees and an additional
$100,000 or more for Plaintiffs' lawyers' expenses incurred in the
lawsuit, and $100,000 to the four Named Plaintiffs (divided
equally among them).

The Court will conduct a hearing on whether to grant final
approval of the Proposed Settlement on April 25, 2017, at 2:00 pm.

If you are a Class Member, you can object to the Proposed
Settlement if you do not like any part of it. You can give reasons
why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will
consider your views.

To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the
Proposed Settlement in Driscoll, et. al. v. Worcester Telegram &
Gazette Corporation, Docket Number 09-0043 (be sure to include
this case name and docket number in your letter). Be sure to also
include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and
the reasons you object to the Proposed Settlement.

To be considered, your letter must be received no later than April
7, 2017 by the Civil Clerk at the Worcester Superior Court as
follows:

     Civil Clerk Worcester Superior Court
     225 Main Street
     Worcester, MA 01608

You must also mail a copy of the letter to the lawyers
representing the Class and the T&G at:

     James M. Galliher, Esq.
     David M. Nickless, Esq.
     James L. O'Connor, Esq.
     C. Deborah Phillips, Esq.
     NICKLESS, PHILLIPS AND O'CONNOR
     625 Main Street
     Fitchburg, MA 01420
     Tel: (978) 342-4590
     Fax: (978) 343-6383

          - and -

     Barry M. Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & ALTMAN
     404 Main Street
     Wilmington, MA 01887
     Tel: (978) 658-3388

          - and -

     Michael Angelini, Esq.
     Bowditch & Dewey, LLP
     311 Main Street
     P.O. Box 15156
     Worcester, MA
     Tel: 01615-0156

You can get a copy of that Settlement Agreement by writing to the
Claims Administrator at:

     Worcester Telegram Carriers Settlement
     c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
     P.O. Box 2006
     Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006

or by visiting the Claims Administrator's website at

     http://www.WorcesterTelegramCarriersSettlement.com

You can call 877-720-1952 toll free; write to Worcester Telegram
Carriers Settlement, c/o Analytics Consulting LLC, P.O. Box 2006,
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006; or visit the website at
www.WorcesterTelegramCarriersSettlement.com, where you can find
answers to common questions about the Settlement, a proposed Claim
Form (including IRS Form W-9), plus other information to determine
whether you are a Class Member and whether you are eligible for
payment. You can also visit www.npolegal.com


WORLD MARKETING: WARN Class' Application for Damages Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy A. Barnes of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
application by the WARN class representatives seeking allowance
and payment for an administrative claim for damages under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

The application alleged that the class of WARN Act claimants is
entitled to an administrative claim arising from the termination
of employees by the debtors, World Marketing Chicago, LLC, World
Marketing Dallas, LLC, and World Marketing Atlanta, LLC, after
September 28, 2015, the date on which the bankruptcy cases were
commenced.  Such termination, the WARN class argued, violates the
WARN Act, as it occurred without the notice required therein.  The
WARN Class further alleged that the damages under the WARN Act
have therefore arisen and are entitled to administrative priority
under 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(1)(A)(ii).

The Trustee opposed the application, arguing that notice was not
required as the debtors were liquidating.  The Trustee also
contended that damages, if any, are prepetition in nature, and
therefore not administrative.

Judge Barnes found that the WARN Class has satisfied its required
burden and proven that the class claim is entitled to
administrative priority based on the violation of the WARN Act by
the debtors.  The judge also found that the liquidating fiduciary
exception which was relied upon by the Trustee is inapplicable to
the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Barne's February 24, 2017, memorandum is
available at:

             http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb15-32968-776.pdf

                About World Marketing Chicago

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, World Marketing Chicago,
LLC, offers marketing consulting and mailing services.  World
Marketing Chicago, LLC (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 15-32968), and
affiliates World Marketing Atlanta, LLC (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No.
15-32975) and World Marketing Dallas, LLC (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case
No. 15-32977) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Sept.
28, 2015, each estimating their assets and liabilities at between
$1 million and $10 million.  The petitions were signed by Robert
W. Kraft, the authorized individual.

The cases are jointly administered.  Judge Timothy A. Barnes
presides over the cases.

Jeffrey C Dan, Esq., at Crane Heyman Simon Wlch & Clar serves as
the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the
case are represented by Elizabeth Vandesteeg, Esq., and Aaron L.
Hammer, Esq., at Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Hammer LLP as counsel.
AEG Partners LLC serves as the Committee's financial advisor.


* Attorney Discusses 2017 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Chad Finley, Esq. at The Legal
Examiner, recently, the House Judiciary Committee passed a new
bill (HR 985) called the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
of 2017."  Introduced a day before Valentine's Day the bill should
have been called "The Corporate Sweetheart Deal."  This is 1 of 6
Federal bills being presented that rig the courts and strip away
rights.  It is important that every American take note of what
this Sweetheart Deal will mean to them.

What Does This Bill Mean?

The bill effectively ends your ability to hold a corporation
accountable if you are injured.  For example, let's say you take a
pharmaceutical product and it causes you to develop cancer.  You
have significant medical expenses, no longer work, and are
struggling to pay your bills.  The pharmaceutical company has
known for years that their drug causes cancer, but refused to
issue a warning or recall the product.  When they make this
choice, the pharmaceutical company puts profit over public safety.

Unfortunately in our job as attorneys, this is a situation we see
frequently.  This new bill will take away your ability to get
compensation for your injuries, which is a fundamental American
right.  Specifically, a right issued to you under the 7th
Amendment of the Constitution (i.e. the right to a jury).  If
someone harms you for the sake of profit, they should have to pay
for the damages you endured because of your injury.

Under this bill it is doubtful you would be able to find a lawyer
to represent you unless you could afford to pay them hourly.
Lawyers know that people who have been badly hurt often cannot
afford to pay hefty hourly legal bills.  Thus, lawyers often enter
into a contingency contract with clients.  The lawyer promises to
work hard on the client's behalf, and if the lawyer wins the case,
the client pays them a portion of what was collected.  This bill
makes it nearly impossible for lawyers to make that agreement with
their clients. This is a move by the federal government to
directly interfere with and restrict negotiated contracts.

Taking away Americans' access to the Courts will shield
corporations from lawyers, which are often the only line of
defense for injured individuals.  In these types of cases lawyers
get to read the corporate emails and communications, look at
internal data, and figure out the true story behind the choice to
put profit over safety.  Often lawsuits are the last option for
the public to get information and answers. When we first talk to
clients the questions we often get are 1) Did this product cause
my injury? and 2) How did it happen? In every lawsuit we file our
mission is to answer those questions.  This bill is nothing but a
blatant attempt to remove the public's oversight of corporations
and it will cause unsafe products to remain on the market
unchecked.

Corporations fear lawyers having access to their information.
Corporations fear lawyers exposing their lies. Corporations fear
injured individuals taking part of their profit.

Sadly, we too often see some truly reprehensible behavior and this
behavior will only get worse if corporations no longer fear facing
those they have injured in Court.

Who Proposed this Bill?

The Congressman who introduced the bill, Bob Goodlatte, has his
campaigns financed almost entirely by corporations -- corporations
who will benefit from the bill.  Bob Goodlatte is the same
Congressman who proposed to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics
(OCE), which is the independent entity charged with reviewing
allegations of misconduct against members of the House of
Representatives and their staff. Instead of independent oversight,
Bob Goodlatte proposed that investigations into Congressional
ethics violations would be overseen by Congress itself. In other
words, Congressman Bob Goodlatte wants Congress to be the "judge,
jury and executioner" -- i.e. Congress would be in charge of
policing Congress.  Americans have seen how this has worked in the
past.

Now Bob Goodlatte is proposing a bill (HR 985) that enables
corporations to be in charge of policing themselves without
oversight from pesky lawyers or private citizens. Corporations are
tasked with making as much money as possible for their stock
holders. These financial motives often take priority over ethical
and safety concerns.

The more corporations donate to insider politicians like
Congressman Bob Goodlatte, the more likely they are to get
favorable assistance from Congress.  This sweetheart corporate
immunity deal is a prime example of how the deep pockets of
corporations can be used to fund bills that benefit corporations
but are pushed through without consideration of public safety.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte represents the people, not the
corporations that funded his election. Congressman Bob needs to be
reminded that allowing corporations immunity from being held
accountable for putting unsafe products on the market will only
encourage more unsafe products to hit the market -- putting our
families at risk.  Congressman Bob needs to know that it is not
okay to prioritize the interests of the corporations who finance
the campaigns over the citizens who elect.

What Can Be Done?

"We The People" deserve "liberty and justice for all," and that
requires holding political insiders like Congressman Bob Goodlatte
accountable for placing the safety of Americans to benefit those
that funded his campaign. Americans deserve better than HR 985.
Our lawmakers are charged with providing for the common defense,
not making their constituents defenseless against large
corporations. Remind your Representatives that they work for you
and demand  they protect your rights. -- It is not too late to
stop this Corporate Immunity Bill.  Contact your Representatives
Today!

If you do not know who your Congressional members are, you can
find out at http://www.whoismyrepresentative.com/.Let them know
you are against HR 985.  Without your voice, justice may be
silenced.


* Bill Seeks Common-Sense Changes to Federal Class-Action Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
News OK reports that U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte has sought meaningful
judicial reform since getting to Washington nearly 25 years ago,
and is continuing that fight today with a bill aimed at class-
action lawsuits. Congress should get behind Goodlatte's push.

His bill, called the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act,
seeks to bring some balance to the system, which for too long has
enriched trial lawyers while producing settlements that hurt
businesses and don't greatly benefit consumers.

The Washington Examiner noted a recent example: Anheuser-Busch
last summer agreed to a settlement of up to $20 million because
the labeling on its Beck's beer might have led consumers to
believe the beer was brewed in Germany instead of St. Louis.
Consumers "harmed" by this since 2012 could claim $12 (or up to
$50 if they could show receipts); the plaintiffs' attorney fees
totaled $3.5 million.

Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, notes
that just 0.023 percent of consumer class-action members wind up
taking the compensation offered in a settlement -- an indication
that most consumers want nothing to do with these cases.

His bill seeks to make a number of changes to the federal class-
action system, including:

   -- Requiring plaintiff classes to be made up of people in
similar circumstances who have suffered similar wrongs, instead of
lumping people into class actions with uninjured or minimally
injured members.

   -- Requiring injured victims to get paid first, before the
lawyers, and limiting lawyer fees to a reasonable percentage of
the money that injured victims actually receive. So in the
Anheuser-Busch case, for example, the attorneys' fees would be
greatly reduced if only some Beck's drinkers claimed their
settlement.

   -- Requiring courts to use objective criteria in determining
who is injured in a class action and how compensation will reach
those victims.

  -- Requiring judges to itemize who gets what in a class-action
settlement, and requiring detailed records to be kept on the
amounts awarded.

"The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of
evaluating similar, meritorious claims," Goodlatte says, "not to
provide a way for lawyers to artificially inflate the size of a
class to extort a larger settlement fee for themselves, siphoning
money away from injured parties and increasing prices for
everyone."

Under the current system, trial lawyers' fees are generally pegged
to the amount they win -- thus, the larger the class, the better
the chances for a large settlement and a nice payday. Defendants,
meantime, often will settle knowing that many people ignore or
miss notices to opt out of a class. Once they're in the class,
they can't sue separately for the same thing.

"The system, then, is rigged in favor of everyone except the
actual victims," the Washington Examiner noted. "It is one of the
many absurdities within America's civil court system."

Goodlatte is trying to trade absurdity for a little more common
sense, and his effort merits support.


* Class Action Litigation Reform Won't Kill Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh, writing for Law360, reports that house lawmakers are
considering a bill to reform class action litigation that could
profoundly hamper plaintiffs' ability to bring such cases, though
the legislation's blow may land softer on antitrust class actions
than with other kinds of suits, experts say.

H.R. 985, the Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, was
favorably reported by the House Judiciary Committee in
mid-February and is now before the full House of Representatives.
The bill, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte,
R-Va., was approved by the panel on a party-line vote during a
late-evening markup.  The panel did not hold any hearings on the
legislation, even though it has the potential to significantly
reshape the class action litigation regime.

Congress has mulled previous iterations of the bill before, but
the current version before the full House greatly expands upon its
predecessors.

In addition to requiring potential class members to prove they
suffered the same type and scope of injury, the legislation would
codify the ascertainability requirement on putative classes,
forbid law firms from representing family members or the same
client in multiple class actions, stay discovery while a motion to
dismiss or motion to strike class allegations is pending, limit
attorneys' fees and keep them from being paid out until all
damages are awarded, and reform multidistrict litigation
proceedings.

The requirement for class members to have suffered the same type
and scope of injury by itself could severely limit the ability to
bring class actions of any kind, according to Elizabeth Burch of
the University of Georgia School of Law.  The provision is
ambiguous and would impose a difficult-to-clear hurdle for class
certification in many cases, she said.

"Taken to its most extreme conclusion, one could argue it
prohibits any sorts of class actions," Ms. Burch said.

The type and scope requirement would be far-reaching because
injuries suffered by potential class members inevitably vary,
Burch said.  Imposing such a restriction would be unwise because
many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court -- most recently in
last year's Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo -- have said plaintiffs
should be able to pursue class actions even when their injuries
are not identical, Burch said in comments submitted to the
committee.

The provision is also unnecessary because under the current class
action regime, courts already conduct a thorough vetting of
potential class members to make sure they adhere to certification
requirements, she said.

Democrats at the Judiciary Committee markup opposed the bill,
saying it was designed to skew the playing field in favor of
defendants.  Panel member Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said it could
end up harming corporations because large class actions in which
American businesses are the primary plaintiffs are sometimes the
only effective way to combat foreign price-fixing cartels.

The bill's restrictions could make it nearly impossible for
companies suffering a financial injury to be certified as a class,
he said.

Mr. Johnson also noted that the changes would apply retroactively
to ongoing cases, which would seem to favor President Donald
Trump, who recently settled a fraud suit against Trump University
for $25 million.  Trump-owned Jupiter Golf Club plans to appeal an
order to refund $5.7 million to a class of members, and its
lawyers will likely try to reargue class certification in the case
should the bill become law, Johnson said.

"Unfortunately, this bill is another attempt to restrict access to
a fair and effective judicial system for the injured, the battered
and the disenfranchised," he said.

While the bill may constrict antitrust class actions, it is going
too far to say that the legislation would do away with them
entirely, according to Jeffrey S. Jacobson --
jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- a partner with Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP.

Because antitrust classes under today's law can include anyone
from consumers to major corporations, the injury scope requirement
could narrow the kinds of classes that can be certified in
antitrust cases, Mr. Jacobson said. In practice, however, that
could mean simply that multiple subclasses would be certified in
large actions rather than one overarching class, he said.

"I think it is way too strong to say that the bill in its current
form would eliminate the ability to bring antitrust class
actions," Mr. Jacobson said.

The ascertainability requirement may also not have as severe of an
effect on antitrust cases as it would on other kinds of class
actions, according to Kelley Drye partner August T. Horvath --
ahorvath@kelleydrye.com.  The provision would preclude class
certification unless the class can be "defined with reference to
objective criteria," and there is a "reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism" to identify members and distribute monetary
relief.

Circuit courts have taken differing positions on the standard for
ascertainability that should apply to class actions.  The Third
Circuit and others have applied a rigorous standard, while the
Ninth Circuit recently rejected such a requirement altogether.

However, ascertainability is not usually problematic for
plaintiffs in antitrust cases, which tend to be companies that
keep detailed records and have no trouble proving they purchased a
particular product, for example, Horvath said.

The kinds of antitrust class actions that would be most affected
by an ascertainability requirement are ones that are brought on
behalf of consumers who purchased small items, he said.

"The biggest impact of this bill in terms of ascertainability
would be these very small-dollar everyday purchases where nobody
keeps receipts for longer than a couple of hours," Mr. Horvath
said.

While the FCALA would certainly alter the landscape for antitrust
suits, since all class actions would be subject to the new
requirements, antitrust cases don't seem to be the target, Horvath
said.  The bill seems to be aimed at curbing individual
professional plaintiffs, not the businesses that are the typical
plaintiffs in antitrust suits, he said.

Nevertheless, the bill could have some unintended consequences,
Mr. Horvath said.  The provisions curtailing the kinds of
plaintiffs that attorneys can represent are broadly painted and
would needlessly prohibit counsel from representing plaintiffs in
more than one class action, he said.

It is not unusual for companies to fall victim to more than one
upstream cartel, and there is no reason why they should not be
able to secure the same representation to prosecute multiple such
cases, Mr. Horvath said.

"I can think of very many large reputable companies that have been
plaintiffs in many large antitrust class actions," he said. "Why
should they have to go shopping for a new law firm each time?"

And while the legislation may have the goal of streamlining class
actions, it could bring on epic courtroom battles over how its
language should be interpreted.  The ascertainability and type and
scope requirements, in particular, could be fought over for years,
Mr. Jacobson said.  In fact, the provisions could be so
controversial that they may sink the bill altogether, he said.

"If the bill does not pass the Senate, those provisions likely
will be the reason why," Mr. Jacobson said.


* Class Action Reform Bill Aims to Curb Attorney Abuses
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Forbes, Esq., of Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq., Molly K.
McGinley, Esq., Jennifer Janeira Nagle, Esq., and Matthew N. Lowe,
Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that on February 9, 2017, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.),
the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (the "Act" or
"H.R. 985").  The Act significantly expands the class action
reforms proposed in an earlier version of the bill that stalled
after passage in the U.S. House of Representatives and imposes
significant new restrictions on class action lawyers and
plaintiffs seeking to proceed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, as well as implementing new rules applicable
to cases consolidated through the multidistrict litigation
process.  The stated purposes of the Act are to: (1) "assure fair
and prompt recoveries for class members and multidistrict
litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims;" (2) "diminish
abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are
undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system;" and (3)
"restore the intent of the framers of the United States
Constitution by ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate
controversies of national importance consistent with diversity
jurisdiction principles."  In a press release,
Rep. Goodlatte announced that the objective of the proposed
legislation is to "keep baseless class action suits away from
innocent parties, while still keeping the doors to justice open
for parties with real and legitimate claims, and maximizing their
recoveries."

The Act proposes a number of significant changes to Title 28 of
the U.S. Code (the federal judicial code), some of which address
issues that have been the subject of recent litigation in federal
courts across the country, including the questions of when a class
representative has sufficient legal standing to represent putative
class members and what constitutes the proper analysis for
determining the identification and scope of a class.  Generally,
the proposed legislation is favorable to class action defendants,
as it would provide uniform answers to these highly contested
questions and strengthen protections against abusive class action
practices by, among other things: requiring that class counsel and
putative class representatives disclose conflicts of interest;
prohibiting discovery during the pendency of motions to dismiss;
adding procedural requirements to Rule 23 to ensure that class
actions are manageable; imposing reasonable limits on attorney fee
awards; and changing certain rules applicable to cases that become
part of multidistrict litigation.

Class Action Procedures
H.R. 985 includes heightened requirements for issuance of an order
granting certification of a class.  Specifically, in addition to
the traditional commonality and typicality requirements of Rule
23, the Act would require that, in class actions seeking monetary
relief for personal injury or economic loss, a party seeking
certification of a class "affirmatively demonstrate" that each
proposed class member "suffered the same type and scope of injury
as the named class representative" and that a court may only
certify a class under Rule 23(c)(1) if, after a "rigorous analysis
of the evidence presented," this requirement has been met.  These
provisions, if enacted, should help to ensure that similarly
aggrieved class members are not short-changed for the benefit of
those who should not rightfully be included in a class.

The Act also would establish a nationwide ascertainability
requirement for certification of a class, requiring that classes
be "defined with reference to objective criteria" and that class
counsel "affirmatively demonstrate that there is a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism" to identify class members and
distribute monetary relief.  This change would resolve a recent
split among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal as to whether
plaintiffs must prove ascertainability (also known as
"administrative feasibility") to have a class certified under Rule
23(b)(3) and would do so in favor of requiring plaintiffs to prove
this element for class certification.




* Class Actions Targeting Food Products Surge in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Saul and Danika Fears, writing for New York Post, report
that New Yorkers are already well-known dining snobs -- but this
is just foodie foolishness.

There's been a surge in class-action lawsuits filed in the city by
persnickety Gothamites complaining about how their food is
marketed -- and now nearly a quarter of all such federal cases in
the country are filed in New York state, according to a new
report.

Many of the lawsuits claim products are not as "natural" or
"healthy" as advertised, while others allege there's a deceptive
amount of extra space in the packaging.

"The Eastern District of New York, in particular, has experienced
a surge of lawsuits targeting food products over the past two
years, and the Southern District is not far behind," the report
from the Institute for Legal Reform says.

The surge, particularly in Manhattan and Brooklyn, "appears to
result from a few plaintiffs' firms repeatedly filing such
claims," it contends.

The uptick in the Big Apple's federal courts is part of a
nationwide trend.  Between 2015 and 2016, there were 425 active
food class-action suits in federal courts, while in 2008 there
were only about 20.

Twenty-two percent of all current federal cases were either filed
in or transferred to New York state.  Only California is more
litigious when it comes to food-related class actions, as its
cases account for 36 percent of the total.

"A few are so laughable that courts have quickly thrown them out,"
the report says. "Some are withdrawn or dismissed, typically as a
result of a private settlement.  Many more are litigated for
years."

Among the current cases in New York is a class action filed by
Brooklynite Tamika Daniel against Mondelez International in
January, claiming the confectionery company is deceiving customers
by leaving their boxes of Swedish Fish 63 percent empty.

The lawsuit argues the amount of "slack-fill," or empty space,
violates the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act and the Code of
Federal Regulations because it's misleading consumers.

The institute report also points to an Oct. 2016 lawsuit in which
a Hudson Valley woman sued KFC for $20 million -- because her $20
"family-sized" bucket of chicken wasn't as full as she expected.

Most of the settlements in these cases "line the pockets of
lawyers, but provide little or no benefit to consumers," the
Institute for Legal Reform report argues.

"The trial lawyers are getting fat on food lawsuits -- and
New Yorkers are picking up the bill," said Tom Stebbins, executive
director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York.

"People may laugh when Starbucks is sued for coffee that is too
hot and sued again for coffee with too much ice, but these
lawsuits should give everyone indigestion.  The cost of defending
these lawsuits is passed directly on to consumers like us."

The report says lawyers handling the cases argue "that they do not
need to show that consumers saw, heard, or relied on the labeling
or advertising at issue when deciding to purchase the product, but
only that consumers might be misled."

Kim Richman's firm, Richman Law Group, is cited in the report as
one of the New York City firms that has filed a lot of food-
related class actions.

She said there are more suits because, "People's consciousness
around food has . . . been growing.

"The government in this day and age is not doing enough to protect
consumers," she said.

'Yogurt critics raising 'cane"

Two men filed a class-action suit against Greek yogurt company
Chobani in June 2014, alleging the product is Turkish, not Greek -
- and chock-full of sugar.

Barry Stoltz, of Westchester, and Allan Chang, of Queens, said in
their suit that Chobani's sweetener, "'evaporated cane juice' is
not 'juice' at all -- it is nothing more than sugar dressed up to
sound like a healthier sweetener."

The suit also claimed that despite marketing itself as "America's
Top Greek Yogurt," none of Chobani's products are made in Greece
or by Greek nationals.

"We have proudly built Chobani on being truly authentic and
totally transparent, and fully stand behind our products and our
craft," the company said at the time.

Both parties eventually agreed to drop the case.

'Mom is naturally offended'

New Jersey-based cracker company John Wm.  Macy was slapped with a
class-action lawsuit in July 2015 by shoppers who argued its
snacks weren't actually "all natural," as they claimed to be.

Lead plaintiff and mom Maureen Jones hired a lawyer who filed suit
in Brooklyn after learning there were "synthetic materials" in the
supposedly healthy snacks.

"She purchases the products for her kids," her lawyer Joseph
Lipari told The Post at the time. "She relied upon these
representations assuming these were all natural."

The FDA doesn't prohibit use of the term "natural" on food
packaging unless the product contains added color, artificial
flavors or synthetic substances.

The case is still ongoing.

'Pasta lovers unfull-filled'

Modal Trigger

Last July, four New Yorkers filed a class-action suit against
Barilla, the world's leading pasta company, claiming some of its
pasta boxes were being under-filled by as much as 25 percent.

They claim the Italian pasta giant uses "deceptive packaging" on
its specialty lines, putting those products in the same-sized
boxes used for regular noodles but filling them less.

The plaintiffs insist they were "overcharged" and suffered "out-
of-pocket loss" after buying the products.

"Barilla relies on consumers' familiarity with the box size and
appearance, known due to decades of marketing, to mislead
consumers into thinking they are purchasing the same quantity of
pasta when, in reality, the company is filling the boxes with
materially less pasta," the lawsuit says.  The case is pending.


* HR 985 Picks Up Where CAFA Left Off to Correct Abuse of System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel B. Weil, Esq. -- rweil@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that regular blog readers may
recall that H.R. 985, a bill that passed the House Judiciary
Committee, would pick up where CAFA left off (and then some) to
correct still-rampant abuse of the system by class action and MDL
plaintiff lawyers, to the detriment of our clients, the judicial
system as a whole, and all too often, to the plaintiffs the
lawyers ostensibly represent.

Under "Purposes," the bill states: "The purposes of this act are
to -- (1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members and
multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with legitimate claims; (2)
diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are
undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system; and (3)
restore the intent of the framers of the United States
Constitution by ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate
controversies of national importance consistent with diversity
jurisdiction principles."  Worthy goals all, if a trifle
ambitious.  The bill's key points read like a set of nesting boxes
-- just when you think you've opened the last, there is another
present inside. Here are some highlights:

Class Actions

Injury allegations: this provision requires a court to deny
certification unless "the party seeking to maintain such a class
action affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member
suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class
representative."  This is ascertainability something for which
we've advocated, and also something that our side tried
unsuccessfully to get fixed through the Federal Rules Committee.
Thus, the judiciary had its chance to fix this.  Nothing happened,
so now Congress is poised to step in.  About time.
Conflicts of interest: this provision requires class counsel to
state, in the body of the complaint, "whether any proposed class
representative or named plaintiff in the complaint is a relative
of, is a present or former employee of, is a present or former
client of (other than with respect to the class action) or has any
contractual relationship with . . . class counsel" and shall
"describe the circumstances under which each class representative
or named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint and
shall identify any other class action in which any proposed class
representative or named plaintiff has a similar role."

Attorneys' fees: "[N]o attorneys' fees may be . . . paid . . .
until the distribution of any monetary recovery to class members
has been completed," and "[u]nless otherwise specified by Federal
statute, . . . the portion of any attorneys' fee award to class
counsel . . . shall be limited to a reasonable percentage of any
payments directly distributed to and received by class members
[and in] no event shall the attorneys' fee award exceed the total
amount of money distributed to and received by all class members."
We particularly like this because it would effectively put an end
to cy pres, against which we've railed for years. By limiting the
denominator for fee awards to "payments directly distributed to
and received by class members" it prevents cy pres sums from being
used to inflate fee awards.

There are other provisions, requiring stringent accounting
provisions for settlement funds forbidding certification of issue
classes unless all relevant Rule 23 prerequisites are satisfied
(another thing our side tried first to fix through a change to
Rule 23), and most significantly providing for severance of
misjoined plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdictional
determinations.  This legislative elimination of fraudulent
misjoinder is a key point, since it addresses the multi-plaintiff
complaints we love to hate.

We note that since the "effective date" of this act provides for
its application to all "pending" civil actions, cases currently in
state court can be removed (or removed again) under the provision
negating misjoinder as a means of preventing diversity-based
removal to federal court.

Finally, in an issue close to our hearts as we daily encounter
plaintiffs unwittingly victimized by so-called "litigation
funders," the bill provides, "In any class action, class counsel
shall promptly disclose in writing to the court and all other
parties the identity of any person or entity, other than a class
member or class counsel of record, who has a contingent right to
receive compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other
relief obtained in the action."  A sunshine law for third-party
funding is something else for which we've advocated.

Multidistrict Litigation:

Proof of exposure and injury: We were thrilled to see a "Lone
Pine"-esque provision build into the MDL portion of the bill.  It
provides, in pertinent part, "In any coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings . . . , counsel for a plaintiff asserting a
claim seeking redress for personal injury [in the MDL] shall make
a submission sufficient to demonstrate that there is evidentiary
support (including but not limited to medical records) for the
factual contentions in the plaintiff's complaint regarding the
alleged injury, the exposure to the risk that allegedly caused the
injury, and the alleged cause of the injury . . . within 45 days
after the civil action is transferred to or directly filed in the
proceedings.  That deadline shall not be extended. Within 30 days
after the submission deadline, the judge . . . shall [determine]
whether the submission is sufficient and shall dismiss the action
without prejudice if the submission is found to be insufficient."
Thirty days later, in the continued absence of a satisfactory
submission, the action is to be dismissed with prejudice.  Not
long ago, we advocated for amending the MDL statute to require
early factual disclosure, with dismissal as the sanction for not
disclosing enough to satisfy Rule 8. This is the functional
equivalent.

Trial Prohibition ("waiving Lexecon"): MDL judges "may not conduct
any trial in any civil action transferred to or directly filed in
the proceedings unless all parties to the civil action consent to
trail of the specific case sought to be tried."  This provision
would remove the threat of MDL trials as a tool to force
defendants to settle.  It is something else for which we have
advocated.

Ensuring Proper Recovery for Plaintiffs: MDL plaintiffs "shall
receive not less than 80 percent of any monetary recovery obtained
in that action by settlement, judgment or otherwise."
While most of the press coverage seems to focus on class actions,
to us the removal and MDL provisions are at least as important.
The vast bulk of our professional life is spent in the mass tort
space -- mostly MDLs these days, with the occasional class action
thrown in.  We have become accustomed (but never inured) to
plaintiffs without injuries herded by counsel who are their
friends or bosses into mass actions in which they don't belong. On
the other end of the spectrum, we encounter severely injured
plaintiffs who will recover next to nothing because lawyers and
litigation funders own most or all of the plaintiffs' stakes in
the inevitable settlements.  And, at every turn, we sit across the
table from tanned and affluent plaintiff attorneys who are the
only ones apparently immune to the vagaries of the system and who
are the sole beneficiaries of its inequities. H.R. 985, as
drafted, attempts to address many of these issues. We do have
questions.  Who defines "the same type and scope of injury," for
example? And we have doubts: can a bill possibly survive the
powerful plaintiff attorney lobby when it attempts to resurrect
the integrity of mass litigation by hitting those attorneys
squarely in their pocketbooks? But we heartily and excitedly
support this bill, and we know that some of its provisions are
way, way better than none.  We will keep you posted.


* McGuireWoods Attorney Discusses MDL Provisions in New Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Trask, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for
Lexology, discusses multi-district litigation (MDL) provisions in
the new Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.

Mr. Trask said "Earlier this month, I wrote about the class-action
provisions of the new Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act,
which has passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is headed for
a floor vote in the House.  At the end of that post, I promised a
further explanation of the mass action provisions as well.  These
provisions are aimed primarily at multi-district litigation (MDL),
which is rapidly becoming a substitute for class proceedings when
dealing with numerous personal-injury claims.

Section 4 -- would amend the federal jurisdiction statute,
allowing the court to sever claims against an in-state defendant
if there are two or more defendants in a given personal injury or
wrongful death case.  It's designed to combat fraudulent joinder--
the joining of a comparatively small in-state defendant in order
to avoid federal jurisdiction over one's larger, actual target.
This was a large problem in pre-CAFA class action litigation, and
is becoming more of an issue in MDLs.  Since fraudulent joinder is
usually employed to stay out of an MDL, this provision will likely
receive support from experienced MDL plaintiffs as well as the
defense bar.

Section 5 amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to provide more guidance for
judges overseeing MDLs.  In theory, its provisions would be
uncontroversial (because more guidance is usually better). In
practice, several of these provisions, while aimed at protecting
individual litigants (much as good class-action reform protects
absent class members), will rile some plaintiffs' counsel. How,
specifically, would Sec. 1407 change?

It requires early evidentiary support for claims.  MDLs are often
plagued by "junk inventory" claims, often brought by latecomers to
the litigation, which do not have the same evidentiary support as
other claims The presence of this junk inventory makes settlement
more difficult for both sides: defendants don't want to settle
claims worth little to nothing, and plaintiffs with valid claims
don't want to see their recovery diluted by the junk.  The
proposed new subsection (i) would impose the equivalent of a "Lone
Pine" order, requiring evidentiary support within 45 days for any
claims, to help the court sort the wheat from the chaff.

It would prohibit bellwether trials without all parties' consent.
MDLs are authorized to consolidate cases for pretrial proceedings.
As a result, "bellwether trials," which the court holds to provide
information to transferor courts after remand and to facilitate
settlement, have often rested on a shaky legal foundation.
Defendants have often complained that bellwethers do not provide
the utility they should; proposed subsection (j) would give a
defendant a veto over "bad bellwethers." But, more importantly, it
would provide a statutory basis for the procedure, which has so
far been lacking.

It would facilitate appeals at critical stages of the case.
Because MDLs are primarily aimed at trial preparation, there are
precious few final orders to appeal, even though there are motions
and orders that have large effects on thousands of cases. Proposed
subsection (k) would allow appellate review if it would
"materially advance the ultimate termination of one or more civil
actions in the proceedings." It would also allow discretionary
appeal of remand orders.

It would maximize the recovery for individual litigants.  This
provision is likely to be the most controversial, since it's
another way of saying "it would cap attorneys' fees at 20%." But
it's important to remember: these are cases large enough to take
on individually (unlike claims in properly-certified consumer and
other class actions), and yet counsel are still getting the cost
savings that come from aggregating multiple, similar claims. At
that point, doesn't it make sense to pass on that savings to
plaintiffs themselves?

The MDL provisions haven't received the same public outcry as the
class action provisions.  Whether that's because MDL counsel
recognize some reform is necessary or because it's harder to wrap
the freewheeling, common-law MDL procedures into easy soundbites,
it's hard to say.  The proposed changes, however, will have a
positive effect on aggregate litigation, and it's definitely worth
plaintiffs' and defense counsel being as prepared as possible
should they go into effect.


* Securities Fraud Lawsuits Target Life Sciences Companies
----------------------------------------------------------
David H. Kistenbroker, Esq., Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq., Angela M.
Liu, Esq., and David A. Kotler, Esq., Dechert LLP, in an article
for Law360, report that recently, life sciences companies have
increasingly been targeted in securities fraud lawsuits, and 2016
was no different.  Prudent life sciences companies should take
heed of the filing trends relating to these types of cases,
including the location filed, types of companies that are
targeted, and parallels between the underlying claims.  Such
companies should also note the court decisions in life sciences
securities cases rendered in 2016 and how they are impacting the
legal landscape.

Recent Trends In Life Sciences Securities Class Action Filings and
Decisions

In 2016, plaintiffs filed a total of 67 securities class actions
against life sciences companies, an over-70 percent increase from
2014.  This increase corresponds with steadily increasing number
of securities lawsuits, which topped 270 in 2016.

Of these cases, the following trends have emerged:

There are more claims against small-cap companies.  Roughly half
of the life sciences securities class actions filed in 2016
targeted companies with a market capitalization of $500 million or
less; this figure has ranged from 50 percent to 63 percent since
2012.

Plaintiffs filed more securities lawsuits against life sciences
companies in the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits, and in
particular in federal court in New York and California.  A trend
that has been consistent in recent years across all securities
class action filings.

Two plaintiffs firms represented plaintiffs in over half of the
total life sciences class action securities fraud suits in 2016:
The Rosen Law Firm (18 filings) and Pomerantz LLP (17 filings).

There will be ample opportunity to track these trends in 2017, as
there have already been a number of life sciences securities class
actions filed this year.

Trends relating to the types of cases being filed in 2016
demonstrated continuing trends from previous years with some new
developments.

Almost 50 percent of all of the class action securities fraud
cases filed against life sciences companies in 2016 complained of
misrepresentations or omissions regarding product efficacy,
product safety, and/or the likelihood of U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval.

Several cases focused on alleged misrepresentations regarding
regulatory hurdles and the timing and prospects of FDA approval.[

There were also several filings arising out of conduct that was
less specific to the life sciences industry.  In six of the cases,
for instance, plaintiffs alleged that companies had engaged in a
generic drug price-fixing scheme, while others alleged misconduct
in connection with proposed mergers and inaccurate financial
reporting.

The securities litigation bar also saw a large number of decisions
rendered in 2016 involving life sciences companies, comprising of
the following:

Claims that arose in the development phase before the company's
product had gone to market involving issues such as failed
clinical trials or adverse decisions by the FDA, with the majority
of cases being decided in defendants' favor.  Where the defendants
had communicated the results of their trials accurately and the
risks of failure were adequately explained, the courts showed
reluctance to find fault in the defendants' optimism about the
potential success of their trials.

Claims that arose after the company's product had already been
approved by the FDA, including alleged misrepresentations
regarding market projections, promotional activities, and quality
control and manufacturing processes, with courts deciding both for
and against defendants.

Given the numbers from this and recent years' filings, there is no
indication that the filing of securities claims against life
sciences companies is going to slow down anytime soon.  Although
the majority of the cases decided this last year were decided in
the defendant company's favor, life sciences companies remain
attractive targets for class action securities fraud claims.

Minimizing the Risk of Securities Fraud Class Actions

Life sciences companies are a popular target for class action
securities fraud claims.  While the companies discussed above were
often successful in defending against these claims, it is better
to avoid these suits all together.  The following is a list of
practices that life sciences companies should consider in order to
reduce their risk of being targeted in a class action securities
fraud claim:

Be alert to events that may negatively impact the drug product
lifecycle and be diligent regarding disclosure obligations.  Some
potentially troubling issues are obvious, e.g., clinical trial
failures and FDA rejection. Others, however, are not so obvious,
such as manufacturing problems, the loss of a key commercial
partner, or an increased percentage of revenues being derived from
off-label uses.

Review internal processes relating to communications and
disclosure about products, including those that are in the
developmental stage.  Ensure that such processes are well-
documented and that disclosure decisions are appropriately vetted.

Ensure that the public statements and filings contain appropriate
"cautionary language" or "risk factors" that are specific and
meaningful, and cover the gamut of risks throughout the entire
drug product life cycle -- from development to production to
commercialization.

Ensure that the sometimes-fine line between puffery and statements
of fact is not crossed in public statements or filings, or even in
extemporaneous statements during analyst calls and media
commentary.  While soft puffery contains a positive message and
image about a company that is not misleading under securities
laws, it is upon hard statements of fact that class action lawyers
-- with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight -- will concoct a lawsuit.

Be aware that while incomplete statements do not create liability,
such omissions must not make the actual statements misleading.

Be aware that opinion statements will be reviewed under the
standard set forth in Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council
Construction Industry Pension Fund and should not conflict with
information that would render the statements misleading.

Develop and publish employee guidelines tailored to specific areas
of business operations.  Communications by the research and
development and marketing departments become subject to particular
scrutiny in securities fraud lawsuits filed against life sciences
companies.

Develop and publish an insider trading policy to minimize the risk
of inside trades during periods that might help class action
lawyers later develop a theory. Class action lawyers aggressively
monitor trades by insiders to develop allegations that a company's
executives knew "the truth" and unloaded their shares before it
was disclosed to the public and the stock plummeted.

This article is based on the report, "Dechert survey: Developments
in securities fraud class actions against U.S. life sciences
companies," available at https://is.gd/OyYP4F



                            *********

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  * * *