CAR_Public/170322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, March 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 58



                            Headlines

A10 NETWORKS: $9.8 Million Settlement Obtains Final Court OK
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Crawford" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits Pending in Alabama & Florida
ADVOCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
ALLY FINANCIAL: "McIntire" Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Mich.

AMANDA ENTERPRISE: "Mariaca-Garcia" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: May 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN SAFETY: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance Contract
APPCO: ACT Fundraisers File Class Action Over Sham Contracting
ARCELORMITTAL USA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Chicago

AUSTRALIA: Intellectually Disabled Man Gets $26,000 Back Pay
BETZ-MITCHELL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
BLUE SHIELD: Settles ERISA Class Action Over Lumbar ADR Surgery
BOKF NATIONAL: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit in N.D. Texas
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Remains Stayed

BUENA VISTA: Rangel Seeks $11,993 Premium Wage Under Labor Code
CANADA: Racial Profiling Class Action Mulled v. Montreal Police
CANADA: Fairford Residents Worried Over 2011-Level Ice Jam
CANADA: Gay Military Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Class Action Over Medical Marijuana Recalls

CAPSTONE TURBINE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
CH ROBINSON: 9th Circuit Upholds Dispute Resolution Agreement
CHENIERE ENERGY: Defending Against JMCB Class Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Shareholder Class Action
CLEAN ENERGY: Faces Deceptive Loan Class Action in California

COLONIAL PARK: Faces "Shabazz" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Law
CONSTACT CONTACT: "McGee" Action in Early Stage
CPA GLOBAL: Settles Patent Fees Class Action for $5.6 Million
CROATIA: Victims of WWII Ustasha Regime Files Class Action
CVB FINANCIAL: Judge Okays $6.2MM Class Action Settlement

DANIEL CONTI: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
DIAS & FRAGOSO: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
DIESEL USA: Faces "Elorriaga" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suit Awaits Final OK

DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit v. Duke Energy Florida Appealed
DUKE ENERGY: Distribution of Settlement Checks Approved
EATON CORP: Court Upholds Indirect Purchaser Class Action Ruling
EMC CORP: Mass. Supreme Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Opening Brief in "Chawdry" Case Due

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face "Machado" Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: Tribes Lose Bid to Halt Dakota Access Project
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Briefing Now Complete
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Texas Power Price Class Suit Dismissed
ERIE INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Beltz II Suit Remains Pending

ESSEX PROPERTY: "Foster" Lawsuit Dismissed
EVERCORE PARTNERS: EGL Continues to Defend Class Suit
FALLS MUSIC: Stampede Victims File Class Action v. Organizers
FIREEYE INC: Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Filed
FIREEYE INC: California Stockholder Action Dismissed

FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Felon Voting Rights
FULL TILT: Judge May Dismiss RICO Claims in $90MM Class Action
GATEWAYS ENERGY: "Weissman" Sues Over Variable Rate Contract
GEICO: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Rice & Rosenfeld Trust Suits Consolidated

GETTING GREEN: Removed "Plunkett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
GIGAMON INC: April 27 Case Management Conference in "Rodriguez"
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Suit v. Kaplan Unit
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Mediation Held in Suit v. KHE Unit
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: RHG Unit Defending Class Suit in Illinois

H.F. COX: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Unpaid Wages
HENDERSON KITCHEN: Faces "Tang" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Law
HOME CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Public Disclosures
HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $25 Million
ILLINOIS: Solitary Confinement Class Action Can Proceed

IMPERIAL LA MIRADA: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Plaintiffs Won't Pursue Injunctive Relief
INVENSENSE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
JAL CHEMICAL: "Paredes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
JETHOU LLC: Teti Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Code

JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Settlement Remains Pending
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Gumm" Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KBR INC: Preliminary Agreement Reached in Securities Litigation
KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Cal. Over Securities Act Breach

KOHL'S CORP: Agrees to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Parties Await Class Cert. Ruling
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Plaintiffs in "Fosbre" Case File Appeal
LATITUDE 45: "Schanhals" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Oral Arguments Set for April 17

LUCAS DESIGNS: "Ra'palo" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MARTIN-BROWER CO: "Titus" Hits Missed Breaks, Uncompensated Hours
MARTIN RESOURCE: Faces Class Action Over Stock Ownership Plan
MASTEC INC: Plaintiffs Keep Opportunity to File Amended Suit
MATTRESS ONE: "Marrapese" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages

MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sued Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meals
MDL 2326: 43,000 Mesh Cases v. Boston Scientific as of Feb. 21
MDL 2342: Zoloft Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending in 3rd Cir.
MDL 2458: Effexor Cases v. Pfizer Administratively Stayed

MDL 2502: Lipitor Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending in 4th Cir.
MDL 2691: Viagra Suits v. Pfizer Still Pending
MDL 2754: Lawsuits over Eliquis Product Consolidated
MODESTO, CA: Farm Water Subsidy Spurs Debate, Class Action Looms
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss Hospital Suit Underway

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Discovery
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Settlement Nears Approval
NATIONAL CAR: Senator Rubio Contacts Rental Fraud Car Victim
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Tipton" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Golden Gate

NORTHERN TIER: Settles TCPA Class Action for $3.5 Million
OCWEN FINANCIAL: 2 Securities Suits Pending
ONEWEST RESOURCES: Faces "Patel" Wage-and-Hour Suit
PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payer Claims Underway
PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Suits in Canada Remain Stayed

PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Faces Hormone Therapy Consumer Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Maximiliano" Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: "Serrano" Suit to Recoup Pay, Damages
QIAGEN NORTH: Arcare TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
R.M. GALICIA: Faces TCPA Class Action in California

RAYONIER INC: Settles Securities Class Action in Florida
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Parties in "Strader" Suit in Discovery
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Suit v. Morgan Keegan Underway
REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Doctors Want Court to Reinstate Rifle Suit
RHINEBECK REALTY: Faces "Sofia" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation

RIDGEFIELD, CT: Later Start Times at High School May Prompt Suit
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Violated Privacy Laws, "Baron" Suit Claims
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Smart TVs
SANDERSON FARMS: Motions to Dismiss Illinois Suits Underway
SANDERSON FARMS: New York Antitrust Class Suit in Earliest Stage

SANDERSON FARMS: Oklahoma Class Suit in Early Stage
SEVENTY SEVEN: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Maximiliano" Files FDCPA Class Action in Fla.
SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders May Still Get Recovery
SPECTRA ENERGY: Texas and Delaware Class Suits Underway

STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action
STEAK 'N SHAKE: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Pay Class Action
SUNOCO INC: Defending Suits over Groundwater Contamination
SUNOCO LOGISTICS: Deadline to Answer Merger Suit Not Yet Set
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

TACOS EL GAVILAN: Roman Seeks All Wages Due Under Labor Code
TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Class Action of Diabetic Supplies Tax
TEMPUR SEALY: Denial of Class Certification Bid Upheld
TEXAS CHIROPRACTIC: "Prothro" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
TILE SHOP: May 30 Hearing on Class Action Settlement

TORONTO-DOMINION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TORONTO-DOMINION: May 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ULTA SALON: Faces "Chang-Luna" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
VCG HOLDING: Dancers File Class Suit Over Denied Minimum Wages
VCG HOLDING: Strippers File Class Action Over Predatory Fees

VCG HOLDING: Sued for Allegedly Exploiting Exotic Dancers
VIRGINIA: DMV Case Over Automatic License Suspension Tossed
VIZIO HOLDINGS: "Queenan" Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Fails to Compensate Emissions Claims Outside US
WALGREEN CO: Flores Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay Under Labor Code

WESTIN LONG BEACH: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action
WORLD WIDE: Faces "Pawlak" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
WYNYARD: Shareholders Sue Over Financial Forecast Misstatement
YOSHINOYA AMERICA: "Monroy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

* Chinese Companies Face Class Action Risks When Expanding Abroad
* Companies' Class Action Spending Increases, Survey Shows
* Gibbs Law Discusses Consequences of Class Action Reform
* JND Names Hoffman as Sr. Consultant for Class Action Services
* Lack of Class Action to Impact Enforcement of Competition Law


                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: $9.8 Million Settlement Obtains Final Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
A court on March 3, 2017, granted final approval to a $9.837
million settlement in a securities class action against A10
Networks, Inc.

The case is In re A10 Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No.
1-15-cv-276207 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara County). Labaton
Sucharow served as co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System and Michael Kaveney. The defendants are A10 and
certain of its directors, officers, and underwriters.

A10 Networks said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on January 29, 2015, the
Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our Chief
Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March 21, 2014 IPO
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207. Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).

On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207 (the "Class Action"). On
July 31, 2015, the defendants filed demurrers to all claims, which
were overruled in part on November 12, 2015.

On April 6, 2016, all parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing
that A10 will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies. The parties subsequently executed
a stipulation of settlement, dated June 30, 2016, and filed a
motion with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted on September 15, 2016. The payment
was made in October 2016. The final fairness hearing was set for
February 24, 2017.

The settlement releases all claims asserted against all defendants
and includes the dismissal of all claims against all defendants
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The
settlement remains subject to final court approval and other
customary conditions.

Additional information on the case is available at:

              http://www.a10securitiessettlement.com

A10 Networks is a provider of software and hardware solutions
designed to address its customers' needs for secure application
services.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Crawford" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
HORACE CRAWFORD, individually and as a representative of the
Classes, Plaintiff, V. ABM Industries Group, LLC, Defendant,
(Cal., Super., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2017), alleges
that Defendant failed to comply with the basic requirements of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when screening potential hires
by failing to provide required disclosures prior to procuring
background reports on applicants and employees, and by failing to
provide applicants and employees with pre-adverse action notice
and a copy of their consumer reports prior to taking adverse
action against them.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
     TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
     3500 West Olive Ave., Ste 300
     Burbank, CA 91505
     Phone: (323) 744-1146
     Fax: (888) 778-5695
     Emai1: Stephanie@TheTatarLawFirm.com

        - and -

     Robert F. Brennan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT F. BRENNAN A.P.C.
     3150 Montrose Ave.
     La Crescenta, CA 91214
     Phone: (818) 249-5291
     Fax: (818) 249-4329
     Email: rbrennan@brennanlaw.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits Pending in Alabama & Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. is defending against purported
class actions in various states, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. is an integrated provider of non-
hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services operating primarily in secondary markets or under
exclusive arrangements.


ADVOCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
ESPN.com reports that two former AdvoCare salespeople have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the nutritional products company and
some of its top earners, claiming that AdvoCare is little more
than a pyramid scheme that survives by primarily taking money from
the hundreds of thousands of people who sell its products.

The Dallas Morning News reported that plaintiffs Lisa Ranieri of
Virginia and Megan Cornelius of California filed a lawsuit in
federal court in Dallas, alleging that each "lost thousands of
dollars trying to be a successful distributor."

AdvoCare, which has numerous ties to sports and pro athletes, has
grown rapidly since 2010, when it had 97,000 salespeople -- or
distributors -- nationwide.  These independent distributors
purchase energy drinks, shakes and supplements from AdvoCare and
then market them directly to consumers in a business model called
multilevel marketing.  The lawsuit says that over the years,
AdvoCare has pitched more than nutritional products, offering
people a pathway to financial freedom and the ability to earn even
more money by recruiting others to join the fold, including
encouraging recruits to purchase significant quantities of product
themselves.  In 2015, the suit says AdvoCare reportedly generated
$719 million in net revenue.

According to the lawsuit, "the vast majority of AdvoCare's
distributors lose money.  According to AdvoCare's 2015 Income
Disclosure Statement, AdvoCare paid 71.5 percent of its
distributors $0 in 2015. It paid 93 percent of its distributors
$500 or less.  These are gross income numbers that do not account
for the money the distributors paid AdvoCare in fees and product
purchases.  On information and belief, at least 95 percent of
AdvoCare's distributors pay AdvoCare more money than AdvoCare pays
them."

States the lawsuit: "The only people who make money from the
AdvoCare pyramid scheme are the very few at the top of the
pyramid."

An AdvoCare spokeswoman told the Morning News that the company
"unequivocally [is] not operating a pyramid scheme."

"We vehemently dispute all of the claims" about the product and
the business model, she said.

The lawsuit states that the fact that products are sold by
AdvoCare distributors does not prevent the company from being
classified as a pyramid scheme.  In a classic illegal pyramid
scheme setup, the financial success of the company and those at
the top almost solely relies on bringing new salespeople in, which
creates lucrative networks of salespeople that funnel money to
those at the top.

According to the Morning News and the lawsuit, Ms. Ranieri joined
AdvoCare as a distributor in 2007 and paid AdvoCare between
$20,000 and $25,000 in fees and product purchases between 2007 and
January 2016.  While serving as a distributor, "Ranieri received
approximately $5,000 in payments from AdvoCare," the suit said.

Ms. Ranieri was "unable to make many retail sales, and she lost
money in the AdvoCare scheme even considering retail sales," the
suit said.  AdvoCare terminated Ms. Ranieri for failure to pay
annual fees in or about January 2016.

Cornelius joined AdvoCare as a distributor in February 2014 and
paid AdvoCare about $12,000 in fees and product purchases between
February 2014 and February 2016, the lawsuit states.  She received
about $3,000 from AdvoCare over this same period, the lawsuit
said. She eventually was "locked out" of the website she used to
sell the product.

As AdvoCare grew over the years, it signed dozens of high-profile
athletes as endorsers, including most prominently New Orleans
Saints quarterback Drew Brees.  The lawsuit alleges that if
distributors receive questions about whether Advocare is a pyramid
scheme, they are taught to say that the company sells real
products, distributors can earn as much as they want, and that
Brees would not associate himself with a pyramid scheme.

The lawsuit also cites reporting from an Outside the Lines/ESPN
The Magazine investigation last year: that profitable retail sales
were rare, that some distributors didn't make money, and that
AdvoCare denied being a pyramid scheme.

According the Morning News, AdvoCare spokeswoman Lindsay Bomar
said she could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but
said the company offers to repurchase unsold products from
distributors at full price.

Also, she told the newspaper that before the company changed its
policy last year, the only way to get product discounts was to
sign up as a distributor.  She said some consumers who mainly
wanted to use the product, but not turn it into a sales business,
were included in the income disclosure statement.

The company has since created a category of "preferred" customers
who can get discounts without becoming distributors.

In addition, she said distributors' compensation is totally based
on the amount of product sold.  Merely bringing in a new recruit
does not change the distributors' compensation, she said.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Jenny Donnelly of
Portland, Oregon; Tyler DeBerry of Tucson, Arizona; Wesley Bewley
of Bee Cave, Texas; Daniel McDaniel of Coppell, Texas; Dawn
Anderson Funk of Cincinnati, Ohio; and Crystal Thurber, address
not listed, who owns a website called Work With Champions.

In addition to AdvoCare advertising that has run on ESPN
properties, AdvoCare maintains a multi-event relationship with
ESPN for basketball and football that has in the past included the
NCAA basketball tournament called the AdvoCare Invitational and
football's AdvoCare V100 Texas Bowl, both owned and broadcast by
ESPN.


ALLY FINANCIAL: "McIntire" Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned James McIntire, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Inc.,
Michael A. Carpenter, Christopher A. Balmy, David J. Debrunner,
Robert T. Blakely, Mayree C. Clark, Stephen A. Feinberg, Kim S.
Fennebresque, Gerald Greenwald, Franklin W. Hobbs, Brian P.
Macdonald, Marjorie Magner, Henry S. Miller, Matthew Pendo,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Sandler O'Neill and Partners, L.P., Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Evercore Group L.L.C., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia Capital
(USA) Inc., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., SQ Americas Securities, LLC, Guggenheim
Securities, LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Global Hunter
Securities, LLC, Height Securities, LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Loop
Capital Markets LLC, Blaylock Beal Van, LLC, Castleoak Securities,
L.P., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., The Williams Capital Group,
L.P., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Lebenthal & Co., LLC, MFR
Securities, Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez and Company, Inc., Drexel
Hamilton, LLC, Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc., Telsey Advisory Group
LLC, Toussaint Capital Partners, LLC, Academy Securities Inc.,
Freeman & Co. Securities LLC and WM Smith & Co., Defendants, Case
No. 17-003811 (Mich. Cir., March 2, 2017) was removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
on March 15, 2017, under Case No. 4:17-cv-10833.

Plaintiff seeks to recover based upon investment losses it claims
to have suffered that were allegedly the result of risks that were
not fully disclosed in the Registration Statement and the
Prospectus Supplement filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with Ally's April 11, 2014
Initial Public Offering. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      Schuyler von Oeyen, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

            - and -

      Thomas M. Schehr, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      400 Renaissance Center
      Detroit, MI 48243
      Tel: (313) 568-6659
      Fax: (855) 255-1528
      Email: tschehr@dykema.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Daryl A. Libow, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Cassady, Esq.
      SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
      1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 956-7500
      Fax: (202) 956-6330
      Email: libowd@sullcrom.com
             cassadye@sullcrom.com

             - and -

      Marc De Leeuw, Esq.
      SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
      125 Broad Street
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 558-4000
      Fax: (212) 558-3588
      Email: deleeuwm@sullcrom.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Schehr, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      400 Renaissance Center
      Detroit, MI 48243
      Tel: (313) 568-6659
      Fax: (313) 568-6893
      Email: tschehr@dykema.com

             - and -

      James P. Feeney, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 203-0841
      Fax: (248) 203-0763
      Jfeeney@dykema.com


AMANDA ENTERPRISE: "Mariaca-Garcia" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Mariaca-Garcia, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Amanda Enterprise,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02047, (N.D. Ill., March 15,
2017), seeks earned unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Municipal Code of Chicago - Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Defendant operates a restaurant commonly known as Angelo's Wine
Bar at 3026 W. Montrose Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631, where Plaintiff
worked as a cook from 1999 to mid-August 2016, rendering up to 60
hours a week or more during the relevant employment period.
Defendant failed to maintain accurate time-keeping, thus failing
to account for Plaintiff's overtime hours, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Direct: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: May 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a hearing is
scheduled for May 30, 2017, to consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement of a class action
lawsuit.

On October 7, 2016, a purported shareholder of National Interstate
Corporation ("NATL") filed an action, relating to the proposed
merger in which Great American Insurance Company ("GAI") would
acquire the remaining shares of NATL that it does not already own,
derivatively and on behalf of a putative class of NATL's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, captioned Solak v. Consolino,
et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02470-SL. The Solak action names as
defendants NATL, the members of NATL's board of directors, AFG,
GAI and GAIC Alloy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of GAI formed
to effect the merger transaction, alleging class and derivative
claims under Sections 13(e), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder, and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
members of NATL's board of directors and GAI as an alleged
controlling shareholder.

Defendants in the Solak action filed motions to dismiss on October
12, 2016, and on November 6, 2016, the parties to the Solak
lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding with respect to
a proposed settlement of the lawsuit, pursuant to which the
parties agreed, among other things, that NATL would make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger. The
memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties would
enter into a stipulation of settlement, which occurred on February
10, 2017. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to NATL's
shareholders.

A hearing on the proposal settlement, at which the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern
Division) will consider the settlement's fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy is scheduled for May 30, 2017. If the settlement is
finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims that were or could have been brought in any actions
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. In
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition with the court for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by NATL or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. There can be no
assurance that the court will approve the settlement.

American Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.AFGinc.com/-- is a
holding company that, through the operations of Great American
Insurance Group, is engaged primarily in property and casualty
insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for
businesses, and in the sale of fixed and fixed-indexed annuities
in the retail, financial institutions and education markets. Its
address is 301 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; its
phone number is (513) 579-2121.


AMERICAN SAFETY: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA GRAY and WAYNE WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SAFETY
INDEMNITY COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC653477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks to
recover an award of $1300000 by virtue of the trial by reference
judgment, plus interest, and the attorneys' fees and costs
incurred by New Hampshire Apartment, Inc.

The case is an insurance bad faith action brought against
Defendant for its bad faith failure to defend aid indemnify
New Hampshire Apartment, Inc. against certain negligence and
habitability claims that were brought against it in a California
State Court Action by its tenants that resulted in a $1.3 million
judgment (Habitability Action). The Plaintiffs and the proposed
class were the prevailing party in the underlying Habitability
Action, and they have been assigned New Hampshire Apartment,
Inc.'s insurance bad faith claims against AST, which they are
jointly prosecuting as a class action. The Plaintiffs have
"stepped into the shoes" of New Hampshire Apartment, Inc. and are
prosecuting this insurance breach of contract and bad faith action
pursuant to the assignment.

The Defendants breached the terms of their insurance contracts by
failing to defend New Hampshire and/or pay monies due under the
contract, failing to properly investigate and adjust the claims,
delaying payment of policy benefits, and by forcing Plaintiffs to
institute the litigation.

American Safety is a specialty insurance company that provides
customized insurance products and solutions to small and medium
sized businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Christopher B. Noyes, Esq.
          Joana Fang, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 217 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  rlk@kbklawyers.com
                  cn@kbklawyers.com
                  jf@kbklawyers.com


APPCO: ACT Fundraisers File Class Action Over Sham Contracting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Dingwall, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that
Canberra fundraisers claiming they were paid as little as $600 for
80 hours' work on average each week, and told to do 'chicken
fights' and 'slug races' for under performance, are leading a
national class action lawsuit against alleged sham contracting.

Six of the seven lead claimants in a case against sales and
marketing agency Appco Australia are from the ACT, and claim it
denied workers minimum employment entitlements.

Former fundraisers, engaged by local marketing company The Bay
Marketing Group, say they worked between 40 and more than 100
hours a week for inadequate incomes.

Claimant Ashley Knight said he worked on average 80 hours and made
$600 a week while engaged between 2015 and 2016 by The Bay
Marketing, which no longer operates.

"I was working for $12 an hour for my first week and I did 74
hours," he said.

Appco says it doesn't employ charity fundraisers, but sub-
contracts marketing companies such as The Bay Marketing that
engage fundraisers as independent contractors.  Appco also engaged
another ACT sub contractor, A1 Marketing.

However the class action led by ACT-based Chamberlains Law Firm
claims that Appco has a single integrated business that should
provide minimum employment entitlements.  Only Appco is the
subject of the class action, which has 960 claimants, including 64
from Canberra.

Claimants had an average weekly income of $367, and working hours
of 66.7 per week as of February, according to Chamberlains.

"There was so much responsibility and so much shit we had to do.
But for the amount I was getting paid and the amount of
responsibility I was taking on, it wasn't worth it," Mr Knight
said.

Those engaged by The Bay Marketing between 2015 and 2016 say the
company told them to dance in its Civic office, race along floors
without hands in 'slug races' or duel with their hands behind
their backs in 'chicken fights' in front of colleagues for failing
to meet sales targets or completing paperwork incorrectly.

Claimant Jonathan Mosslar said the games were used as
disincentives for poor sales.

"If you can imagine 20 or 25 people in a circle around you, a lot
of noise . . . In most cases you'd rip your pants or something
like that."

The Bay Marketing Group's former managing director Danny Lawrence
said the races and dances were intended to boost morale, not as
punishment.

"I never received any complaints about these activities while
running my business and would definitely have addressed any
concerns raised with me."

He denies his company was involved in sham contracting.

Appco said it investigated the allegations of 'slug races' at The
Bay Marketing when it became aware of them via the media.

A spokesman said Appco believed they were conducted for motivation
and fun, but accepted they distressed some people.

"Appco Australia has made it absolutely clear that these practices
are completely unacceptable, regardless of their original intent."

The company says independent contractors were paid on results and
chose the hours and days they worked as business owners.

"We have found that a contractor who chooses to do the equivalent
hours of a traditional employment working week will, on average,
sign up 1.5 donors a day," a spokesman said.

"This will provide them with an income above the minimum wage. But
the nature of independent contracting is that it allows people the
flexibility to not work the equivalent of an average week, or even
full days."

Appco Australia said it undertook reviews of the marketing
companies it sub-contracted to ensure they operated in line with
self-employment regulations and other laws.

"We are confident that all marketing companies are compliant with
the requirements of self-employment regulations and other laws."

Appco has applied to prevent the case against it being brought as
a class action.

The class action will have its first interlocutory meeting at the
Federal Court in May.


ARCELORMITTAL USA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a group
of steel makers, led by Chicago-based ArcelorMittal USA, have
beaten down a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by more than a
dozen consumers, who alleged the companies schemed to raise prices
for goods made with steel, by pointing out the consumers were too
far down the distribution line from the steel manufacturers to
claim losses.

However, the same steel mills have agreed in the past two years to
pay almost $200 million in settlements in a similar class action
brought by businesses that purchased steel directly from the
mills.

On March 3 in federal court in Chicago, U.S. District Judge Manish
Shah dismissed an action forged in 2008 by Michigan-based Supreme
Auto Transport, which 15 other parties joined eight years later.
Plaintiffs described themselves as indirect buyers of steel
consumer products, such as cars, ovens, lawn mowers, dishwashers
and refrigerators.

The suit alleged ArcelorMittal USA and seven other steel companies
illegally "instituted a plan to improve 'industry discipline' and
increase prices and profits, through coordinated production cuts
between January 2005 and September 2008," according to court
papers.  As a consequence, plaintiffs alleged illegal overcharges
were passed on to them as consumers, through the distribution
line, depriving them of "free and open competitions" for the
products.

ArcelorMittal USA was formerly known as Mittal Steel USA. The
other defendants are: Nucor Corp., of Charlotte, N.C.; U.S. Steel,
of Pittsburgh; Gerdau Ameristeel, of Tampa, Fla.; Steel Dynamics,
of Fort Wayne, Ind.; AK Steel Holding Corp., of West Chester,
Ohio; SSAB Swedish Steel Corp., of west suburban Lisle; and
Commercial Metals, of Irving, Texas.

Plaintiffs alleged defendants breached antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition laws.

Judge Shah granted defendants' motion to dismiss the suit, finding
plaintiffs' claims were speculative and too far removed.

"Plaintiffs' injury is too remote from the alleged misconduct,
their damages too speculative, and defendants' improper conduct
not likely to be targeted toward downstream purchasers of mixed
material retail products," Shah concluded.

Judge Shah further said plaintiffs did not "acknowledge the role
of interceding parties" in the distribution chain and did not link
specific products to certain steel mills.  In addition, plaintiffs
do not "even identify whether the steel in these products came
from defendants' steel mills at all," Judge Shah observed.

Judge Shah also said it was "implausible" for plaintiffs to claim
the steel makers' motive was to inflate the prices of products,
such as cars and ovens, which they do not sell and from which they
do not profit.  Judge Shah added the alleged scheme would still
have been effective for the steel mills, even if intermediaries
did not pass on the extra costs to consumers. Further muddying the
waters, in Judge Shah's view, was that steel was commingled with
other materials to produce the goods in question.

Judge Shah also dismissed the suit for 15 of the 16 plaintiffs,
who hopped aboard the suit in 2016, because they joined more than
seven years after the statute of limitations expired.

Another class action was launched in 2008 in Chicago federal court
against the same eight steel companies, but this one was pursued
by 5,500 manufacturers, metal fabricators and others who bought
steel directly from defendants.  This suit was ironed out with
settlements in 2014 and 2016 that amounted to $194 million.
ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel paid out the highest amounts -- $90
million and $58 million, respectively.

ArcelorMittal has been defended by the Chicago firm of Mayer Brown
LLP.

U.S. Steel has been represented by Pittsburgh-based Reed Smith LLP
and the Chicago firm of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.

Nucor has been represented by Winston & Strawn, of Chicago, and
Arnold & Porter, of Washington, D.C.

Gerdau Ameristeel has been represented by the Chicago firms of
Katten, Muchin & Rosenmann, and Eimer Stahl LLP.

Steel Dynamics was defended by McDermott, Will & Emery, of
Chicago.

The following firms defended AK Steel: Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of New
York; Figliulo & Silverman, of Chicago; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, of Washington, D.C.; and Frost Brown Todd, of
Cincinnati.

SSAB Swedish Steel was represented by the Chicago firm of Sidley
Austin LLP.

Commercial Metals was handled by Thompson Coburn LLP, of St.
Louis, and Dechert LLP, of Chicago and Philadelphia.

Supreme Auto was represented by Kirby McInerney LLP, Milberg LLP
and Lovell, Stewart, Halebian & Jacobson, all of New York, as well
as by Miller Law, of Chicago.


AUSTRALIA: Intellectually Disabled Man Gets $26,000 Back Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Black, writing for The Ararat Advertiser, reports that an
intellectually disabled Grampians man has been compensated by the
Commonwealth after being paid as little as $2.52 an hour in
government funded workshops.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, received $26,000
in back pay after he was paid between $2.52 and $3.23 an hour at
Australian Disability Enterprises (ADE), lawyer Kairsty Wilson
said.

The pay out is 70 per cent of what he is calculated to be owed for
his work, which spans about eight years at two separate ADEs in
the Grampians.

About 10,000 intellectually disabled workers nationwide are
thought to be eligible for compensation after a Federal Court
ruling late last year deemed their wages to be discriminatory.

In December last year the Federal Court approved a 2015 class
action brought against the Commonwealth for a wages policy which
saw workers paid as little as 33 cents an hour.

"He was overwhelmed he just said 'I can't thank you enough, this
means so much to me and my family, I can go and buy a washing
machine, I can have a holiday, pay off my debts and put some money
aside,'" Ms Wilson, legal manager of Association for Employees
with a Disability, said.

"We just want everyone to get the money that they're entitled to."

The tool used to calculate intellectually disabled workers'
productivity, known as the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool
(BSWAT), was judged "theoretical and artificial" by the full
Federal Court.

The case was brought against the Commonwealth in 2012 by Stawell
man Gordon Prior, who is visually impaired and intellectually
disabled, and another plaintiff.  Ms Wilson said some workers
earned less than it cost to get to work.

"We had one client who was assessed under BSWAT and she was paid
33 cents an hour which was $153 per annum and it cost her more to
get to work than what she got paid."

Ms Wilson said work was still underway to amend other wage
assessments in operation which are also discriminatory.

Employees who worked at an ADE from July 2004 will be eligible for
a pay out.  To apply for a payment, people must register by 30
April 2017.  To register call AED Legal Centre on (03) 9639 4333
or email noni.lord@aed.org.au. People can also call 1800 799 515
to register.


BETZ-MITCHELL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Lynch, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Betz-Mitchell Associates, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01289 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Betz-Mitchell Associates operates a medical billing service
company in Westbury, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BLUE SHIELD: Settles ERISA Class Action Over Lumbar ADR Surgery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Blue Shield of California settled a class action by health plan
participants challenging its exclusion of coverage for artificial
disc replacement surgery (Escalante v. Cal. Physicians' Serv. ,
C.D. Cal., No. 2:14-cv-03021, motion for preliminary approval of
settlement 3/10/17).

Blue Shield agreed to revise and implement a medical policy that
will no longer exclude coverage for lumbar ADR surgery as
"investigational," according to settlement documents filed March
10 in federal court in California.  The insurer also agreed to
allow its members whose requests for lumbar ADR surgery were
previously denied to seek reimbursement.

If approved, the settlement will end a three-year litigation and
allow class counsel to seek up to $1.75 million in attorneys'
fees.

In July 2016, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California denied in part Blue
Shield's motion for summary judgment, holding that certain issues
of fact remained and he was in no position to decide whether the
insurer had abused its discretion.  The settlement was reached two
months before the scheduled trial.  According to the participants'
attorney, it achieves the relief sought in the lawsuit, so "a
victory at trial for the class would provide no additional
benefit."

In the past year, Blue Shield has been no stranger to litigation
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act over exclusion
of coverage, according to company data in Bloomberg Law Litigation
Analytics.  In March 2016, a federal judge in California held that
the insurer had to pay more than $419,252 in damages and fees for
refusing to cover a beneficiary's in-patient psychiatric
treatment.  Blue Shield fared better in a lawsuit challenging its
failure to cover hepatitis C drug Harvoni when a federal judge
dismissed the participants' allegations in December 2016.

Gianelli & Morris ALC represents the class.  Manatt Phelps &
Phillips LLP represents Blue Shield.


BOKF NATIONAL: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against BOKF National
Association.  The case is captioned Sharonda L. Johnson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. BOKF National
Association, Case No. 3:17-cv-00663-B (N.D. Tex., March 7, 2017).

BOKF National Association provides commercial and personal
banking, investment and trust, and mortgage origination and
servicing products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Spencer Morgan Lee Cox, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (469) 504-4550
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
              scox@burnscharest.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class action
complaint by Teresa Stevens remains stayed.

The Company said, "On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens
filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for
herself, and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated
women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she
alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that
we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint,
which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade
practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and
damages under state and federal law."

"On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case
and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA
to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In
addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding
voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office's
review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the
complaint. We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously."


BUENA VISTA: Rangel Seeks $11,993 Premium Wage Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO RANGEL, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. BUENA VISTA FOOD
PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC650700 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover premium wages in the approximate
amount of $11,993.25, under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff regularly worked between five and seven days per
workweek and in excess of 10 hours per workday during his
employment with Defendants. The Defendants controlled, directed,
and supervised the manner and method in which Plaintiff Rangel
carried out his job duties and responsibilities during his
employment with Defendants. The Defendants jointly decided the
hours and days Plaintiff Rangel worked each week during his
employment with Defendants. The Defendants paid Plaintiff Rangel
less than twice the minimum wage during his employment with
Defendants.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, complains and alleges that Defendants
violated the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Order.

Defendants are the owners and/or operators of a premium baked
goods supplier located at 823 W. 8th Street, Azusa, California,
91702.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Levik Yarian, Esq.
          N.P. Seitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEVIK YARIAN, APLC
          700 N. Central Ave., Ste. 470
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818)459 4999
          Facsimile: (818)484 2345
          E-mail: levik@yarianlaw.com
                  nick@yarianlaw.com


CANADA: Racial Profiling Class Action Mulled v. Montreal Police
---------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that an NDG man has filed a complaint with
the Human Rights Commission for allegedly being racially profiled
by Montreal police officers.

Kenrick McRae is black and drives a Mercedes.

He says police have stopped him repeatedly, most recently two
weeks ago.

On March 3rd, Mr. McRae claims he was driving in Montreal West
when he was pulled over.  He says the officer said he had to check
if the car belongs to Mr. McRae.  Then he was told the lights over
his license plate weren't working, even though McRae says they
were.

Mr. McRae says he told the officers that he was going to file a
complaint against the police for harassment, and that's when
things degenerated.

Mr. McRae was recording everything with his camcorder.

"The other one said hand over the camera," he said.  "I say I'm
not giving you my camera, and then they lunged at me."

Mr. McRae says he was cuffed and put in the back of the police
car, and he was told he'd be charged with disturbing the peace.
Then police allegedly grabbed his camera and Mr. McRae says the
officer deleted his videos.

Mr. McRae doesn't have a criminal record, but he says this kind of
thing keeps happening to him.

"In this case very likely because he's black and driving a
Mercedes," said Fo Niemi, the executive director of the Cenetre on
Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR).

With the help of CRARR, Mr. McRae has launched a complaint with
the Human Rights Commission and the Police Ethics Commissioner.

A police supervisor wasn't available to comment on this case, but
on its website, the SPVM insists it is firmly against any type of
illicit racial profiling.

However, The Black Coalition of Quebec wants to launch a class
action lawsuit against the Montreal Police for racial profiling.
Also, the Quebec Human Rights Commission ordered police to pay
$17,000 to a man the Commission says was profiled when he was 15-
years-old.

Mr. McRae says something has to change in police culture.
"It's come to the point where Kenrick McRae gets nervous about
getting into his old Mercedes, worried police are going to pull
him over," Mr. Niemi said.


CANADA: Fairford Residents Worried Over 2011-Level Ice Jam
----------------------------------------------------------
Austin Grabish, writing for CBC News, reports that an ice jam is
dredging up fears of a 2011-level flood for some people living in
Manitoba's northern Interlake.

The Fairford River is high and jammed with ice, according to
residents of Fairford, Man.  The river, which spills into Lake St.
Martin, is also causing concern for the few folks that still live
in St. Martin.

"These last two days to see the water come up again, it's been
tough," said Marla Kolomaya, who lives in St. Martin with her
husband Scott, a rancher.

Scott told CBC he had to rush to move cows on his property in
recent days after a flood of water hit his property.

"It's stressful because you have to look after your animals to the
best of your ability and that happened very quickly, like one
afternoon all of the sudden the water's busting through the ice
flowing back down the ditch."

The water has since frozen.

It's turned it into a giant skating rink and you can't leave
animals on ice like that," he said.

Scott said a nearby marsh and ditches are full with frozen water.

People living on the Fairford First Nation are keeping a close eye
on water levels too.

Band member Clifford Anderson said water has touched the Fairford
Bridge in recent days, which is rare.  There's concern some areas
of the community, which flooded in 2011, could again be washed
out.

'Wait and see'

"It's kind of wait and see kind of thing now," he said.

Mr. Anderson said he's hoping the water will recede but the
current situation is startling to resemble what happened when
floodwaters destroyed his home almost six years ago.

"Basically it looks the same as it did in the fall of 2011."

Mr. Anderson is one of several plaintiffs who are part of a class-
action lawsuit suing the province for damages caused by the 2011
flood.

The plaintiffs from Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan,
Dauphin River, and Lake St. Martin first nations allege the
province deliberately flooded their communities and are claiming
$950 million in damages.

The province previously fought back against the lawsuit and denied
responsibility for the 2011 flood, but also said that if it was
responsible, so were the victims.

CBC has reached out the Manitoba government for comment about the
ice jam but is still waiting for a response.


CANADA: Gay Military Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
John Ibbitson, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that those
leading the fight for an apology for homosexuals who were
persecuted by the Canadian government in the past feel
increasingly frustrated over federal inaction, months after action
was promised.

But the MP in charge of the process insists the government is
moving as fast as it can.

The question is whether "fast as it can" is fast enough to meet
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's self-imposed deadline of
apologizing for past wrongs and fully correcting current
injustices before the next election in 2019.

"People have been waiting an awfully long time for justice . . .
and there is no discernible progress," Gary Kinsman said on
March 12.  The Laurentian University professor belongs to the We
Demand an Apology Network, which has campaigned for years for an
apology and redress for people who were dismissed from the public
service and the military because of their sexuality.

"I'm frustrated," said Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale
Canada, a national organization that advocates for sexual
minorities.  Under Egale's auspices, a committee published a
report last June, called The Just Society Report, that advocated
for a broad suite of reforms to address past discrimination of
homosexuals, as well as the current pressing needs of sexual
minorities.

"Everything the government needs to do is in that report," Ms.
Kennedy said on March 12 in an interview.  "We don't need to
reinvent the wheel."

Edmonton MP Randy Boissonnault, who is special adviser to Mr.
Trudeau on LGBTQ issues, insists the government remains committed
to implementing the report's recommendations.

"We're not going to please everyone with the speed with which
we're working, but we're doing this so it lasts a long time," he
told The Globe and Mail.

And while Mr. Boissonnault values the Just Society
recommendations, "I'm also preparing the groundwork and the
framework so that we can move to the future."

Beginning in February, 2016, the Globe published a series of
stories examining wrongs committed against homosexuals by the
Canadian government in the past.

It began with the case of Everett Klippert, who spent nearly a
decade in prison because he repeatedly sought sex with other men,
and expanded to include the thousands who were fired from their
jobs in the public service or expelled from the military because
they were homosexual.

In June, Egale published the Just Society Report, which
recommended an apology and redress for past wrongs, along with
pardons for those who were convicted, some of whom are still
living. The report also recommended eliminating the difference in
the age of consent for sexual acts, removing antiquated laws from
the books, and educating justice officials and others in uniform
on the prejudice that still exists in the justice system toward
sexual minorities.

The Liberal government promised to act on the report, but waited
until November before it appointed Mr. Boissonnault to
co-ordinate a response.  And while the government has acted on
some of the report's recommendations, there has been no progress
on the question of an apology and redress.

That's because of a class-action lawsuit brought against the
federal government by people claiming they lost their jobs in the
military or public service because they were gay, said
Mr. Boissonnault.  "I have to respect the judicial process."

But Douglas Elliott, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs and
the lead writer of the Just Society Report, said governments can
immunize themselves from legal liability while offering a public
apology for past wrongs.


CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Class Action Over Medical Marijuana Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Halifax-based law firm has
launched a class-action lawsuit against Canopy Growth (TSX:WEED)
and its subsidiary Mettrum over recalls of medical marijuana that
contained unauthorized pesticides.

In a statement of claim filed with Nova Scotia's Supreme Court,
Wagners alleges that Mettrum breached its contract with consumers
and that its development, distribution and sale of medical
marijuana was negligent.

Canopy Growth, Canada's largest publicly traded medical marijuana
producer, purchased Mettrum earlier this year.

A spokesman for Canopy Growth said on March 14 the company will
"vigorously" defend itself against the lawsuit.

Lawyer Ray Wagner says representative plaintiff Neal Partington, a
house painter from Nova Scotia, says he suffered severe nausea and
vomiting over the six months that he was taking Mettrum products
to deal with symptoms of an injury.

Mr. Wagner says it could take six to eight months before the court
decides whether to certify the class-action lawsuit.

The allegations in the statement of claim have not been proven in
court.

Canopy Growth CEO Bruce Linton has said that the use of
unregistered pest control products was "inexcusable" but that
Health Canada had determined the pesticide wasn't likely to cause
any adverse health consequences.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that on March 10,
2017 the United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an order granting Capstone Turbine
Corporation's, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), motion to
dismiss the putative securities class action complaint filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the consolidated action titled In re Capstone Turbine
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 15-8914 DMG (RAOx).
The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend.  Plaintiffs have
until March 31, 2017 to file an amended complaint.  If the
plaintiffs choose not to amend the complaint, the case will be
dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment will be entered.  If
judgment is entered, the court's decision could then be appealed
by the plaintiffs.  The Company and other defendants will continue
to vigorously defend themselves in this litigation.


CH ROBINSON: 9th Circuit Upholds Dispute Resolution Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick - Global Employment Law Group, in an article for Hellenic
Shipping News, reports that the Ninth Circuit issued a notable
opinion addressing the enforceability of arbitration agreements in
Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2017),
mandate issued (Feb. 24, 2017).  In Poublon, the employee filed a
class action even though she signed a dispute resolution agreement
that prohibited representative actions and required her to mediate
and arbitrate all other claims.  The court evaluated the agreement
to determine if it was unconscionable under California law, which
looks at both procedural and substantive unconscionability on a
sliding scale. Although the court held that a few provisions were
substantively unconscionable, the court severed and reformed the
offending provisions and largely upheld the dispute resolution
agreement.

First, the court observed that the dispute resolution agreement in
this case presented only negligible procedural unconscionability.
That the employee was not provided copies of the American
Arbitration Association's (the "AAA's") applicable rules or the
employer's Arbitration Procedure did not render the agreement
oppressive.[1] The court was also not persuaded that the employee
was forced to sign the agreement to maintain her employment.
Rather the supervisor told her that if she failed to sign the
agreement, she would not receive a bonus.

Of the eight provisions the employee alleged were substantively
unconscionable, the court held six to be lawful including the
conditions addressing venue, confidentiality, sanctions,
unilateral modification by the company, and limitations on
discovery.  As for the other two provisions -- the waiver of PAGA
representative claims, and a one-sided carve-out that allowed the
company to seek injunctive relief in court -- the court found that
neither had irrevocably tainted the parties' agreement and could
be severed or reinterpreted accordingly.  The Ninth Circuit
recognized that the PAGA claim waiver is unenforceable (per
Iskanian), but it did not follow that the waiver was substantively
unconscionable.  Thus, the court held the dispute resolution
agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the parties waived
any claims unless they were submitted to mediation followed by
binding arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful.

The Ninth Circuit's thorough opinion is rife with lessons and
reminders for employers on drafting and defending arbitration
agreements.  Arbitration provisions may be incorporated in
documents other than an offer of employment, like the incentive
agreement here, and supervisors should be trained to address
questions if employees ask whether they are required to sign the
agreements.  Employers considering arbitration agreements with
provisions on venue,[2] confidentiality, sanctions, unilateral
modification, and limitations on discovery should read the
corresponding discussions in Poublon, which are replete with
citations to California case law.  Employers may also consider
including language that confers the arbitrator with authority to
deviate from strict terms when necessary, like the venue and
discovery provisions here.  Clauses that allow an arbitrator to
impose different conditions upon a showing "good cause" or for
"good reason" may allay a court's concerns that the agreement
would preclude the employee from a fair opportunity to vindicate
her rights.  Finally, as this opinion shows, severability or
reformation clauses are frequently appropriate in arbitration
agreements as the law in this area continues to evolve.

[1] Compare Flores v. Nature's Best Distribution, LLC, 7 Cal. App.
5th 1, 11 (2016), review filed (Feb. 7, 2017) (where the failure
to specify the type or version of AAA rules, attach a copy of the
governing rules, or provide information such as a website link,
perpetuated ambiguities in the arbitration agreement).

[2]Poublon's discussion of venue may be affected by SB 1241,
effective January 1, 2007, and codified in Labor Code section 925.
That section prohibits "an employer from requiring an employee who
primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of
employment, to agree to a provision that would require the
employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in
California," among other things.  Under the Ninth Circuit's logic,
a contractual provision that violates this section could arguably
be contrary to public policy yet also not violate conscionability
standards.


CHENIERE ENERGY: Defending Against JMCB Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. is defending against a class action
complaint by JMCB, LLC, Cheniere said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 12, 2016, a lawsuit was filed by JMCB, LLC ("JMCB")
against SPL, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development
("LED") and the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry ("BCI")
(the "Pending Matter").  In the Pending Matter, JMCB contends that
one of SPL's ITE contracts should be declared an improper and
unauthorized act of BCI.  JMCB asks the court to declare the
contract null and void and without legal effect, as well as for
incidental damages in the form of any taxes not paid in reliance
on the exemption granted under the ITE contract.  JMCB's petition
is filed as a class action that seeks declaratory relief for all
similarly situated taxpayers in Cameron Parish and for the
governmental agencies that would have received the ad valorem
property taxes, but for the ITE contract.

"SPL believes that the likelihood that the resolution of the
Pending Matter will have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, operating results, liquidity or
prospects is remote.  If we do not prevail in the Pending Matter,
the loss of such tax exemption could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, operating results,
liquidity and prospects," the Company said.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
beleaguered Chipotle Mexican Grill has one less thing to worry
about, thanks to Kirkland & Ellis.  The fast-casual restaurant
chain is off the hook in a shareholder class action stemming from
a rash of food poisoning outbreaks in 2015.


CLEAN ENERGY: Faces Deceptive Loan Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Arluck, writing for Law360, reports that Ygrene Energy Fund
Inc., which provides homeowners with financing for clean energy
projects, pushed risky loans with undisclosed fees and deceived
consumers about government support for the transactions, a
proposed class action has alleged in California federal court.

California and Florida homeowners contend that a network of 3,200
"ill-trained and self-interested home improvement contractors"
maximized profits by pushing Ygrene Energy's Property Assessed
Clean Energy, or PACE, loans on them without properly disclosing
prepayment penalties and fees.


COLONIAL PARK: Faces "Shabazz" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAAIYAH SHABAZZ, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, (3602 Brookbridge Terrace, Harrisburg, PA 17109)
Plaintiff, v. COLONIAL PARK CARE CENTER LLC d/b/a COLONIAL PARK
CARE CENTER (800 King Russ Road, Harrisburg, PA 17109)
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00445-WWC (M.D. Pa., March 10, 2017),
seeks to recoup overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant Colonial Park Care Center LLC is a Pennsylvania company
that owns and operates a skilled nursing facility known as
Colonial Park Care Center. Defendant hired Named Plaintiff as a
Certified Nurse's Assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


CONSTACT CONTACT: "McGee" Action in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et
al, remains in its early stages, Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017.

The Company said, "On December 10, 2015, Constant Contact received
a subpoena from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring
the production of documents pertaining to Constant Contact's
sales, marketing, and customer retention practices, as well as
periodic public disclosure of financial and operating metrics. We
are fully cooperating with the SEC's investigation. We can make no
assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be
devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact,
if any, of this investigation or any related legal or regulatory
proceedings on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

"On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William
McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended
complaint, which named an additional former officer as a
defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is
premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's
business, operations, prospects and performance during the
proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

"This litigation remains in its early stages. We and the
individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims
asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the
outcome of this proceeding."

Endurance International is a provider of cloud-based platform
solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or
SMBs, succeed online.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact, Inc.  Constant Contact
is a provider of online marketing tools that are designed for
small organizations, including small businesses, associations and
non-profits.


CPA GLOBAL: Settles Patent Fees Class Action for $5.6 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that intellectual
property management firm CPA Global has agreed to pay a class of
companies $5.6 million to settle allegations brought by
California-based medical diagnostics company Run Them Sweet that
CPA overcharged clients for fees on filing patent applications,
according to documents filed in Virginia federal court on
March 13.

Under the deal, CPA Global Ltd. and CPA Global North America LLC
will pay $5.6 million to settle claims that CPA overcharged its
clients for country and foreign exchange charges in connection
with foreign patent renewal services.


CROATIA: Victims of WWII Ustasha Regime Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
EBL News reports that the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and
European Affairs confirmed on March 13 it had been notified of a
class action lawsuit filed before a United States court in the
name of victims of Ustasha-run concentration camps, stressing that
Croatia was not the successor to the pro-Nazi Independent State of
Croatia (NDH).

The ministry said in a statement that on February 27, 2017, it
received a note from the US Embassy concerning the lawsuit in the
case of Lalich et al. v. Republic of Croatia, brought before the
Seventh Circuit District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on 31 May 2016.

According to Vecernji List newspaper, the plaintiffs are seeking
$3.5 billion in compensation for the damage suffered by Croatian
Serbs, Roma and Jews during the Second World War.

The ministry said that the material submitted was being studied.

"The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs emphasises that the
Republic of Croatia is not the successor to the NDH, as explicitly
stated in the Historical Foundations section of the Croatian
Constitution," the statement said.

Croatia has to respond to the allegations in the lawsuit within 60
days.

Officials interviewed by Vecernji List on March 13 also said that
the lawsuit was groundless because Croatia was not the successor
to the NDH.

"A court that would confirm such an allegation would declare that
Croatia was founded on a criminal regime, which is not true.  I am
confident that the lawsuit will end in failure," said Vesna Skare
Ozbolt, a former justice minister.

The chairman of the coordinating body of Jewish communities,
Ognjen Kraus, said that Jews had had huge properties in Croatia
and their value was the reason why they had not been given back to
their rightful owners.

"Croatia has the most restrictive law in Europe and it is
completely impracticable," Kraus told Vecernji List.

Vecernji List said that the lawsuit filed in Chicago was not the
first lawsuit by which victims of the Ustasha regime had sought
compensation.  The newspaper mentioned a lawsuit in the case of
Alperin v. Franciscan Order in which the plaintiffs sought
compensation from the Vatican Bank for the so-called Ustasha
treasure. The lawsuit was dismissed.

"It is expected that before the court in Chicago Croatia will
invoke that judgment as a precedent," the newspaper wrote.


CVB FINANCIAL: Judge Okays $6.2MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that
a California federal judge on March 13 granted final approval to
CVB Financial Corp.'s agreement to pay $6.2 million to end a class
action accusing it of issuing false statements about its exposure
to under-performing loans, saying everything in the deal "appears
to be in order."

During a brief hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge
Christina Snyder told attorneys for CVB and lead plaintiff
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund that she had reviewed
their motion for final approval of the $6.2 million deal and
plaintiffs' counsel's request for 25 percent, or $1.55 million, in
attorneys' fees and $354,041 in costs, and that it all looked
good.  The judge noted that there had been no objections to the
deal from any class members, and said she would sign off on the
plaintiffs' proposed final approval order.

Under the deal, CVB is paying the $6.2 million in cash 00 minus
the fees and costs -- to a class of up to 10,000 investors, out of
which there have only been three requests to opt out of the deal,
according to the pension fund's motion for final settlement
approval.

The deal resolves the suit first filed by named plaintiff Barry
Lloyd in 2010, alleging CVB, the holding company for Citizens
Business Bank, was lying when it said in 2009 and 2010 U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings it had "no serious
doubts" about certain borrowers' abilities to repay loans.  The
SEC in 2010 issued a subpoena to CVB seeking information on its
loan underwriting methodology and allowance for credit losses.
After CVB disclosed the probe, its stock fell by 22 percent,
wiping out $245 million in market capitalization, the suit
alleged.

A month later, CVB wrote down $34 million in loans to a key
customer, commercial real estate company the Garrett Group, and
listed another $48 million in loans to Garrett as nonperforming,
according to the suit.

The Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension fund was appointed lead
plaintiff in the suit later in 2010.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow dismissed the suit,
finding the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that any of the
alleged misstatements by CVB were either knowingly or recklessly
false or caused shareholder losses.

In February 2016, the Ninth Circuit revived the suit, ruling that
the statements CVB made in March and May of 2010 about there being
no serious doubts about certain customers' loan repayment
abilities were misrepresentations.

With Judge Morrow having retired weeks before the case was
remanded, Judge Snyder took over the case, and while the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in September,
they informed the court later that month that the parties had
reached a settlement.

Judge Snyder granted the deal preliminary approval in December,
ruling that it was fair, reasonable and adequate.

The plaintiffs are represented by Blair A. Nicholas --
blairn@blbglaw.com -- Timothy A. DeLange -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -
- and Niki L. Mendoza -- nikim@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Robert Klausner of Klausner
Kaufman Jensen & Levinson.

CVB is represented by Scott Vick of Vick Law Group, and Wayne M.
Carlin, Warren R. Stern and David M. Murphy of Wachtell Lipton
Rosen & Katz.

The case is Barry R. Lloyd et al. v. CVB Financial Corp. et al.,
case number 2:10-cv-06256, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


DANIEL CONTI: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Sofia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Daniel Conti, Inc. and Grumpy Jack's Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01296 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Defendants own and operate Grumpy Jack's Sports bar and
restaurant located in Port Jefferson, New York. [BN]

Daniel M. Sofia is a pro se plaintiff.


DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 14
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of Desarrolladora
Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. a/k/a Homex Development Corp. (formerly
NYSE: HXM; formerly OTCMKTS: DHOXQ; formerly OTCMKTS: DHOXY) from
April 30, 2012 through May 5, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Homex
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Homex class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1076.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated its revenue by
355% or roughly $3.3 billion by reporting fictitious sales of more
than 100,000 homes; (2) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated
the number of units it sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of
actual units sold; (3) Homex and certain of its Headquarters
Financial Reporting Personnel knowingly and intentionally engaged
in a scheme to materially overstate Homex's revenues, homes sold,
and other related financial items; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about Homex's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
15, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1076.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


DIAS & FRAGOSO: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that current and former employees of a Kings County employer have
filed a class action over allegations of labor code violations.

Rosalie Cuevas, Adolfo Gomez-Moreno, Reynaldo Tolano and Agustin
Ambriz filed a complaint on behalf of all other similarly situated
on March 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California against Dias & Fragoso Inc., D & F Agricultural
Enterprises Inc., Gabriel M. Dias and John L. Fragoso citing state
labor codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they worked
for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime
compensation and were not provided adequate meal and rest breaks.
The plaintiffs hold Dias & Fragoso Inc., D & F Agricultural
Enterprises Inc., Dias and Fragoso responsible because the
defendants also allegedly failed to provide itemized wage
statements to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek general, special,
compensatory and liquidated damages; unpaid meal and rest period
premiums; unpaid overtime compensation; all legal fees; injunctive
relief; interest; and any other relief as the court deems just.
They are represented by John E. Hill and Enrique Martinez of Law
Offices of John E. Hill in Oakland.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 1:17-cv-00357-LJO-BAM


DIESEL USA: Faces "Elorriaga" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA ELORRIAGA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DIESEL USA, INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC
658765 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2017),
alleges that during Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, she and
similarly aggrieved employees received various forms of non-
discretionary incentive pay including, but not limited to, non-
discretionary sales and or performance related bonuses, clothing
allowances and/or other forms of pay which are not excludable
under California Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act when
calculating an employee's regular rate of pay.

Defendants operate a retail clothing store.  Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee, and a
commissioned salesperson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
     BURROWS LAW FIRM
     8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 526-9998
     Fax: (424) 644-2446
     Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suit Awaits Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the proposed
settlement of the Price Reporting class-action lawsuits is
awaiting final court approval.

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating
Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other
energy companies, in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth
single-plaintiff lawsuit in a consolidated federal court
proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contained similar
claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets
by various means, including providing false information to natural
gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs sought damages in unspecified amounts.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff
settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016.

The proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuits was submitted
to the Court and preliminarily approved on January 26, 2017. The
Court will consider final approval of the class settlement
following notice to the class members. The settlement amounts are
not material to Duke Energy.


DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit v. Duke Energy Florida Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
against Duke Energy Florida remains pending, Duke Energy
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of
all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a
result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future
charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS
has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on
alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to
dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016.

On September 21, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss
with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this
appeal.


DUKE ENERGY: Distribution of Settlement Checks Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of the settlement checks in the antitrust lawsuit
against Duke Energy Ohio has been approved, Duke Energy
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan implemented in early 2005.

In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class
action. Plaintiffs alleged claims of antitrust violations under
the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy
allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.

During 2015, the parties received preliminary court approval of a
settlement agreement. Duke Energy Ohio recorded a litigation
settlement reserve of $81 million classified in Other within
Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December
31, 2015. Duke Energy Ohio also recognized a pretax charge of $81
million in (Loss) Income From Discontinued Operations, net of tax
in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income for the year ended December 31, 2015. The settlement
agreement was approved at a federal court hearing on April 19,
2016. Distribution of the settlement checks was approved by the
court in January 2017.


EATON CORP: Court Upholds Indirect Purchaser Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan M. Meisner, Esq., and Ashley L. McMahon, Esq., of McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, in an article for Law360, report that the
emergence of indirect purchaser plaintiff antitrust class actions
as a near ubiquitous feature of antitrust multidistrict
litigations has added complexity to an already complex area of
litigation: the antitrust class action.  Relatively few decisions
exist with respect to the crucial milepost in such litigations,
namely, decisions on whether an indirect purchaser plaintiff can
certify its case as a class action.  In these cases a
determination on class certification can be uniquely significant
in catalyzing the ultimate resolution of the case, as a denial of
class certification can be the "death knell" of the case itself.

In In re: Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, No. 15-3791, 2017 WL 532296 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2017),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
that denied a motion for class certification by an indirect
purchaser plaintiff.  This rare appellate court decision gives
insights into the intricate legal and economic issues that
indirect purchaser plaintiffs and defendants must grapple with
when litigating the class certification issue.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that district courts must
conduct a "rigorous analysis" of the requirements of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure's Rule 23 prerequisites before certifying a
class, providing a plan of attack for defendants challenging class
certification.  Rule 23 requires that (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  In
addition -- and relevant to the case at hand -- Rule 23(b)(3)
requires that the court find the questions of law or fact common
to class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

The principle of conducting a "rigorous analysis" was reaffirmed
in the court's ruling in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct.
1426 (2013).  In Comcast, the court found that plaintiffs must
satisfy "by evidentiary proof" that they meet one of the
prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3); that the district court may not
decline to resolve issues bearing on Rule 23 even if those issues
overlap with the merits of plaintiffs' underlying claims; and that
plaintiffs must present a method of proving damages on a classwide
basis that is tied to their theory of liability. Proving classwide
damages played into the failure of the alleged class of Comcast
cable customers and in In re Class 8 Transmission with an alleged
class of purchasers of heavy-duty trucks.

Third Circuit in Class 8 Transmission Case

In the case at hand, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs)
allege a conspiracy to maintain a monopoly over the heavy-duty
truck transmissions market between Eaton Corporation and a group
of truck manufacturers.  The truck manufacturers include Daimler
Trucks North America LLC, Navistar International Corporation Inc.,
PACCAR Inc. (through the Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt
Motors Company divisions) and sister companies Volvo Trucks North
America and Mack Trucks Inc.  The IPPs allege that defendants
entered into anti-competitive exclusive dealing agreements aimed
at keeping Eaton's largest competitor, ZF Meritor, out of the
market.  The IPPs consist of parties who purchased trucks that
contained Class 8 transmissions manufactured by Eaton.

On Oct. 21, 2015, the district court denied class certification to
the IPPs because they didn't meet the standard of Rule 23(b)(3).
The district court found that common issues did not predominate
over issues affecting only individuals, and that the proposed
class was not sufficiently cohesive.  The court recognized that
neither the presence of an individual inquiry in the case, nor
individualized damages calculations, necessarily defeat the
analysis.  However, the IPPs' varied positions when it came to
calculating overcharges failed to pass muster.  Examples include
that certain resellers had an interest in proving they did not
pass through an overcharge so they could recover all damages
themselves; rebates for the transmissions sales were not applied
uniformly to the class; and certain rebates may have offset the
alleged overcharge altogether such that certain class members did
not suffer an injury at all.

The district court found that the IPPs had not established common
proof that all -- or nearly all -- class members suffered
antitrust injury in the form of higher prices than they otherwise
would have paid, following the standard set forth in In re
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir.
2008).  The IPPs were not required to prove antitrust impact at
the class certification stage, but must show that impact would at
least be capable of proof at trial through common evidence.  The
district court found that the IPPs did not meet this showing.

The IPPs appealed the decision and argued that the district court
abused its discretion by failing to conduct a "rigorous analysis"
of the IPPs' arguments and evidence for class certification.  In
its opinion submitted last month, the Third Circuit denied this
appeal and agreed with the district court's denial of class
certification.  The Third Circuit agreed with the district court
that the IPPs failed to show that classwide evidence could prove
antitrust impact, so common questions did not predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members.  Specifically, in its
analysis of the IPPs arguments and evidence, the Third Circuit
agreed with the district court that the analysis and report by the
IPPs' expert were insufficient to demonstrate overcharges and
classwide impact for pass-through costs because his sales data was
so limited and his analysis was based on less than 1 percent of
total truck sales from the class.

The Future of the Case

Though the Third Circuit agreed with the dismissal of the motion
for class certification, effectively ending the class claims, it
also found that the district court erred in dismissing the
individual claims.  The district court pointed to the IPPs'
request to withdraw and substitute certain class representatives,
filed the same day as the motion for class certification, as
"potential upheaval" a full four years in to litigation that
called into question whether class representatives could fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.  The district
court then concluded that "because the proposed class lacks
representation, the case does not present a case or controversy
under Article III."

However, the Third Circuit clarified that there is no case or
controversy when the parties "lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome," but here the IPPs brought their claims explicitly
in the complaints both on behalf of the putative indirect
purchaser class and "on behalf of themselves" as individuals, so
the district court erred in dismissing all of the claims when the
errors existed only with class certification. Therefore, the Third
Circuit vacated only the portion of the order dismissing the
individual claims, reviving the individual claims and remanding to
the district court for further proceedings.

The Future of Class Certification for Indirect Purchasers

Both the case law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's Rule 23
requirements provide defendants with a road map to challenge class
certification by indirect purchasers.  The Supreme Court's
decision in Comcast further developed the available arguments for
defendants.  With In re Class 8 Transmission, the Third Circuit
emphasized that a "rigorous analysis" of whether an indirect
purchaser plaintiff can demonstrate antitrust economic impact with
proof that is common to the class will require more extensive
economic analysis of sales data for the case and industry in
question.  In particular, cases where the product that is
allegedly subject to anti-competitive behavior may not be the
product that is purchased by the indirect purchaser plaintiff.
The economic dynamics that pertain to the various sales
transactions in the supply and distribution chain from when the
product is sold by the defendant to when the final product is
purchased by the indirect purchaser plaintiff may create
substantial issues that must be addressed at class certification.

In re Class 8 Transmission illustrates just how difficult it would
be for an indirect purchaser plaintiff to satisfy the "rigorous
analysis" Rule 23 requires in the typical indirect purchaser case,
which involves relatively complex supply and distribution chains
that have several intervening production and sales steps between
the defendant and indirect purchaser plaintiff.

Additionally, In re Class 8 Transmission reinforces the need for
provable classwide damage calculations for plaintiffs to be able
to pass the class certification stage.  As is always the case in
these antitrust class actions, expert analysis and testimony will
be critically important. Now that the Third Circuit has issued its
In re Class 8 Transmission decision, plaintiffs and defendants
alike should be prepared in class certification clashes to come.


EMC CORP: Mass. Supreme Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on March 6, 2017, in a
decision authored by Justice Margot Botsford, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of an action for
breach of fiduciary duty brought by former shareholders of EMC
Corporation against its directors in connection with its merger
with Dell Inc., finding that the claims could only have been
brought derivatively.  Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Loc. No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci, SJC-12137 (Mass. Mar. 6,
2017).  In its decision, the Court clarified that "the general
rule of Massachusetts corporate law is that a director of a
Massachusetts corporation owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation
itself, and not its shareholders."  Further, the Court found that
the injury alleged -- the undervaluation of EMC in the transaction
-- "qualifies as a direct injury to the corporation" and "fit[s]
squarely within the framework of a derivative action," which
plaintiffs as former shareholders did not--and could not--bring.

EMC was a large publicly traded Massachusetts corporation.  Dell
agreed to acquire EMC in a transaction unanimously approved by
EMC's board and announced on October 12, 2015.  On October 15,
2015, plaintiffs, then EMC shareholders, filed a direct action
against EMC's directors claiming they breached their fiduciary
duties by allegedly failing to maximize the value of EMC.  The
merger was completed on September 7, 2016.  The trial court found
plaintiffs' claims were derivative and granted defendants' motion
to dismiss.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.  In doing
so, the Court noted that "whether a claim asserted by stockholders
of a Massachusetts corporation is one that may be pursued directly
by them against the corporation's directors or must be pursued
derivatively depends on whether the harm they claim to have
suffered resulted from a breach of duty owed directly to them, or
whether the harm claimed was derivative of a breach of duty owed
to the corporation."  Referring to the Massachusetts Business
Corporation Act, G. L. c. 156D, Sec 8.30, the Court found that
"the plain words of the statute," which provides that a director
shall discharge his duties "in a manner the director reasonably
believes to be in the best interests of the corporation," mandate
the finding that directors generally owe fiduciary duties to the
corporation and not the shareholders (with exceptions not
pertinent here).

The claims plaintiffs had asserted were therefore properly
considered derivative.  Thus, plaintiffs' failure to bring them
derivatively in accordance with the requirements for derivative
actions -- including the prerequisite demand on the board to bring
the claims and the limitation that only current shareholders can
assert derivative claims -- subjected the action to dismissal.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the finding
that the action was derivative deprived them of a meaningful
opportunity for relief.  The Court noted that plaintiffs could
have made a demand on EMC's board in accordance with the
requirements for a derivative action when the merger was first
announced and they were still shareholders and, if necessary,
could have moved for a preliminary injunction.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Opening Brief in "Chawdry" Case Due
------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that defendants' opening brief was due March 17, 2017, in the
legal proceedings related to the Constant Contact acquisition.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition
captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828
(together, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant
Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants.

The Complaints generally alleged, among other things, that in
connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of
Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for
purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales
process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders
to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly
preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints sought, among
other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The
Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended
complaint, or the Amended Complaint, naming as defendants the
former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or
Morgan Stanley, Constant Contact's financial adviser for the
acquisition, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the former
directors, and aiding and abetting the alleged breach by Morgan
Stanley.

On December 15, 2016, the Constant Contact defendants filed a
motion to dismiss.  On February 14, 2017, the court approved a
briefing schedule for the motion, with defendants' opening brief
due March 17, 2017.

The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Endurance International is a provider of cloud-based platform
solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or
SMBs, succeed online.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact, Inc.  Constant Contact
is a provider of online marketing tools that are designed for
small organizations, including small businesses, associations and
non-profits.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face "Machado" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. continues to face the
class action lawsuit by Christopher Machado, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a
purported holder of our common stock, filed a civil action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against us and our chief executive officer and our former chief
financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a
second amended complaint, filed on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff
alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those
claims challenged as false or misleading certain of our
disclosures about our total number of subscribers, average revenue
per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year
for our products and services, the average number of products sold
per subscriber, and our customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on
behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages
and his costs and expenses of litigation."

"We filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 2016, which remains
pending. In August 2016, the parties in the Machado action and
another potential claimant, who asserts that he purchased common
stock in our initial public offering, agreed to toll, as of July
1, 2016, the statutes of limitation and repose for all claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 that the plaintiff and claimant
might bring, individually or in a representative capacity, arising
from alleged actions or omissions between September 9, 2013 and
February 29, 2016.

"We and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or
wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. We
cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of the
current proceeding or any additional claims if they are brought."

Endurance International is a provider of cloud-based platform
solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or
SMBs, succeed online.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact, Inc.  Constant Contact
is a provider of online marketing tools that are designed for
small organizations, including small businesses, associations and
non-profits.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Tribes Lose Bid to Halt Dakota Access Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the company building the Dakota
Access pipeline said on March 20 that the project remains on track
to start moving oil this week despite recent "coordinated physical
attacks" along the line.

The brief court filing late on March 20 from Dallas-based Energy
Transfer Partners didn't detail the attacks, but said they "pose
threats to life, physical safety and the environment."

The filing cited those threats for redacting much of the rest of
the 2-1/2-page report, but ended: "These coordinated attacks will
not stop line-fill operations.  With that in mind, the company now
believes that oil may flow sometime this week."

A spokeswoman and an attorney for the company didn't immediately
respond to emailed questions from The Associated Press.  A
spokesman for the Morton County sheriff's office, the center of
months of sometimes violent conflicts between protesters and law
enforcement, didn't immediately respond to an email.

The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes have battled the
$3.8 billion pipeline in court for months, arguing it's a threat
to water and their right to practice their religion.

The company has maintained the pipeline, which will move oil from
North Dakota's Bakken oil field more than 1,000 miles across four
states to a shipping point in Illinois, will be safe.

An appeals court on March 18 refused a request from the tribes for
an emergency order to prevent oil from flowing through the
pipeline.

The tribes have challenged an earlier ruling by U.S. District
Judge James Boasberg not to stop final construction of the
pipeline, and they wanted the appeals court to halt any oil flow
until that's resolved.

The appeals court said the tribes hadn't met "the stringent
requirements" for such an order.

The tribes had asked Judge Boasberg to direct the Army Corps of
Engineers to withdraw permission for Energy Transfer Partners to
lay pipe under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, which the Corps manages
for the U.S. government.  The stretch under the Missouri River
reservoir is the last piece of construction for the pipeline.

The company is wrapping up pipe work under the lake and had said
oil could start flowing between March 20 and March 22.

The tribes' appeal rests on the religion argument.  Judge Boasberg
has said he doesn't think the tribes have a strong case on appeal.
He also said ETP would be "substantially harmed" by a delay in
pipeline operations.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Briefing Now Complete
----------------------------------------------------
Appellate briefing related to a class action lawsuit against Enova
International, Inc., is complete, Enova said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On July
20, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, on
July 21, 2015, entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order
granting summary judgment for the Company, the judgment in favor
of the company, and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider, and appellate briefing is now complete.

The Company believes that the Plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Enova is a technology and analytics company focused on providing
online financial services.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Texas Power Price Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a trial court has
entered a final judgment of dismissal bringing the Texas Power
Price class action lawsuit to a conclusion.

In August 2003 a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994
to the present.  The named defendants include Entergy Corporation,
Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp.,
and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named
defendant, but was alleged to be a co-conspirator.  The court
granted the request of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in
the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-system
suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation
so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources
instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios as of the date of the report.  The
Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs'
expert reports.

In March 2012 the state district court found that the case met the
requirements to be maintained as a class action under Texas law.
In April 2012 the court entered an order certifying the class.
The defendants appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals --
First District and oral argument was held in May 2013. In November
2014 the Texas Court of Appeals - First District reversed the
state district court's class certification order and dismissed the
case holding that the state district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to address the issues. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc.

In May 2015 the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' motion for
rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and set the case for
resubmission in June 2015. In July 2015 the Court of Appeals
issued a new opinion again finding that the plaintiffs' claims
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and, therefore,
the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
The Court of Appeals ordered that the state district court dismiss
all claims against the Entergy defendants.

In September 2015 plaintiffs filed a petition for review at the
Supreme Court of Texas. In September 2016 the Supreme Court denied
the plaintiffs' petition for review. In December 2016 the trial
court entered a final judgment of dismissal bringing this matter
to a conclusion.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Beltz II Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss a federal court lawsuit against the Company's directors
remains pending.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas
W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert
C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of
Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the
court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene
and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss;
granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the
matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its
jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors'
motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To
avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was
completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29,
2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that
the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015.
The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the
District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to
the Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled
as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S.
Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj
Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman,
Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh;
Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C.
Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III;
Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J.
Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth
E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A.
Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz
II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former
Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that
retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and
an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,
breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,
conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck,
and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II
lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered
against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the
conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the
Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding
compensatory and punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. The motions to
dismiss remain pending.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have sought indemnification
and advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with
the Beltz II lawsuit.

Erie Indemnity Company is a publicly held Pennsylvania business
corporation that has since its incorporation in 1925 served as the
attorney-in-fact for the subscribers (policyholders) at the Erie
Insurance Exchange ("Exchange").  The Exchange, which also
commenced business in 1925, is a Pennsylvania-domiciled reciprocal
insurer that writes property and casualty insurance. We function
solely as the management company and all insurance operations are
performed by the Exchange.


ESSEX PROPERTY: "Foster" Lawsuit Dismissed
------------------------------------------
Essex Property Trust, Inc. and Essex Portfolio, L.P. said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the "Foster" class action lawsuit has been dismissed subject
to possible appeal.

On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, entitled Foster v. Essex Property Trust,
Inc. alleging that the Company failed to properly secure the
personally-identifying information of its residents. The lawsuit
seeks the recovery of unspecified damages and certain
injunctive relief. This lawsuit was filed in connection with a
cyber-intrusion that the Company discovered in the third quarter
of 2014. This matter was dismissed subject to possible appeal.


EVERCORE PARTNERS: EGL Continues to Defend Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Evercore Group L.L.C.
("EGL"), a wholly-owned subsidiary, is defending a class action
lawsuit.

On September 19, 2016, EGL was named as a defendant in the First
Amended and Supplemented Verified Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint"), filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware
in a case entitled City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Pension
Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 12481-VCL). The
Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all ExamWorks common stockholders and purports to assert a claim
against EGL for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties
by ExamWorks officers and directors in connection with a merger
transaction between ExamWorks and affiliates of Leonard Green &
Partners, L.P. that was agreed to on April 26, 2016 and
consummated on July 27, 2016. The Complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees. EGL intends to vigorously defend the case,
and is indemnified for legal expenses (including reasonable
attorney's fees) and other liabilities, except in certain cases
involving gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct.


FALLS MUSIC: Stampede Victims File Class Action v. Organizers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huffington Post reports that sixty-five music festival patrons who
sustained "serious injuries" as a result of a stampede at the
Falls Festival in Lorne, Victoria in December have joined a class
action lawsuit against organisers of the event for negligence.

Appearing on ABC's Triple J: Hack program on March 15, Attorney
Brendan Pendergast of Maddens Lawyers said the incident had a
"significant impact" on the lives of those affected which resulted
in "quite serious physical injuries and psychiatric and
psychological injuries."

"It was a very serious incident unfortunately and there are scores
of people who have variously suffered quite serious injuries and
those injuries and experiences had a significant impact on those
scores of lives," he said.

"Many of these people have suffered quite serious physical
injuries and psychiatric and psychological injuries."

At the time of the incident, Victoria Police said the stampede
occurred when music fans at the front of a crowd were leaving a
performance by DMAs about 9:50PM and was triggered when a number
of patrons lost their footing.

The crowd crush left up to 80 people injured with 19 individuals
needing to be rushed to hospital.  Medical treatment was provided
on site to others with injuries, with paramedics treating at least
60 people on-site.

Mr. Pendergast told the ABC the accusation of negligence against
festival organisers comes with the claims of those affected that
stage location and act scheduling could have been handled better
and possibly made the incident avoidable.

"The allegation is that if proper care and attention had been
taken to configuring the area where the acts were taking place,
and the scheduling of the successive acts this stampede would not
have occurred, that this was entirely avoidable," he said.

He also said those affected would be assessed for damages
individually and the sum of losses could be "quite substantial",
possibly amounting to more than $1 million, if Falls Festival
organisers are deemed to have been negligent.

"It wouldn't surprise me if damages of [more than $1 million] were
ultimately payable, but as I say it's very early and we need to
assess each of the claims on an individual basis.

At the conclusion of the festival, event organisers released a
statement on Facebook that said they were "devastated" by the
incident and issued an apology to those involved in the crush.

"With over 20 years of experience running festivals behind us, we
are completely devastated by the crowd crush that occurred with
patrons exiting The Grand Theatre, and we are beyond shattered
that a number of our festival patrons were injured and impacted by
this event," organisers said.

"To those that were affected, on behalf of The Falls Festival, we
would like to apologise and let you know that we are deeply upset
by this incident and your experience."

Triple J: Hack also confirmed on March 15 the rules and
regulations around the site design featured at the Lorne event
currently remain the subject of a WorkSafe Victoria investigation.

A spokesperson for the event said: "We are cooperating with
WorkSafe in its investigation. We have had regular contact with
affected patrons since the incident and are providing ongoing
assistance.

"However, given the matter is as of March 15 the subject of legal
proceedings, we are not in a position to comment further.  We
confirm that Falls will definitely be going ahead in 2017."


FIREEYE INC: Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------

FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in a
stockholder class action lawsuit have filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former
members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers,
and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.
On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

"On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court
overruled defendants' demurrers. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which
the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016.

"On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the
action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which
the court denied on April 1, 2016.

"On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the
court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On
September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition. On
September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.

"On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied the
petition for review. On December 8, 2016, the Company and the
individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
before the United States Supreme Court. On February 6, 2017, the
parties submitted to the Superior Court a stipulation of
settlement. The terms of the settlement include a release and
dismissal of all claims against all defendants without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

"On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement, which is
immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements, is
subject to stockholder notice, court approval, and other customary
conditions."

FireEye provides comprehensive intelligence-based cybersecurity
solutions that allow organizations to prepare for, prevent,
respond to and remediate cyber attacks.


FIREEYE INC: California Stockholder Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a California court has
dismissed a stockholder class action lawsuit with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs.

The Company said, "On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
January 2, 2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs sought, among
other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs
on behalf of the putative class."

"On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
was heard on November 12, 2015. On November 14, 2016, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The parties
subsequently submitted a stipulation, which was adopted as an
order of the Court on December 1, 2016, dismissing the action with
prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and providing that plaintiffs
would not appeal the dismissal."

FireEye provides comprehensive intelligence-based cybersecurity
solutions that allow organizations to prepare for, prevent,
respond to and remediate cyber attacks.


FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Felon Voting Rights
----------------------------------------------------
Dara Kam, writing for Orlando Weekly, reports that lawyers for
convicted felons filed a class-action lawsuit on March 13 against
Florida officials, alleging that the state's process for restoring
voting rights to people who have completed their sentences is
arbitrary.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on behalf of seven convicted
felons by the Fair Elections Legal Network and the Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll law firm, seeks to automatically restore former
felons' voting rights.

Florida is one of just four states requiring felons who have
fulfilled their sentences to petition to have their voting rights
restored.  The state's process prevents more than 1.6 million
Floridians from voting, according to advocates of changing the
process.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified as a class action,
came as the Florida Supreme Court considers a proposed
constitutional amendment that would let voters decide if felons
who have completed their sentences and paid restitution to the
state and victims should be able to vote without having to go
through the cumbersome -- and oftentimes expensive -- clemency
process.

The lawsuit alleges that the Board of Executive Clemency -- which
imposed more-stringent requirements for restoration of voting
rights shortly after Gov. Rick Scott and a newly elected, all-
Republican Cabinet took office in 2011 -- has made "the process of
voting rights restoration unconstitutionally arbitrary."

Under the system, felons must wait at least five years before
seeking to have their civil rights, including the right to vote,
restored.

According to the Fair Elections Legal Network, there is a backlog
of more than 10,500 applicants seeking to have their voting rights
restored, but the clemency board only hears an average of 52 cases
per quarter, meaning it would take 51 years to handle the cases
now in the pipeline.

Since Scott and the Cabinet changed the rules in 2011, fewer than
2,500 applications have been granted, compared to more than
155,000 in the previous four years.

Ex-felons "must beg state officials to give them their rights back
and this set-up violates our Constitution," Jon Sherman, senior
counsel for the Fair Elections Legal Network said in a statement
announcing the lawsuit.  "The right to vote should be
automatically restored to ex-felons at a specific point in time --
the completion of a sentence -- not whenever a politician decides
you've earned it."

A spokeswoman for Scott said his staff is reviewing the lawsuit,
"but when it comes to the restoration of voting rights for felons,
Governor Scott believes that they have to demonstrate that they
can live a life free of crime, show a willingness to request to
have their rights restored, and show restitution to the victims of
their crimes."

The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments about the wording of the
proposed constitutional amendment.  If the Supreme Court signs off
-- and if supporters can submit about 766,000 valid petition
signatures -- the initiative would go on the November 2018 ballot.


FULL TILT: Judge May Dismiss RICO Claims in $90MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, Django Gold and Alex Ortolani, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge said on March 13 he
was leaning toward dismissing RICO claims against Full Tilt Poker
and Cozen O'Connor in a $900 million proposed class action, a move
that would in effect drop the law firm from the case, saying the
suit's fraud allegations lacked the required particularity.

Two poker players filed the lawsuit October 2011, alleging Full
Tilt Poker violated its user agreement and U.S. law by taking
deposits for online poker games and then disbursing the funds to
its management.  The suit names numerous defendants, including
Full Tilt and its owners, and also ropes in Cozen O'Connor,
claiming the law firm accepted millions of dollars in legal fees
from the indicted online card room despite knowing the funds came
directly from customer accounts.

In a written tentative ruling issued before the March 13 hearing,
U.S. District Judge George H. Wu focused his attention on the
plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, noting that it serves as
the sole ground for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The judge
said the allegations for wire and mail fraud lacked particularity.

"Simply asserting that all defendants made the representations or
that they collaborated to formulate the content on FTP.com is the
sort of generalized allegations that does not meet" the pleading
requirements for fraud, the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Cyrus M. Sanai of Sanais Law, told the
court that he didn't believe he needed to connect acts to each
individual defendant.

Mr. Sanai maintained that the individual defendants acted as a
corporate entity and controlled "the RICO enterprise" together.

The judge rebuffed the argument, saying he needed details, such as
when the defendants met.

Mr. Sanai said the suit outlined the time period in which the
meetings occurred.

"It doesn't work that way," Judge Wu retorted.

The attorney said it was difficult to get people to talk about
what happened inside the "conspiratorial meetings."  But he
maintained that under a RICO fraud case he didn't need such
details.

"In RICO all you have to have is that someone was defrauded and
that you were directly injured by the fraudulent scheme,"
Mr. Sanai said.

An attorney for Cozen, Melinda Lemoine -- Melinda.LeMoine@mto.com
-- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, noted that since plaintiffs' RICO
claim supplies the basis for the other claims against Cozen those
derivative claims would fail without sufficient allegations for
the fraud claim.

In their suit, plaintiffs Lary Kennedy and Greg Omotoy say Cozen
"had knowledge or reason to know of the illegal scheme"
perpetrated by Full Tilt, in which the gaming company allegedly
funneled user deposits directly to its managers.  Since October
2009, Cozen has received legal fees in excess of $2 million
stemming from the alleged plot, according to the complaint.

"The moneys deposited and thus the obligation owed to players was
set forth in written accounts kept by [Full Tilt affiliate] Pocket
Kings and copied to other defendants comprising the [Full Tilt]
group," the plaintiffs said.  "[But] Full Tilt Poker did not have
adequate financing or adequate working capital to pay its
players."

Full Tilt was also hit with criminal and civil actions in 2011.

The online poker site operated in the U.S. from October 2005 to
April 15, 2011, when the company and various affiliates and
officers were indicted in New York district court.  The court shut
down the website's international operations in June 2011.  In the
indictment, the U.S. Department of Justice accused the principals
of Full Tilt and fellow online poker mainstays Pokerstars and
Absolute Poker of fraud, money laundering and violation of U.S.
gambling laws.  In July 2012, the Justice Department reached a
$731 million settlement with PokerStars, Full Tilt, and Full Tilt
founders Christopher Ferguson and Howard Lederer in the case.

In September, the DOJ lodged a separate complaint alleging Full
Tilt and its owners, including professional poker players Lederer
and Ferguson, defrauded players by pretending money in their
accounts was covered when the funds were being funneled to board
members and other owners. Full Tilt skimmed $440 million,
according to the complaint.

The poker players' suit restates many of the allegations made by
the DOJ, also alleging Full Tilt and its affiliates violated
California gambling law, which stipulates that online card rooms
that profit from their operations are only allowed to do so
provided the company does not have any kind of stake in the game.

Various Full Tilt executives, many of whom are professional poker
players, routinely played in Full Tilt poker games using the
company bankroll, according to the suit.

Additionally, Full Tilt set up a number of automated players to
fill out the individual poker tables, according to the complaint.

"The poker robots play a very consistent game and can beat
unskilled or moderately skilled players, increasing the site's
revenues," the suit states.

Furthermore, Full Tilt's automatic deduction of a small amount of
money from each game -- referred to as the "rake" -- violated its
user agreement, according to Mr. Sanai.

"Full Tilt's documentation doesn't allow them to deduct any money
from player accounts. They did, and therefore they have to give
the money back," the lawyer said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cyrus M. Sanai of Sanais Law
Firm.

Defendants Erik Seidel, Andy Bloch, Howard Lederer and Chris
Ferguson are represented by Nathan Dooley and Alexander Maximilian
Kargher of Cozen O'Connor. Phil Ivey is represented by Richard A.
Schonfeld of Chesnoff and Schonfeld. Tiltware LLC is represented
by Erik Louis Jackson of Cozen O'Connor. Cozen O'Connor is
represented by Melinda Lemoine and Jennifer Lynn Bryant of Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP

The case is Lary Kennedy et al. v. Chris Ferguson et al., case
number 2:11-cv-08591, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


GATEWAYS ENERGY: "Weissman" Sues Over Variable Rate Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WEISSMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated person, Plaintiff(s) against GATEWAYS ENERGY SERVICES
CORPORATION, Formerly known as ECONNERGY ENERGY COMPANY INC.,
Defendant(s), INDEX NO. 602119/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau,
March 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant's variable rate contract
with energy consumers violated New York General Business Law.

GATEWAYS ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION is an energy services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Sod, Esq.
     337 R Central Avenue
     Lawrence, NY 11559
     Phone: (516) 295-0707

        - and -

     DiTommasso Lubin, Esq.
     17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181

        - and -

     LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. NEILAN, P.C.
     1954 First Street #390
     Highland Park, IL 60035
     Phone: 847.266.0464

        - and -

     THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER, ESQ.
     17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181


GEICO: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC and MSPA Claims 1,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Medicare Advantage Organizations, Plaintiffs, v. Government
Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and its affiliates,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00711, (D. Md., March 15, 2017),
seeks reimbursement for those accident-related medical expenses
paid for by the Plaintiffs' assignors and all other MAOs that
should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendants.  The
suit also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the
Medicare Secondary Payer Provisions and for breach of contract.

Defendants offer automobile insurance policies that contain no-
fault coverages as well as medical payments coverage for any
automobile accident-related medical expenses. The policies are
required to provide primary coverage for medical bills incurred
pursuant to the relevant policies of insurance and statutory
provisions that mandate no-fault coverage as applied by the
specific states within the United States.

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are Medicare Advantage
Organizations that provide Medicare benefits to Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries enrolled under the Medicare Advantage program. These
Medicare beneficiaries were simultaneously covered by insurance
policies issued by Defendants, which made Defendants the primary
payers for the medical bills, services, and items paid by
Plaintiffs and the Class Members. They paid for the medical items
or treatment even though the Defendants were responsible for
paying those expenses under their no-fault insurance policies and
the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of Medicare. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cara J. Luther, Esq.
      BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20037-1526
      Tel: (202) 466-0513
      Fax: (202) 466-0527
      Email: cluther@baumhedlundlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 207-3233
      Fax: (310) 820-7444
      Email: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
             pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
      Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Phone: (504) 355-0086
      Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             tturner@pbclawfirm.com
             nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com
             cstidham@pbclawfirm.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Rice & Rosenfeld Trust Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E Payne entered an order on March 7 consolidating the
case of Rosenfeld Family Trust, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Genworth Financial Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 3:17cv156 with Alexander Rice, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, et al. v. Genworth
Financial Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 3:17cv59.  The
cases are consolidated under the style of Alexander Rice,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, et
al. v. Genworth Financial Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No.
3:17cv59 and henceforth all pleadings shall be filed with the
style of that case and the Civil Action No. of 3:17cv59.

Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, the
court in the Eastern District of Virginia set the motion for
preliminary injunction filed in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action
for hearing on March 1, 2017.

On January 23, 2017, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Rice v. Genworth Financial Incorporated et al, Case No.
3:17-cv-00059-REP, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division), against
Genworth and the members of the Board.

On January 25, 2017, two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits, captioned James v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00078-REP, and Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth
Financial, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-00073-GMS, were filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Richmond Division) and the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, respectively, against Genworth and
the members of the Board.

On February 6, 2017, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00125-GMS, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, against Genworth and the members of the
Board.

On February 10, 2017, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Ratliff v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, Case No.
3:17-cv-00132-REP, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division), against
Genworth and the members of the Board. The complaints in all five
actions allege, among other things, that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by Genworth with the SEC on December 21, 2016
contains false and/or materially misleading statements and/or
omits material information. The complaints in all five actions
assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and seek equitable relief, including declaratory and injunctive
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On February 2, 2017, the plaintiff in the Rice action filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the March 7, 2017
stockholder vote on the merger pending additional disclosure to
Genworth's stockholders concerning the merger.

On February 10, 2017, the defendants filed an opposition to the
preliminary injunction motion in the Rice action. Also on February
10, 2017, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the March 7, 2017
stockholder vote on the merger pending additional disclosure to
Genworth's stockholders concerning the merger.

On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer
the Rosenfeld Family Trust action to the Eastern District of
Virginia.

On February 15, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer
the Chopp action to the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 21, 2017, the parties to the Eastern District of
Virginia actions (Rice, James and Ratliff) reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in
the Rice action through additional disclosure prior to the March
7, 2017 stockholder vote on the merger.

On February 22, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of
Virginia consolidated the Rice, James and Ratliff actions, and the
plaintiffs withdrew the preliminary injunction motion in the Rice
action in consideration of agreed disclosures to be filed in this
Form 8-K. Also on February 22, 2017, the court in the District of
Delaware suspended briefing on the motion for preliminary
injunction in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action and entered an
order transferring the Rosenfeld Family Trust and Chopp actions to
the Eastern District of Virginia.

On February 23, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of
Virginia received the transferred Rosenfeld Family Trust and Chopp
actions, assigned the actions case numbers 3:17-cv-000156-REP and
3:17-cv-000157-REP, respectively, consolidated the Rosenfeld Trust
and Chopp actions, and set the motion for preliminary injunction
filed in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action for hearing on March 1,
2017.


GETTING GREEN: Removed "Plunkett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jennifer Plunkett, on behalf of
herself and similarly situated employees v. Getting Green Plant
Service, Inc. and Robert A Shoelson, Case No. CACE-17-002075, was
removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-60485-JAL to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants own and operate a plant nursery located at 5325 SW
64th Ave, Davie, FL 33314. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 636-3802
      Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq.
      Peter Wolfson Zinober, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG PA
      101 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 318-5700
      Facsimile: (813) 318-5900
      E-mail: andrewsni@gtlaw.com
              zinoberp@gtlaw.com

GIGAMON INC: April 27 Case Management Conference in "Rodriguez"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gigamon Inc. is defending against a "Rodriguez" class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Case has been assigned to the Hon. Edward J. Davila.  An
initial Case Management Conference has been set for April 27,
2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose,
California.  A Case Management Statement is due by April 20.

On January 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and three of its
current and former officers, Rodriguez v. Gigamon Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00434 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 27, 2017).  The
plaintiff alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements about its business, operations, and prospects,
including statements about its guidance, for the fourth quarter of
2016.  The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons and entities
who acquired the Company's securities between October 27, 2016 and
January 17, 2017.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. The Company
believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.

Gigamon has developed innovative solutions that deliver pervasive,
dynamic, and intelligent visibility into data-in-motion traveling
across networks of any scale.


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Suit v. Kaplan Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that discovery began in
January in a class action lawsuit against the Company's Kaplan
subsidiary.

On January 16, 2012, prior to Kaplan's sale of the Kidum Group in
Israel, the Kidum Group received notice of a putative class-action
complaint against the Kidum Group's Wall Street Institute
business, alleging violations of Israeli consumer protection law
in connection with certain enrollment and refund policies. Kaplan
has continuing obligations to the purchaser under the terms of the
agreement of sale.

In January 2016, Israel's Central District Court issued a ruling
allowing the case to proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs filed
an amended claim on May 3, 2016, in order to comply with the
court's class certification order.

Kidum filed its statement of defense to the amended claim on
September 15, 2016, and plaintiffs filed their reply on November
15, 2016. A pre-trial hearing was held on November 20, 2016, and
discovery began in January. At this time, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this matter.

Graham Holdings Company is primarily a diversified education and
media company. The Company's Kaplan subsidiary provides a wide
variety of educational services, both domestically and outside the
United States. The Company's media operations comprise the
ownership and operation of television broadcasting (through the
ownership and operation of seven television broadcast stations),
plus Slate and Foreign Policy magazines. The Company also owns
home health and hospice providers, three industrial companies and
Social Code LLC, a marketing solutions provider.


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Mediation Held in Suit v. KHE Unit
---------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that mediation was
scheduled to be held March 7 in a class action lawsuit against the
Company's Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) subsidiary.

On September 30, 2016, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed
against Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) and Education Corporation of
America d/b/a Brightwood College, in Alameda County Superior
Court, in Oakland, CA, by Donna Hillman alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws as they apply to "adjunct" or part-
time faculty. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that
Kaplan violated the California Labor Code and an award of damages
for allegedly unpaid wages, penalties under the California Labor
Code, interest and attorney's fees.

A response and general denial was filed on November 2, 2016. KHE
moved to transfer the venue to Sacramento, CA.  Mediation was set
for March 7, 2017. At this time, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of this matter.

Graham Holdings Company is primarily a diversified education and
media company. The Company's Kaplan subsidiary provides a wide
variety of educational services, both domestically and outside the
United States. The Company's media operations comprise the
ownership and operation of television broadcasting (through the
ownership and operation of seven television broadcast stations),
plus Slate and Foreign Policy magazines. The Company also owns
home health and hospice providers, three industrial companies and
Social Code LLC, a marketing solutions provider.


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: RHG Unit Defending Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Residential
Healthcare Group continues to face an FLSA class action lawsuit in
Illinois.

On March 28, 2016, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
Erin Fries, a physical therapist formerly employed by Residential,
against Residential Home Health, LLC, Residential Home Health
Illinois, LLC, and David Curtis. The complaint alleges violations
of the FLSA and the Illinois minimum wage law. The complaint seeks
damages, attorney's fees and costs. At this time, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Graham Holdings Company is primarily a diversified education and
media company. The Company's Kaplan subsidiary provides a wide
variety of educational services, both domestically and outside the
United States. The Company's media operations comprise the
ownership and operation of television broadcasting (through the
ownership and operation of seven television broadcast stations),
plus Slate and Foreign Policy magazines. The Company also owns
home health and hospice providers, three industrial companies and
Social Code LLC, a marketing solutions provider.


H.F. COX: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. H.F. COX, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, seeks recovery of
unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and
Professions Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The case alleges that Plaintiff was required to perform several
daily tasks before he could log in for work. Defendants'
timekeeping practices allegedly failed to compensate for this pre-
clock-in work, and all required minimum and overtime wages.

Defendants do business by serving as a third-party logistics
carrier specializing in petroleum transportation, including
hauling gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, lube oils, crude oil, and
fuel oils.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
driver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     2274 East Maple Avenue
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 292-2350
     Fax: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


HENDERSON KITCHEN: Faces "Tang" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUITONG, WEIJIAN TANG, YA-TANG CID a/k/a Tom Chi, CHUANGENG,
KUN YANG, and JUNYIXIE on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. HENDERSON KITCHEN INC. d/b/a
Pinwei Restaurant; CHAO HSIUNG KUO a/k/a Gary Kuo, and YENG-LUNG
KUO, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01073-RBS (E.D. Pa., March 10,
2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and of
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, arising from Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices.

Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants:
(1) unpaid minimum wage compensation, (2) unpaid overtime wages
compensation, (3) the full portion of tips illegally retained by
the boss, CHAO HSIUNG
KUO a/k/a GARY KUO, and lady boss, YENG-LUNG KUO, (4) the full
portion of tips used to pay non-tipped employees, including hosts
and hostesses, cashiers, and packers, (5) liquidated damages, (6)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or (7) attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiff is employed by Defendants to work as a waiter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip A. Downey, Esq.
     THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Box 1021
     Unionville, PA 19375
     Phone: (610) 324-2848
     Email: downeyjustice@gmail.com

        - and -

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


HOME CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Public Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Home Capital Group Inc. (the "Company", TSX: HCG) on March 15 made
the following disclosure regarding legal and regulatory matters.

On February 10, 2017, the Company disclosed it had received an
enforcement notice from staff of the Ontario Securities Commission
(OSC) relating to the Company's disclosure in 2014 and 2015
regarding the impact of the Company's findings that income
information submitted on some loan applications had been
falsified, and the subsequent remedial steps taken by the Company,
including the suspension of mortgage brokers and brokerages.

Subsequently, staff of the OSC has issued enforcement notices to
several current and former officers and directors of the Company,
relating to that disclosure and, in some instances, trades in the
Company's shares.  The individuals have the opportunity to respond
to the notices before OSC staff determines whether to commence
proceedings.

As previously stated, the Company believes that its disclosure
satisfied applicable disclosure requirements.

The Company also announced that a Statement of Claim and Notice of
Action have been filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against the Company and three of its officers or former officers
regarding a proposed class action lawsuit.  The Statement of Claim
seeks permission of the Court to commence a class action
proceeding for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public
disclosure in 2014 and 2015.  This proposed class action has been
previously disclosed by the law firm seeking to pursue it.

The Company believes the claim is unfounded and intends to
vigorously defend the claim.

Home Capital Group Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto
Stock Exchange (HCG), operating through its principal subsidiary,
Home Trust Company.  Home Trust is a federally regulated trust
company offering residential and non-residential mortgage lending,
securitization of insured residential first mortgage products,
consumer lending and credit card services. In addition, Home Trust
offers deposits via brokers and financial planners, and through
its direct to consumer deposit brand, Oaken Financial.  Home Trust
also conducts business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home
Bank.  Licensed to conduct business across Canada, Home Trust has
offices in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec
and Manitoba.


HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $25 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Metzger, writing for SC Media, reports that Home Depot's 2014
breach affected over 50 million customers Home Depot's 2014 breach
affected over 50 million customers The cost of Home Depot's breach
mounts as the retail firm will pay out US$25 million (œ20 million)
to the affected parties.  Home Depot settled in an Atlanta Federal
court, agreeing not only to pay out millions of dollars but to
improve its security measures.

Home Depot will be paying the sum into a settlement fund.  Those
who had money stolen in the wake of the 2014 breach will be
entitled to 60 percent of their losses as long as they can provide
valid documentation.  The retail giant has also promised as part
of the settlement to update its security posture and data
protection policies as well as pay the legal fees attendant to the
settlement.

The 2014 breach affected 50 million customers whose email and
credit card information was stolen by hackers who breached the
company's check out machines.  In September 2014, Home Depot
admitted that its payment systems had been compromised and hackers
had accessed the financial information of 56 million customers.
It quickly offered credit monitoring services and compensation to
affected customers.  Quickly after, affected parties filed a class
action suit against Home Depot.

This is yet another entry in the long list of costs that Home
Depot has accrued in the wake of its breach.  This is one of the
first landmark civil suits in which a large company has been sued
for a breach.  The company has paid out over US$134.5 million
(œ110 million) in compensation to financial institutions and
credit card companies in the wake of the breach.

Fortune Magazine estimates the costs to come to at "least" US$179
million (œ147 million).  Although other legal fees and payouts may
make the final bill much higher.

John Madelin, CEO at RelianceACSN told SC, "What was shocking
about this case was that it was the major compromise of the 'crown
jewels' in a retailer's business.  But despite this, it took Home
Depot six months to identify there was an issue, by which time
around 56 million cards had been compromised.  The high settlement
reflects the fact that the security of consumer details and other
critical data needs to be a business' number one priority.
Organisations can no longer afford to accept that a security
breach will be 'inevitable' when a breach will cost them over $179
million."


ILLINOIS: Solitary Confinement Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court ruled on March 10 that prisoners had
alleged sufficient facts to prove that the extreme isolation
prisoners are subjected to in solitary confinement violates the
prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The court also ruled
that the conditions in these units, as described by prisoners,
were so bad that prisoners could not be transferred to solitary
confinement without a hearing, and that Illinois violated
prisoners' constitutional right to due process by holding what the
prisoners described as "sham" hearings.

The six prisoners who brought the case seek to have it certified
as a class action on behalf of all prisoners facing extreme
isolation in Illinois.  While the court did not yet rule on class
certification, it did state that the six prisoners allegations
regarding the conditions of extreme isolation at Stateville,
Menard, Pontiac, and Lawrence prisons were so similar that all of
their claims were properly brought in the same case.

The six named plaintiffs alleged they had been held in extreme
isolation for between 6 months and 17 years.  The conditions
described by the prisoners included being confined, often for 24
hours a day, to small, airless cells with no natural light,
reduced food, minimal yard time (and even then, alone in a bare
concrete box).  Cells are often infested with rodents and insects,
and are cold in the winter and stifling hot in the summer.
Consistent throughout all their complaints is being completely
deprived of meaningful contact with other people -- including
other prisoners and their own family members.  The court held that
"these allegations certainly establish the denial of the 'minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities.'"

Alan Mills, Executive Director of the Uptown People's Law Center,
who represents the prisoners in this lawsuit, stated: "Solitary
confinement is torture.  Being isolated for days, months, and
sometimes years, from meaningful social contact deprives people of
one of life's basic necessities: social interactions.  This sort
of isolation causes permanent damage to people's mental health --
damage which continues long after a person is released from
solitary, and even after they are released from prison.  We look
forward to the day when Illinois stops torturing people in its
prisons." T his case is part of a growing national trend in which
courts are expressing increased skepticism about the
long-term use of solitary confinement.  Justice Breyer filed a
dissent in a statement in a death penalty case, describing in
great detail the harm done by depriving people of meaningful
social contact.  In Ruiz v. Texas, 16-7792, Justice Breyer noted
that as long ago as 1890, the Supreme Court recognized that there
were: "'serious objections' to extended solitary confinement.  The
Court pointed to studies showing that '[a] considerable number of
the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-
fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse
them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed
suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not
generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient
mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.
It became evident that some changes must be made in the system,'
as 'its main feature of solitary confinement was found to be too
severe.'" Additionally, on March 9th, in the Illinois legislature,
the Isolated Confinement Restriction Act, which would drastically
reduce the use of solitary confinement in Illinois, was passed out
of the Restorative Justice Committee and will be voted on by the
House.

The case is Davis, et al v. Baldwin, pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The
plaintiffs are represented by the Uptown People's Law Center and
by a team of pro bono lawyers, led by partner Kimball Anderson,
from law firm Winston and Strawn.

               About Uptown People's Law Center:

Uptown People's Law Center (UPLC) is a nonprofit legal services
organization specializing in prisoners' rights, Social Security
disability, and tenants' rights and eviction defense. UPLC
currently has nine pending class action lawsuits regarding jail
and prison conditions.

                    About Winston and Strawn:

Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with 18 offices
located throughout North America, Asia, and Europe.


IMPERIAL LA MIRADA: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENO MARTINEZ-RIOS and EMMANUEL CRUZ LOPEZ, as individuals
and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. IMPERIAL LA MIRADA, LLC dba TC CAR WASH, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC653412 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar.
7, 2017), seeks to relief against Defendant for the failure to pay
all wages due in violation of Labor Code, including both regular
and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu.

The Plaintiffs further seeks equitable remedies in the form of
declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under the
Business and Professions Code.

The Defendant scheduled Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class to report
to the car wash at 8:00 a.m., but upon arrival did not allow them
to clock in until instructed by a supervisor. Defendant made
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class wait several hours before
permitting them to clock in. Often times their supervisor did not
instruct employees to clock in until 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.,
other times employees were sent home for lack of work. When
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class were permitted to work, they would
work as late as 6:00 p.m. or later. However, Defendant did not pay
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class for the time they remained at the
worksite while off-the-clock. Further, Defendant did not allow
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class to clock themselves in or out,
instead Defendant required employees, once instructed to do so by
a supervisor, to ask the cashier to clock them in or out.

The Defendant offers car wash services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Na'Shaun Neal, Esq.
          Keren B. Serrano, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoriey@mahoney-law.net
                  nneal@mahoney-law.net
                  kserrano@mahoney-law.net


INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Plaintiffs Won't Pursue Injunctive Relief
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits related to the
acquisition of Derma Sciences by Integra have agreed to not pursue
preliminary injunctive relief.

Purported stockholders of Derma Sciences have filed three class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Derma
Sciences by Integra and its subsidiary, Integra Derma, Inc. (the
"Proposed Acquisition").

On January 30 and February 3, 2017, complaints captioned Rabadi v.
Derma Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00628 (the "Rabadi
Complaint") and Klingel v. Derma Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00738, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Derma Sciences, each member of
its board of directors (the "Derma Sciences Board"), Integra, and
Integra Derma, Inc.

On January 31, 2017, a complaint captioned Parshall v. Derma
Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-0074 (the "Parshall
Complaint"), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Derma Sciences, each member of the Derma Sciences
Board, Integra, and Integra Derma, Inc.

The complaints seek certification of a class action on behalf of
all Derma Sciences' public stockholders. Each complaint alleges,
among other things, that the process leading up to the Proposed
Acquisition, including Integra's offer to purchase the outstanding
shares of Derma Sciences, was inadequate, and that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by Derma Sciences on January 25, 2017 omits certain
material information, which each complaint alleges renders the
information disclosed materially misleading.

The Rabadi Complaint and the Parshall Complaint also allege that
the members of the Derma Sciences Board breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the Proposed Acquisition, and that Integra,
Integra Derma, Inc. and Derma Sciences aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

Each complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the Proposed
Acquisition or recover money damages in the event the Proposed
Acquisition is consummated. While the complaints also sought to
enjoin the Proposed Acquisition, on February 9, 2017, plaintiffs
agreed to not pursue preliminary injunctive relief in return for
Derma Sciences making certain additional disclosures.

Integra and Integra Derma, Inc. believe that the complaints are
wholly without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.

Integra, headquartered in Plainsboro, New Jersey, is a world
leader in medical technology. The Company employs approximately
3,700 people around the world who are dedicated to limiting
uncertainty for surgeons, so that they can concentrate on
providing the best care for their patients. Integra offers
innovative solutions, including leading regenerative technologies,
specialty surgical solutions, and orthopedic solutions. Revenues
grew to $992.1 million in 2016, an increase of 12% from $882.7
million in 2015.


INVENSENSE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 13 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of holders of
InvenSense, Inc. ("InvenSense") (NYSE:INVN) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of InvenSense by TDK
Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions Corporation (collectively,
"TDK") announced on December 21, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against InvenSense, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
and TDK, is captioned Nuzzo v. InvenSense, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-
00859 (N.D. Cal.).

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

On December 21, 2016, InvenSense entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with TDK.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, InvenSense shareholders will receive $13.00 per
share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $1.3
billion (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2017.  The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that InvenSense stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information
necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as
to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material
information with respect to the opinions and analyses of
InvenSense's financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of
InvenSense common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 12, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.


JAL CHEMICAL: "Paredes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Paredes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Country Motor Cars of Greenwich, Inc.,
JAL Chemical Co., Inc. and Mark Richard Plotts, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00428, (D. Conn., March 15, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
penalty damages and attorney's fees brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

New Country Motor Cars of Greenwich, Inc. operates an Audi
dealership located at 181 Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut
06830. JAL Chemical Co., Inc. is a concessionaire who washed and
cleaned cars at the dealership. Defendants jointly employed
Paredes as a car washer at the car washing/cleaning station. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq.
      The Hayber Law Firm, LLC
      900 Chapel Street, Suite 620
      New Haven, CT 06510
      Tel: (203) 691-6491
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      Email: apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Adam Braverman, Esq.
      450 Seventh Ave. Suite 1308
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 206-8166
      Fax: (646) 452-3828
      Email: adam@bravermanlawfirm.com


JETHOU LLC: Teti Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS TETI, individually on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JETHOU LLC; THOMAS
MARTIGNETTI; ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI; and any other related entities,
the Defendant, Case No. 152201/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unlawfully retained tips
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly instituted practices of depriving their
employees of proper minimum wage compensation and gratuities as
mandated by state law. The Defendants also instituted the policy
and practice of failing to provide employees with annual wage
theft notices as mandated by state law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Settlement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, that the settlement reached in the "Laufer"
class action lawsuit remains pending.

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

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

"If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness of
the proposed settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or
certain other circumstances, the settlement could be terminated,"
the Company said.

Johnson Controls International plc, headquartered in Cork,
Ireland, is a global diversified technology and multi industrial
leader serving a wide range of customers in more than 150
countries. The Company creates intelligent buildings, efficient
energy solutions, integrated infrastructure and next generation
transportation systems that work seamlessly together to deliver on
the promise of smart cities and communities.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Amended Complaint Filed in "Gumm" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
An Amended Complaint with Jury Demand was filed against all
Defendants by plaintiffs Paul J Pontier, Arlene D Gumm, Cynthia
Pontier, Danny High, Michael F Holzhauer, in the case, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, on Feb. 15, 2017.

Johnson Controls International PLC said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, that on August 16, 2016, a putative class
action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the
individual members of its board of directors at the time of the
merger with the Company's merger subsidiary and certain of its
officers, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as
defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under
the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights II, including that the individual defendants allegedly
breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves
by structuring the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger
subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States
federal income tax realization event for the putative class of
certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result
in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims
regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus
distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion
and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson
Controls, Inc., the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary
aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of
fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among
other things, disgorgement of profits, damages and to enjoin the
closing of the merger.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing
of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting
to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. A
hearing on the preliminary injunction motion was scheduled for
January 2017.

Johnson Controls International plc, headquartered in Cork,
Ireland, is a global diversified technology and multi industrial
leader serving a wide range of customers in more than 150
countries. The Company creates intelligent buildings, efficient
energy solutions, integrated infrastructure and next generation
transportation systems that work seamlessly together to deliver on
the promise of smart cities and communities.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. securities (KNDI)
from March 16, 2015 through March 13, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Kandi investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kandi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-995.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain areas in Kandi's previously issued financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the
first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required
adjustment; (2) in turn, Kandi lacked effective controls over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about Kandi's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On November 14, 2016, Kandi announced the abrupt resignation of
Cheng Wang as its CFO.  On this news, shares of Kandi fell $0.40
per share or over 10% from its previous closing price to close at
$3.50 per share on November 14, 2016, damaging investors.  On
March 14, 2017, Kandi revealed that its previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016 will need to be restated.  On this news shares of Kandi fell
$0.30 per share or approximately 7% to close at $4.05 per share on
March 14, 2017, further damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
15, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-995.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


KBR INC: Preliminary Agreement Reached in Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the case, In re KBR,
Inc. Securities Litigation, have reached a preliminary agreement
to settle the case.

The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our
current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief
accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013
annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The
case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas."

"KBR's Motion to Dismiss was denied in September 2015. We have
reached a preliminary agreement to settle this case as of January
11, 2017, subject to final documentation and Court approval. We
have accrued the proposed settlement amount in "other current
liabilities" on our consolidated balance sheets, net of insurance
proceeds which did not have a material impact to our financial
statements."

KBR, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a global provider of
differentiated, professional services and technologies across the
asset and program life-cycle within the government services and
hydrocarbons industries.


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Cal. Over Securities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY NG, Individual and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS LTD.,
ISAAC ISRAEL, SIMCHA ROCK, JOSEPH GUNNAR & CO., LLC, and H.C.
WAINWRIGHT & CO., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 10, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased Kitov American Depositary
Shares (ADSs) and/or Kitov warrants pursuant and/or traceable to
Kitov's initial public offering on or about November 20, 2015 (the
"Offering").  Kitov received gross proceeds of approximately $13
million from the Offering.

According to the complaint, Underwriter Defendants H.C. Wainwright
and Joseph Gunnar are liable for the false and misleading
statements in the Offering documents.  Their failure to conduct
adequate due diligence investigations was a substantial factor
leading to the harm suffered by the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Underwriter Defendants met with potential
investors and presented highly favorable but materially incorrect
or misleading information about the Company, its business,
products, plans and financial prospects, and omitted to disclose
material information required to be disclosed under the federal
securities laws and applicable regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Kitov ADSs and/or warrants, pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering, and was damaged thereby.

Kitov Pharmaceuticals is an innovative biopharmaceutical company
focused on late-stage drug development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.eom


KOHL'S CORP: Agrees to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that that Kohl's Corp. has
agreed to dismiss a third-party complaint it brought against a
contractor who handled services related to the retailer's credit
cards in a putative class action brought by cardholders who
claimed Kohl's forced customers into frivolous payment protection
and credit monitoring programs.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone signed off on the joint
stipulation to dismiss Kohl's claims against service provider
Trilegiant Corp. without prejudice, and the parties have both
agreed to bear their own costs.  Details of any other settlement
terms were not immediately available, but the complaint sought to
force Trilegiant to indemnify it against the class claims.

According to court filings, Trilegiant contracted with Kohl's to
provide "PrivacyGuard" credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance services to Kohl's credit card customers.

These services were also at the core of the putative class action
suit filed against Kohl's in 2015.  That suit attacked the
retailer and Capital One NA over payment protection and credit
monitoring services, which, taken together, the retailer called
"Kohl's Account Ease."  Each of the named plaintiffs said they
have paid more than $100 in fees related to these services.

Kohl's brought its third-party complaint against the company in
May 2016, after Judge Beetlestone whittled down the original class
action claims.  In a second amended complaint, one of the named
plaintiffs in the suit -- Jennifer Underwood -- alleged that after
accepting a telephone offer from Kohl's to enter into the program,
she did not receive any of the promised PrivacyGuard Services. She
also said that she did not provide authorization for any party to
obtain her credit report.

The third-party complaint said that Kohl's had made Trilegiant
aware of the claims, which stemmed from that company's failure to
provide required services.  But it accused Trilegiant of refusing
to indemnify, defend, or reimburse Kohl's for the legal fees it
had incurred in fighting the lawsuit.

"While Kohl's denies any liability to Ms. Underwood or the
putative class, should Ms. Underwood, or the putative class, be
awarded any sums, including any damages, costs or attorneys' fees
against Kohl's or Capital One on account of her PrivacyGuard
allegations, any such award will constitute conclusive proof that
Trilegiant breached the Agreement in failing to obtain the
required authorizations or actually provide Ms. Underwood and/or
other class members with the promised benefits or services," the
retailer said in the complaint.

Trilegiant had filed a motion seeking to have the claim dismissed,
and a hearing on the matter had been scheduled for March 13.

Attorneys for Kohl's and Trilegiant did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on March 14.

Kohl's is represented by Martin C. Bryce Jr. --
bryce@ballardspahr.com -- and Daniel JT McKenna --
mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP.

Trilegiant is represented by Matthew Borger -- mborger@klehr.com -
- of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP and Donald W. Hawthorn --
dhawthorne@axinn.com -- of Axinn Veltrop & Harlfrider LLP.

The case is Jennifer Gordon, et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Parties Await Class Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the
Gainesville class action lawsuit await a ruling from the court on
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that chemicals
and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and
have placed residents and owners of the putative class properties
at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals
at issue. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all
current property owners of single family residential properties
with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from
the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000
owners).

This case was removed to the United States District court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. Koppers Holdings
Inc. was dismissed from the case by the district court for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Class factual discovery closed in May 2015
and expert witness discovery was completed in August 2015.
Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court.

Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or limit
the testimony of the other side's experts. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on September 30, 2015 and the
response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015. A hearing
on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the parties'
motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and the
parties await a ruling from the court.

Koppers operates three principal business segments: Railroad and
Utility Products and Services ("RUPS"), Performance Chemicals
("PC"), and Carbon Materials and Chemicals ("CMC").


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Plaintiffs in "Fosbre" Case File Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal on the summary judgment entered by the
court in favor of the defendants in the case, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr.
v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P.
Weidner.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S.
District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class
period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015.

On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for
summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies
in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016.

Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on January
4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2,
2017. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. is a Fortune 500 company and a global
developer of destination properties (integrated resorts) that
feature premium accommodations, world-class gaming, entertainment
and retail, convention and exhibition facilities, celebrity chef
restaurants and other amenities.


LATITUDE 45: "Schanhals" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHANHALS, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LATITUDE 45 CATERING, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC653411 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks to
recover all wages owed, interest, attorney's fees and costs, under
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class were employed as non-exempt
employees, assembling and operating catering facilities. Defendant
dispatched Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class throughout various areas
of Southern California, and even outside California, to provide
catering services for various events.

The Defendant had a pattern and practice of not paying Plaintiff
and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked, and therefore failed to
pay all overtime earned by Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class.

Latitude 45 is the music industry's premier tour and location
catering company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Dionisios Aliazis, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone No.: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile No.: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
                  daliazis@mahoney-law.net


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Oral Arguments Set for April 17
------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2016, that oral arguments are
scheduled for April 17, 2017, in the appeal by plaintiffs in the
data privacy litigation.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer back-up
tapes from a vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims.

On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Company. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of this dismissal on November 17, 2015, to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral arguments are scheduled
for April 17, 2017.

Leidos is a global science and technology company that provides
technology and engineering services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, civil and health markets.


LUCAS DESIGNS: "Ra'palo" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Ra'palo, and Luis Galeana, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lucas Designs
Incorporated and Brian Richard Lucus, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 9:17-cv-00710, (D.S.C., March 15, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-a-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
in a workweek, liquidated damages in an equal amount and their
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lucas Design is a full service Commercial Painting Contractor
serving customers throughout Hilton Head, Bluffton, Beaufort, and
Savannah, Georgia. Plaintiffs were employed as residential and
commercial painters, interior and exterior painting of resorts,
retail restaurants, government and municipal buildings. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Tel: (800) 385-8160
      Fax: (800) 385-8160
      Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


MARTIN-BROWER CO: "Titus" Hits Missed Breaks, Uncompensated Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Titus, an individual, Plaintiff, v. The Martin-Brower
Company, LLC; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-at-00274, (E.D. Cal., March 15, 2017), seeks actual,
compensatory, special and general damages, including unpaid
minimum wages and unpaid rest period wages, as well as
restitutionary relief, injunctive relief, including that available
under the California Labor Code, unpaid premium pay, penalties and
liquidated damages, statutory attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relieffor violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

Titus was hired by Martin-Brower as a driver, paid by the mile on
a piece-rate basis for trips. Drivers are allegedly not
compensated for all rest and recovery periods and other
nonproductive time separately from their piece-rate compensation
on trips that cannot be completed in one day.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
      ACKERMAN & TILAJEF, PC
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Fax: (310) 277-0635
      Phone: (310) 277-0614
      Email: cja@ackermantilajef.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
      Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
             wgorham@mayallaw.com
             nscardigli@mayallaw.com
             vjkozina@mayallaw.com


MARTIN RESOURCE: Faces Class Action Over Stock Ownership Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Wilmington
Trust is in the crosshairs of another lawsuit challenging its role
in a company's decision to transfer corporate ownership to its
workers through an employee stock ownership plan (Guidry v.
Wilmington Tr., N.A. , D. Del., No. 1:17-cv-00250, complaint filed
3/10/17 ).

The proposed class action, filed March 10 by a former employee of
Texas oil transporter Martin Resource Management Corp., accuses
Wilmington of orchestrating a transaction that allowed Martin
shareholders to unload their stock at inflated prices by
transferring it to an ESOP established as a retirement savings
vehicle for Martin employees.  Through the ESOP, the Martin
workers overpaid for the company's stock by more than $185
million, the lawsuit claims.

Wilmington, a subsidiary of M&T Bank, is no stranger to litigation
over ESOP transactions.  The company went to trial in 2016 over
allegations it mishandled an $81 million deal involving the ESOP
connected to government security contractor Constellis Group Inc.
Wilmington was sued in January over its role in a $98 million
stock deal involving the ESOP of piping distributor ISCO
Industries Inc.

In this case, the employee claims the ESOP paid more than $375
million for stock that gave it a controlling interest in Martin.
Shortly after the transaction closed, that stock was valued at
about $190 million by an independent appraiser, the lawsuit
claims.

Moreover, the ESOP paid a "control premium" on the stock--a higher
price that accounts for obtaining a majority interest in a
corporation--without actually obtaining control over Martin's
board of directors, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware by Bailey & Glasser LLP, which also represents the
workers suing Wilmington over the ISCO and Constellis stock plans.

Wilmington didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.


MASTEC INC: Plaintiffs Keep Opportunity to File Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., a motion to dismiss was
granted in September 2016 without prejudice, but the Plaintiffs
retain the opportunity to file a second amended complaint, MasTec,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

In May 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
George L. Pita, as defendants.

In August 2015, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended
complaint was filed in October 2015. The Lawsuit was purportedly
brought by a shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged false or misleading
statements contained in, or alleged material omissions from,
certain of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") and other statements, in each case with
respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the Audit
Committee's independent internal investigation. The amended
complaint sought damages stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to
have suffered as a result of purchasing Company securities at an
allegedly inflated market price.

Although a motion to dismiss was granted in September 2016 without
prejudice, the Plaintiffs retain the opportunity to file a second
amended complaint. The Company believes that the Lawsuit was
without merit.

Mastec is an infrastructure construction company operating mainly
throughout North America across a range of industries.


MATTRESS ONE: "Marrapese" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marrapese and Brian Quinn, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mattress One, Inc.,
SOS Furniture Company, Inc., Maged Salem, Madhat Salem, Majdi
Salem and Mohanad Salem, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00627, (M.D.
Fla., March 15, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and other relief under Article X, Section 24 of the
Florida Constitution, the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Marrapese and Quinn worked as store managers for the Defendants.
They claim to receive less than minimum wage; paid only for the
time the store was open to the public and were not paid for pre
and post store hours work; had their time shaved off; and were not
paid overtime for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per work
week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
      Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
      Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
      KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
      133 North Fort Harrison Avenue
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Tel: (727) 441-4947
      Fax: (727) 447-3158
      Email: rbarack@employeerights.com
             jackie@employeerights.com
             mnadeau@employeerights.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sued Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Wienold, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, The Plaintiff, V. The Mcclatchy Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01807 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The McClatchy Company is a publicly traded American publishing
company based in Sacramento, California. It operates 29 daily
newspapers in 14 states and has an average weekday circulation of
1.6 million and Sunday circulation of 2.4 million.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meals
-----------------------------------------------
Gloria Henriquez, writing for Global News, reports that many
parents can relate: children throwing a fit because they want the
toy that comes with fast food meals.

Well, a parent in Quebec wants it to stop.

The parent, who doesn't wish to be identified, enlisted the help
of a law firm in Montreal and filed a request for a class action
against McDonald's.

"The purpose of this class action is not for me to be this big,
bad Grinch and take away all the toys from the children," lawyer
Joey Zukran said.

"The purpose is to basically enforce legislation that is already
on the books."

Quebec forbids marketing to kids under 13 years old.

Mr. Zukran believes McDonald's is advertising to kids by
displaying toy cases right at child's eye level, as well as
television screens and prints.

"The publicity in question cannot incite a child to want to buy or
to ask somebody, i.e. his parents, to buy for them,"
Mr. Zukran explained.

The Quebec Weight Coalition agrees.

"Whatever it is, good food or not, marketing to kids is not
allowed in Quebec," Corinne Voyer said.

Ms. Voyer say it's not the first time McDonald's violates the law.

They've filed several complaints on the same issue.

They believe this type of marketing is tied to health problems.

"It's a problem recognized by the World Health Organization in the
obesity epidemic," Ms. Voyer added.

Some people believe it's up to parents, not to fast food
restaurants to control what their kids eat.

"The kids can ask dad, can you buy me this? The parents can say
yes or no," McDonald's customer, Paul Muntean said.

"I think it's a good thing," Salvie Ternal said as she was leaving
McDonald's with her nephew.

"I find it's a bit interactive with toys like these."

The lawsuit is seeking financial and punitive compensation from
McDonald's.

Mr. Zukran believes it's a way to show the food giant that kids
and the law are not a game.

"We're ready to take this to the end," Mr. Zukran affirmed.

Global News reached out to McDonald's but they declined to comment
as the matter is before the court.


MDL 2326: 43,000 Mesh Cases v. Boston Scientific as of Feb. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of February
21, 2017, approximately 43,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been
asserted against the Company.

The Company said, "The pending cases are in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than
20 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege
personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical
mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing
claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of
state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over
3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in
state court in Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests. As of February 21,
2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in
principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain
plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately
31,000 cases and claims. The master settlement agreements provide
that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to
participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things,
achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds.

"Of the approximately 31,000 cases and claims approximately 12,000
have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All
settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any
liability or wrongdoing."


MDL 2342: Zoloft Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending in 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal of the District
Court's decision in the Zoloft-related case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit remains pending.

The Company said, "A number of individual lawsuits and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal
injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among
other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result
of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from
the sale of Zoloft."

"In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342)
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their actions.

"In April 2016, the District Court granted our motion for summary
judgment, dismissing the claims of almost all of the remaining
plaintiffs. In May 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


MDL 2458: Effexor Cases v. Pfizer Administratively Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the multi-district litigation, as
well as the coordinated state court proceedings in California,
related to Effexor have been administratively stayed.

The Company said, "A number of individual lawsuits and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal
injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor. Among
other types of actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result
of the purported ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages. In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine
Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2458) in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Almost
all plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. The
Multi-District Litigation, as well as the coordinated state court
proceedings in California, have been administratively stayed."


MDL 2502: Lipitor Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending in 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs' appeal of the
District Court's decision in the cases related to Lipitor to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been
filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that
the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as a result of the
purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In 2016, certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were
remanded to federal courts in California and certain state courts.
In January 2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary
judgment, dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases
pending in the Multi-District Litigation.

In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


MDL 2691: Viagra Suits v. Pfizer Still Pending
----------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. remains a defendant in the Viagra class action
lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "A number of individual and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state
courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed melanoma and/or the
exacerbation of melanoma as a result of the purported ingestion of
Viagra. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.
In April 2016, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation,
MDL-2691) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California."


MDL 2754: Lawsuits over Eliquis Product Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits related to Eliquis product has been consolidated, Pfizer
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been
filed against us and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in various
federal and state courts pursuant to which plaintiffs seek to
recover for personal injuries, including wrongful death, due to
bleeding as a result of the alleged ingestion of Eliquis.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In February 2017, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In Re: Eliquis (Apixaban) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2754)
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


MODESTO, CA: Farm Water Subsidy Spurs Debate, Class Action Looms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that an office
staff decision not to raise water prices this year led to a lively
debate on March 14 among Modesto Irrigation District leaders over
whether electricity customers truly subsidize farmers' water.

The dispute ought to be settled in court and not the boardroom,
said some leaders of MID, which faces an important legal battle
over the issue.

All evidence in past years points to a massive subsidy.  MID staff
last year said the gap between farm water revenue ($3.82 million)
and the district's cost to deliver it ($21.2 million) came to more
than $17 million.  Decades of district audits and bonding
documents back up that picture.

In the past three successive years, the board -- sensitive to
public perception of the subsidy -- raised farm water prices 10
percent, then 40 percent, then 20 percent, while leaving power
prices alone.  That pattern meant to John Mensinger -- the only
board member representing mostly city people, as opposed to
farmers -- a conscious move in the right direction, even though
the gap between true cost and revenue remains large.

However, MID staff told growers not to worry about higher rates
this year, prompting Mr. Mensinger on March 14 to publicly
question why MID apparently has abandoned the steady price
increase strategy.  After all, rates charged by MID's sister
district on the Tuolumne River -- the Turlock Irrigation District
-- are about 20 percent higher than MID's, Mr. Mensinger said.

That brought a rebuke by board members Jake Wenger, Larry Byrd and
Nick Blom.  Mr. Wenger, for example, said TID upped water rates
107 percent to cover equipment upgrades, while MID has nothing of
substance to show for its cumulative 70-percent rate hike.

MID knew that farmers would need to pump more groundwater than
normal in the recent drought, Mr. Wenger said.  But with this
winter's record storms, he said, MID should encourage farmers to
water as much as possible to recharge aquifers.

Mr. Byrd said to Mr. Mensinger, "Your loyalty should be to your
constituents of MID." Byrd said he believes MID's current rates
are sufficient.

Assistant General Manager John Davids acknowledged a "delta"
between farm water costs and revenue in years past, but also said
replenishing groundwater benefits everyone.  Past calculations of
the pricing gap apparently don't take that benefit into account.

Mr. Blom revealed that the district is preparing a new cost-of-
service study and hinted that this time it will include the
groundwater angle.  Results should show that costs and revenue are
"relatively close," Mr. Blom said, asking for patience until the
study is done.

Mr. Mensinger and others said they look forward to seeing results
of the study.  After the meeting, spokeswoman Melissa Williams
said such studies help inform decisions on rates.

Mr. Wenger repeatedly urged the board not to stray into legal
discussions.  "I think you're stepping on some dangerous waters
here when we're involved in a lawsuit on this very issue," he
said. Any amount of board bickering is irrelevant because it won't
change the outcome of the class-action lawsuit, Wenger said.

The MID board has not raised power rates since before their
attorney in 2012 warned that doing so without letting customers
vote might be illegal under state law.

The district's average profit from selling electricity, or income
minus expenses, has been more than $93 million a year since 2010,
according to bonding documents. MID uses the extra money to repay
debt, build reserves and cover the farm water subsidy.

The next court date in the class-action lawsuit is scheduled for
July 31.

The MID board unanimously agreed on March 14 that:

   -- Growers can start taking water about March 22.

   -- Customers will get 42 vertical inches of water, plus 6
inches more, if they want it.  The extra is deemed "replenishment
water" for its contribution to the aquifer.

   -- Individuals can move water among parcels that each owns,
leases or rents.  Other drought-time programs, such as selling
portions of one's water share on the open market to other MID
customers, are discontinued.


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss Hospital Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's
motions to dismiss and to transfer a class action lawsuit are
subject to briefing and review by the District Court.

The Company said, "On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class
action suit against us and Sandoz Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium
Injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing
the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and
Actavis, we and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from
selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude
competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation
of federal anti-trust laws."

"NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, we and Sandoz Inc.
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Hearings on the motions were held before a U.S. magistrate in
April 2016 and February 2016, respectively.

"On September 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a Report and
Recommendation to the District Court to deny the motions to
dismiss and to transfer. These motions are subject to briefing and
review by the District Court.

"While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we
believe this suit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously
defend ourselves in this litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals is a biotechnology company focused on
developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and
novel therapeutics for autoimmune disease.


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods
Group are now in discovery, Mondelez International, Inc. said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading
of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to
the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in
its investigation."

"On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods
Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft
Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to
manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated
position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-
competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical
Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil
monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million
for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the
Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus
post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction
prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating
specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and
costs and fees."

"In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft
Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market
manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now
in discovery.

"Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat
futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in
the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an
unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment;
costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified
relief.

"In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez
Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties
are now in discovery. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution
Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012,
we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other
payments in connection with the CFTC action."

Mondelez is one of the world's largest snack companies.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Settlement Nears Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that
the $209 million settlement of a suit filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) moved closer to being
approved on March 6.  If it passes scrutiny, it would provide
approximately 40,000 student-athletes across the country with
upwards of $6,700 each to cover the differences between athletic
scholarships and the cost of attending school.

The suit -- which was filed back in 2014 against the NCAA,
Pac 12, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern Conference, and Atlantic
Coast Conference -- alleged that the defendants conspired with
each other to cap financial aid given to players so that it was
below the cost of attending college, violating antitrust laws.

Shawne Alston, who initially brought up the suit, said that the
amount given to players was far below what the competitive market
would pay, according to Courthouse News.  Mr. Alston, who played
running back for the West Virginia Mountaineers, said that he had
to borrow over $5,000 to cover the difference between the school's
price and the scholarship he received.

Just one problem . . .

In 2015, Wilken designated three classes for the lawsuit
comprising Division I football players, Division I men's
basketball players, and Division I women's basketball players.
And, the NCAA announced a settlement that would reimburse athletes
who played from March 5, 2010 to the present. However, one problem
is holding back approval of the agreement.

Wilken stated that although the settlement seems like a good one,
it doesn't go far enough to inform athletes if they're eligible to
receive money.  She noted that a comprehensive agreement should
include a way for athletes to find out if they qualify and allow
them to dispute the amount they are receiving.  She informed the
parties that she would not grant preliminary approval of the
settlement until these conditions were met.

Scott Cooper, a representative for the Pac 12 Conference, has
stated that attorneys have set up a reserve fund to ensure that
anyone mistakenly left out of the settlement is compensated.

"We had anticipated that the process would be one in which we
would initially send checks out and there would be a second round
in which we would pick up anybody who didn't receive either the
amounts they expected or claimed they were entitled to money that
hadn't been sent.  So that was the purpose of the reserve," he
said.


NATIONAL CAR: Senator Rubio Contacts Rental Fraud Car Victim
------------------------------------------------------------
SubscriberWise, the nation's largest issuing CRA for the
communications industry and the leading provider of big data,
advanced-analytics, and business-rules technology, confirmed on
March 12 that company founder and child protector David Howe has
been contacted by United States Senator Marco Rubio's Legislative
Correspondent Celia Glassman.

"Following a highly productive meeting in Tampa with Shauna
Johnson, Senator Rubios staff assistant, I received a warm
introduction and invitation from Ms. Celia Glassman, Legislative
Correspondent for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, confirmed David Howe,
crime-victim consumer advocate and survivor.  "I want Ms. Glassman
to know how much I appreciate her courteous and prompt
communication.  In particular, I want Ms. Glassman to know how
much I value the invitation and opportunity to share her time and
conversation with me.

"I also want to again express my sincere gratitude to Senator
Rubio for availing his staff and Congressional resources,
following the so called 'human error by National Car Rental at the
SW FL Fort Myers International Airport last October
(http://www.winknews.com/2017/02/22/fort-myers-mans-complaint-
among-many-against-rental-car-firm/).  Yes, I'm talking about the
same' ding and dent scam that has plagued so many victims that
consumer advocate and journalist Christopher Elliott has lost
count: http://elliott.org/blog/enterprise-determines-damaged-
rental/.

"The photographic evidence of criminal fraud -- including the
whistleblower -- conjecture from a National Car Rental manager
exposing the possibility of an off-site garage where cars are
criminally damaged and subsequently reported against the victim
-- is under the jurisdiction and investigation of the Lee County
Port Authority police detectives.

"One day after the police launched their crime investigation, the
6-week rental car nightmare and financial extortion attempt came
to an immediate and abrupt end.  A National regional manager
called to apologize for the 'human error, Howe confirmed.  "The
letter relieving me of the $502.80 liability was also received
that same day.

"In February, I executed a contractual agreement with a legal
consideration and review of racketeering, class-action, civil
theft, negligence, and punitive damages with the Wilbur Smith
Firm, Ft. Myers, Florida, added Mr. Howe.

"In addition to the comprehensive and detailed evidence, which I
previously provided during a 90-minute in-depth presentation to
senior investigators -- including Director Victoria Butler -- at
the Florida Attorney Generals Office, I look forward to continuing
the discussion with Ms. Glassman, and hopefully, Senator Rubio and
the U.S. Congress.

"In fact, I intend to include circumstances from my frequent
rental encounters to advocate for consumers everywhere.  The
primary goals for Senator Rubio and his Congressional colleagues
are predictable and uniform federal standards which are so
desperately needed to end the predatory and even criminal behavior
that has financially and emotionally harmed far too many for far
too long," concluded Mr. Howe.

                      About SubscriberWise

SubscriberWise launched as the first issuing consumer reporting
agency exclusively for the cable industry one decade ago.  The
company filed extensive documentation and end-user agreements to
access TransUnions consumer database.  TransUnion approved the
request as part of a pilot project in 2007.  In 2009,
SubscriberWise and TransUnion announced a joint marketing
agreement for the benefit of Americas cable operators.  Today
SubscriberWise is a risk management preferred-solutions provider
for the National Cable Television Cooperative.

SubscriberWise contributions to telecom are quantified in the
billions of dollars annually.

SubscriberWise is a U.S.A. federally registered trademark of the
SubscriberWise Limited Liability Co.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Tipton" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TIPTON, an individual on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, vs. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00907940-C U-0 B CXC (Cal.
Super., County of Orange, March 10, 2017), raises causes of action
for (1) failure to pay overtime and double time compensation; (2)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (3) waiting
time penalties; and (4) unfair competition and business practices
under the California Code of Civil Procedure and California
Business and Professional Code.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC is a mortgage, refinance and loan
servicing company rendering services to the general consumer
public.  Plaintiff is a former employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rod Bidgoli, Esq.
     Ali Razavi, Esq.
     IRVINE LAW GROUP, LLP
     1551 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 740
     Santa Ana, CA 92705
     Phone: (949) 229-1035
     Fax: (949) 653-1277
     E-mail: rbidgoli@IrvineLawGroup.com


NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Golden Gate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Neustar, Inc., Lisa A. Hook, James G. Cullen, Paul D.
Ballew, Joel P. Friedman, Mark N. Greene, Ross K. Ireland, Paul A.
Lacouture, Deborah D. Rieman, Michael J. Rowny, and Hellene S.
Runtagh, Case No. 1:17-cv-00104-UNA (D. Del., February 1, 2017),
is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Neustar, Inc.,
to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Neustar will be acquired by Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc. for
$33.50 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, Neustar filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Neustar stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) Neustar management's projections, utilized by the Company's
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, in its financial
analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by J.P. Morgan in
connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii)
the background of the Proposed Transaction. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such
information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

Moreover, the Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will
unlawfully divest Neustar's public stockholders of the Company's
valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To
remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such problems are remedied.

Neustar, Inc. is a private equity firm with over $15 billion of
capital under management and is headquartered in San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


NORTHERN TIER: Settles TCPA Class Action for $3.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq. --julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com
-- and Mark C. Mao, Esq. -- mark.mao@troutmansanders.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the
parties in Soular v. Northern Tier Energy, LP et al. recently
filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $3.5 million
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action in the
District of Minnesota.  The three named plaintiffs in the case
alleged that they received unsolicited marketing text messages
from the defendant convenience store, known as SuperAmerica, to
purchase goods or services.

After engaging in extensive arm's-length negotiations before
retired United States Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff and
retired Minnesota District Court Judge Richard Solum, the parties
reached a settlement.  The parties have proposed a settlement
class of "[a]ll persons and entities within the United States who
received a text message from SuperAmerica to a cellular telephone
through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system from
January 1, 2012 through April 1, 2015."  The class consists of
approximately 175,000 individuals.

SuperAmerica has agreed to pay $3.5 million in cash and in-store
awards.  Each class member who submits a timely and valid claim
will receive a check in the amount of $50 as well as a gift card
for SuperAmerica worth $50.  Class counsel will receive $800,000
(or 30% of the dollar amount of the approved claims).


OCWEN FINANCIAL: 2 Securities Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation continues to defend two securities
class action lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We have previously disclosed several putative
securities fraud class action lawsuits filed against Ocwen and
certain of its officers and directors that contain allegations in
connection with the restatements of our 2013 and first quarter
2014 financial statements and our December 2014 Consent Order with
the NY DFS, among other matters. Those lawsuits have been
consolidated and are pending in federal court in Florida. In
September 2015, the presiding federal court dismissed the
consolidated securities fraud class action. That action has since
been re-filed in federal court. On December 22, 2015, the
presiding federal court dismissed in part the action and it
remains pending. On November 17, 2016, the presiding federal court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

"In January 2016, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate
securities action brought on behalf of certain putative
shareholders of Ocwen.

"Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, Ocwen is
unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these
lawsuits or any potential impact they may have on us or our
operations. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these
lawsuits are not successful, our business, financial condition,
liquidity and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected."


ONEWEST RESOURCES: Faces "Patel" Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
TINA PATEL, in her representative capacity, the Plaintiff, v.
ONEWEST RESOURCES, LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC653645 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks to
recover all wages earned under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings the class and representative action, saying
the Defendant's policy and practice of requiring employee to clock
in and out an internet-based time keeping system that employees
could only access with computer running and connected to a
website, resulted in Defendant's failure to pay all regular and
overtime wages due, failure to maintain records showing hours
worked, untimely meal periods, inaccurate wage statements, and
wages due at termination.

Onewest Resources is a commercial physical research company
located in Pasadena, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Baker, Esq.
          Mike Curtis, Esq.
          BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 1064
          E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com
                  mcurtis@bakerlp.com


PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payer Claims Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that motions to dismiss remain pending as
to the Effexor XR end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The Company said, "Beginning in May 2011, actions, including
purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts
against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth
and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the
extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of
the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased,
indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of
Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from
June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay
in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its
territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in
certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for
Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for
Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement
with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each
of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since
June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey."

"In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement
agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser
plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered
partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims,
including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer
plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending
as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims."


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Suits in Canada Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against Pfizer Inc. related to Chantix/Champix in Quebec,
Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the
Ontario action, Pfizer said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 2008, purported class
actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District
of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages."

"In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who
ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31,
2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified
neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian
legislation as the result of their relationship with a class
member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert
claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation.

"The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis."

                         HIS Assets Sold

Pfizer Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has
completed the sale of its global infusion therapy net assets,
Hospira Infusion Systems or HIS, which is facing class suits
related to intravenous saline solution.

The Company said, "Beginning in November 2016, purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and
certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output
and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the
prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble
damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and
an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for
intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013."

"On February 3, 2017, we completed the sale of our global infusion
therapy net assets, HIS, which includes intravenous saline
solution, to ICU Medical."


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Faces Hormone Therapy Consumer Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that a certified consumer class action is
pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of
its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in
December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who
purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement products between January
1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages
therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
including a full refund of the purchase price.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Maximiliano" Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Maximiliano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80342, (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs of the instant suit and such other and further relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a company engaged in the
business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices
located at 120 Corporate Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23502.
Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff arising
from an alleged delinquency on a credit card debt from Capital One
Bank (USA) N.A.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's initial communication
contained the words "This communication is from a debt collector,
but is not an attempt to collect a debt," and included the
verification notice that is only to be given to the consumer
within 5 days of the initial communication in connection with the
collection of any debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE WASTE: "Serrano" Suit to Recoup Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Serrano, III, Marqueeta Daniels and Allen R. Kelly, III
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Waste Solutions of Texas, Inc. and
Waste Connections, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00100, (S.D.
Tex., March 15, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as waste disposal drivers and
were responsible for hauling waste and garbage to the appropriate
facilities throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com


QIAGEN NORTH: Arcare TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ARCARE, INC. v. QIAGEN NORTH AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00120-BSM (originally Ark. Circ., Lonoke
County, January 25, 2017) has been removed from the Lonoke County
(Ark.) Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, according to a docket entry dated March 2,
2017.

The Arcare, Inc. suit challenges Defendant's policy and practice
of faxing unsolicited advertisements without providing an opt-out
notice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Qiagen North American Holdings, Inc. is a company that
develops technologies and products for separating and purifying
nucleic acids and for sampling and assaying procedures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jerry Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY LAW FIRM
     Post Office Box 500
     Lonoke, AR 72086
     Phone: (501) 676-5770
     Fax: (501) 676-7807
     E-mail: jkelly@kellylawfirm.net

        - and -

     Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
     Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 West Seventh Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 312-8500
     Fax: (501) 315-8505
     E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
             rpulliam@cbplaw.com

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
     WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
     200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
     Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
     Phone: (501) 212-1234
     Fax: (501) 376-9442
     E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com


R.M. GALICIA: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Los Angeles County consumer claims a debt
collection company invaded his privacy with frequent calls.

Crispin Carreon filed a complaint individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated on March 4 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against R.M. Galicia
Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he and
other similarly situated individuals have suffered from anxiety,
feelings of annoyance, invasion of privacy, general discomfort and
incurred incoming call charges as a result of defendant's
incessant calls.  The plaintiffs hold R.M. Galicia Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly continued to make
calls despite plaintiff's explicit demand to stop the improper
calls and unlawfully utilized an autodialer and/or an artificial
voice.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, statutory damages, treble damages, costs, attorney's
fees and further relief as may be just.  He is represented by Todd
M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-01764


RAYONIER INC: Settles Securities Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. on March 13 disclosed that the Company has reached
an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action
litigation pending against it in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida (the "District Court"), In re
Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-
JBT.  The settlement will resolve the claims currently asserted
against all defendants in the action, including the Company and
three former executive officers.  The terms agreed upon by the
parties contemplate a settlement payment to the class of $73
million, all of which will be funded by the Company's directors
and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers.  The Company
expects to incur approximately $740,000 of costs in the first half
of 2017 for reimbursement of certain pre-litigation legal expenses
in connection with the settlement.  The proposed settlement is
subject to completion of formal documentation and approval by the
District Court following notice to all class members.

David L. Nunes, President and Chief Executive Officer, stated: "We
are pleased to have reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs and believe that settling the case at this time is in
the best interests of the Company and our shareholders.  We look
forward to putting this matter behind us and continuing to focus
our time and attention on strategic initiatives to build long-term
value for our shareholders."


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Parties in "Strader" Suit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the real
estate business litigation, Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH
Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California), are proceeding with discovery.

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses
comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January
31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either
(a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of
the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other
lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement
services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation
of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring
business to one another under agreements or arrangements.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are
time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On
April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and a third
amended complaint on May 12, 2016.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motion
on October 6, 2016, without prejudice to defendants' ability to
move for summary judgment after discovery. The parties are
proceeding with discovery.

The case raises significant claims and rests in part on certain
interpretations of RESPA by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau ("CFPB"), which are the subject of pending industry
litigation in various jurisdictions.  As with all class action
litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many
uncertainties.  We believe that we and the joint venture have
complied with RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and
existing regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however,
that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently
certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage
award, penalties and other remedies. The Company will vigorously
defend this action.

Realogy is a franchisor of residential real estate brokerages with
some of the most recognized brands in the real estate industry,
the largest owner of U.S. residential real estate brokerage
offices, one of the largest U.S. and a leading global provider of
outsourced employee relocation services and a significant provider
of title and settlement services.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Suit v. Morgan Keegan Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal by
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Morgan Keegan and a
former Morgan Keegan analyst remains pending.

In July 2006, Morgan Keegan and a former Morgan Keegan analyst
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by a Canadian
insurance and financial services company and its American
subsidiary in the Circuit Court of Morris County, New Jersey.
Plaintiffs alleged civil claims under the RICO Act and claims for
commercial disparagement, tortious interference with contractual
relationships, tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage and common law conspiracy.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a multi-year
conspiracy to publish and disseminate false and defamatory
information about plaintiffs to improperly drive down plaintiffs'
stock price, so that others could profit from short positions.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants' actions damaged their
reputations and harmed their business relationships.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for a number of categories of
alleged damages, including lost insurance business, lost
financings and increased financing costs, increased audit fees and
directors and officers insurance premiums and lost acquisitions.

In September 2012, the trial court dismissed the case with
prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. Oral argument was held
in October 2016. This matter is subject to the indemnification
agreement with Raymond James.

Regions Financial Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama that operates in the South,
Midwest and Texas.


REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Doctors Want Court to Reinstate Rifle Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a group of doctors who treated
mass shooting victims is asking the state Supreme Court to
reinstate a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used in the
Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Lawyers for the 10 doctors said on March 14 that they planned to
file a friend-of-the-court brief asking the justices to overturn a
lower-court decision in October that dismissed the lawsuit against
Remington Outdoor Co., of Madison, North Carolina.  They said
makers of military-style rifles should be held liable for injuries
the rifles cause, a claim Remington contested.

The doctors include emergency room physicians and trauma surgeons
who treated patients shot by military-style rifles including
AR-15s in attacks at the Newtown school, in San Bernardino,
California, and in Colorado at Columbine High School and an Aurora
movie theater.

"These military weapons are completely distinct from handguns and
rifles used for hunting or self-defense," lawyers for the doctors
said in their brief.  "They can cause enormous human carnage,
destruction and chaos with their high energy and rapid fire
bullets that leave gaping holes and turn surrounding tissue and
organs into goo in large numbers of victims in a matter of
seconds.

Gunman Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to kill 20
first-graders and six educators at the Newtown school in December
2012.  He had killed his mother before going to the school, and he
killed himself as police arrived at the school.

The lawsuit against Remington, Bushmaster's parent company, was
filed in state court by a survivor and relatives of nine people
killed in the Newtown shooting.  The lawsuit said the Bushmaster
rifle is too dangerous to sell to the public and its maker should
be held liable for the Newtown shooting under a negligent
entrustment law.

Lawyers for Remington said the rifle was made, distributed and
sold legally.

A judge in October sided with Remington's argument that the
lawsuit was barred by a federal law that shields gun manufacturers
from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.  That
decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, with the
plaintiffs saying the lawsuit was allowed under an exemption to
the federal law.


RHINEBECK REALTY: Faces "Sofia" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Sofia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rhinebeck Realty, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01298 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rhinebeck Realty, LLC owns and operates a real estate firm in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
      JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
      2501 Jody Court
      North Bellmore, NY 11710
      Telephone: (516) 783-9662
      Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
      E-mail: James@civilrightsNY.com

RIDGEFIELD, CT: Later Start Times at High School May Prompt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivanha Paz, writing for The Ridgefield Press, reports that support
for later start times at the high school has kept Board of
Education meetings heated throughout the fall and winter.

And now, with spring on the horizon, the conflict might be
reaching a boiling point with parents starting to look at what
other towns are doing to force a scheduling change.

Superintendent Karen Baldwin has said at recent board meetings
that although she recognizes the health benefits of later start
times, there is no time to implement them in the 2017-18 school
budget.

In a press release March 3, Ridgefield Public Schools said the
board would begin work on a plan that would implement revised
start times for the 2018-19 school year.

"The Strategic Planning Committee is committed to exploring the
feasibility of changing school start times.  In connection with
this, during the next few months, the committee will be seeking
input from the various groups that would be affected by a change,"
said board member and committee chair James Keidel.  This feedback
will be of paramount importance to the committee in order to
develop a plan for the Board to consider that reflects the various
options available and the obstacles that such a change may
present."

Meredith Harris, a spokesperson for the Ridgefield chapter of
Start School Later (SSL), wasn't satisfied with that statement .

Talking to The Press March 6, Ms. Harris said there is definitely
enough time to push back start times for the 2017-18 school year.

"A lot of people are skeptical on the press release, so we are
going to continue to push because we feel it is completely
doable," she said.

"I have been informed that there parents of a student who are
considering filing a class action suit against a town for failing
to implement later start times at a high school.  I believe once
it is filed, others will follow their lead.  The suit is not being
filed in Ridgefield," she said in a follow up email with The
Press.

"I do not want BOE to spend time discussing defense of nonexistent
lawsuits rather than implementing healthy start times."

Background

Later high school start times have been a topic of discussion for
decades, since the first district in Minnesota to implement them
saw positive effects in health and academic performance back in
1995.

Research has proven that teenagers' brain growth is actually
stunted from waking up too early.

"Now we have some data, and when we have the data we have a
responsibility to act on it," said Pam Hartnett of SSL's
Ridgefield chapter, which was founded in September 2016. "And
that's where I'm disappointed with the Board of Education."

Wilton implemented later high school start times in 2003, she
said, and Greenwich followed suit last fall.

"They just took the leap and did it, and they never looked back
it," said Hartnett of Wilton's schedule change.

"We have very capable people on our Board of Education. I'd like
to see them doing more with their abilities."

Other studies prove that later start times reduce risks of
athletic injuries and car accidents, according to Hartnett.

Students

A student petition was also started that has collected more than
125 signatures.

"As students, we realize that we lack the perspective the BOE has
on this topic; while their points are valid, so are ours," reads
the petition.

"The voice of the student body must be heard. If Ridgefield High
School succeeds while sleep-deprived, imagine what we could
achieve while well-rested."

Hartnett said she's experienced firsthand the change in sleeping
patterns that occur when children reach their teenage years.

"My 14-year-old was that kid who always woke up early -- 5:30 a.m
-- as soon as the sun went up," she said.

According to Hartnett, going to bed earlier is simply not an
option for many adolescents.

"Now we go to bed at 9 p.m. and he tells me, 'I lay there for an
hour, I can't fall asleep,'" she told The Press.

Education Logistics

The board hired a Montana-based consultant, Education Logistics,
to look at bus routes to find potential savings and also come up
with possible plans to implement later start times.

Harris and Harnett said they should have hired a consultant a long
time before Feb. 20, when the contract was actually signed.

Harris also pointed out that the contract with Education Logistics
does not clearly address later start times.

"The board has taken on much bigger challenges," she said.  "This
is not a big one . . .  this is doable."


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Violated Privacy Laws, "Baron" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN BARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC. and
ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC d/b/a MARIANO'S, the Defendants, Case No.
2017CH03231 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for Roundy's Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) violations, for himself and similarly situated
Roundy's employees in the State of Illinois.

The Defendants require employees to use a biometric fingerprint
time clock, but they do so in Illinois in violation of the BIPA.
Roundy's employees in Illinois have been required to clock "in"
and "out" of their work shifts by swiping an identification card
and scanning their fingerprints, and Roundy's biometric computer
systems then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or
"out."

BIPA expressly obligates Roundy's to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it. Roundy's fingerprinted Illinois employees like
Plaintiff without properly obtaining the above-described written
executed release, and without making the required disclosures
concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of
biometric identifiers or information.

Roundy's is multi-state operators of retail supermarkets and
grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 787 2717


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Smart TVs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
Samsung was hit with a proposed nationwide class action on March
10 in New Jersey federal court over its alleged practice of
secretly recording consumers' private conversations through its
Smart TV devices, a capability the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency has used to spy, according to a recent WikiLeaks
revelation.

A complaint filed by Joshua Siegel claimed the Smart TV devices
made by Samsung Electronics America Inc. and its Korean parent
company Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., which come with the
capability to respond to human voices through a built-in "always
on" recording device, are actually being used by the company to
intercept and record consumers' private communications inside
their homes for profit, a violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.

What's more, Siegel contended that Samsung has failed to safeguard
its devices' capability, resulting in third parties like the CIA
being able to remotely hack into the devices and turn them into
hidden spying systems, as was disclosed by WikiLeaks in a trove of
released documents purporting to reveal the full capability of the
agency's hacking arsenal.

"While Samsung has marketed the convenience of its voice-
recognition capable Smart TV, it has negligently and/or recklessly
failed to consider or properly address the privacy consequences of
its Smart TV's configuration, specifically its susceptibility to
hacking of private consumer information," Siegel wrote.

Representatives for Samsung did not immediately return a request
for comment on March 13.

According to Siegel, Samsung explains in its privacy policy that
some of the voice commands collected by the television's voice
recognition feature may be transmitted to a third-party service
that converts speech to text. But what the company doesn't
disclose is the fact that everything a user says in front of the
TV is recorded and shared, Siegel contended.

"Consumers have no reason to expect that defendants engaged in
second-by-second tracking and recording by surreptitiously
recording content and sending it back to their own servers and
then transmitting that information to third parties," Siegel
wrote. "Further, defendants' representations were not sufficiently
clear or prominent to alert consumers to their practices related
to defendants' recording of consumers' private recordings in their
home."

Samsung's actions "are an unconscionable commercial practice" that
violate New Jersey's consumer protection law, Siegel contended.

The Long Beach, New York, resident is seeking injunctive relief
and compensation for damages caused by Samsung's deceptive and
misleading practice and is looking to represent anyone in the U.S.
who purchased or leased a Samsung Smart TV since January 2012,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Siegel isn't the first to take issue with Smart TV's feature.
Back in February 2015, the consumer privacy group Electronic
Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the Federal
Trade Commission asking for an investigation into the Samsung
device.

Mr. Siegel is represented by Michael E. Berman of Berman Class
Law.

Counsel information for Samsung wasn't immediately available.

The case is Joshua Siegel v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. et
al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Case number was not immediately available.


SANDERSON FARMS: Motions to Dismiss Illinois Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2017, that defendants' motions
to dismiss the amended class action complaints in in Illinois
against poultry producers remain pending.

The Company said, "Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016,
Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of
their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action
lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler
chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois."

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The
complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
The court has consolidated each of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and each of the indirect purchaser complaints into
one case.

On October 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended
complaints in each case, and on November 23, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed second amended complaints. On January 27, 2017 the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints.

"The lawsuits are in the earliest stages and we intend to defend
them vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome
of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company
could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse
effect on our financial position and results of operations," the
Company said.


SANDERSON FARMS: New York Antitrust Class Suit in Earliest Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2017, that a class action
lawsuit in New York is in its earliest stage and the defendants
intend to defend it vigorously.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer,
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws. The complaint also alleges that the material
misstatements were made in order to, among other things,
"artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson
Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants thereby
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuit is in its earliest stage and the defendants intend to
defend it vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the
Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material,
adverse effect on our financial position and results of
operations.


SANDERSON FARMS: Oklahoma Class Suit in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2017, that a class action
lawsuit in Oklahoma is in its earliest stage and the defendants
intend to defend it vigorously.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and
our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other
poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleges
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on
compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect
of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants. The complaint seeks treble
damages, costs and attorneys' fees."

"The lawsuit is in its early stages, and we intend to defend it
vigorously. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could
be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operations."


SEVENTY SEVEN: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on March 14 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
Western District of Oklahoma, case no. 5:17-cv-00191, on behalf of
shareholders of Seventy Seven Energy, Inc. ("Seventy Seven Energy"
or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: SVNT) who held Seventy Seven Energy
securities and have been harmed by Seventy Seven Energy and its
board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of
Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (PTEN).

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Seventy Seven
Energy stockholders stand to receive 1.7725 Shares of Patterson-
UTI common stock for every Seventy Seven Energy share they own
(the "Merger Consideration").  The complaint alleges that this
offer is inadequate and alleges that the Registration Statement in
Form S-4 (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company's financials and the
transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 14, 2017.  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.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341


SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Maximiliano" Files FDCPA Class Action in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Maximiliano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SIMM Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
9:17-cv-80341, (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of the
instant suit and such other or further relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

SIMM Associates, Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 800
Pencader Drive, Newark, Delaware, 19702. Defendant is licensed in
Florida as a consumer collection agency.

Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff arising
from an alleged delinquency on a Comenity Capital Bank account.
However, in their letter communications, Defendant falsely and
misleadingly identified "PAYPAL CREDIT" as the creditor to whom
the debt is owed, thus misleading the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders May Still Get Recovery
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Lodewyke, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a financial
expert has spoken exclusively to Lawyers Weekly ahead of the
announcement of Slater and Gordon's recapitalisation plan, sharing
his predictions for the ailing firm.

It has been reported Slater and Gordon's negotiations with its
lenders could be finalised as early as March 17.  In light of
this, Mark Humphery-Jenner, an associate professor of finance at
UNSW Business School, spoke exclusively to Lawyers Weekly about
the likely outcome.

The academic said that although it will not be certain until the
recapitalisation plan is announced, he believes the lenders are
likely to agree to swap their debt for equity in Slater and
Gordon.

"There's a possibility that that would be either: a) effectively
acquiring the whole firm, or b) potentially, more likely,
acquiring so many shares that every other shareholder is diluted,"
he said.

"That's more likely because there are reports that the lenders
want the firm to remain listed."

Slater and Gordon was removed from the ASX 300 on March 10,
effective March 20, which Mr Humphery-Jenner said was not
surprising.  Given its debt of more than $750 million, compared
with its market capitalisation of around $30 million, he said a
debt for equity swap was the most plausible way forward.

"It's unlikely that if [the lenders] were to liquidate the firm
they would be able to obtain back all the capital that they have
lent, and we can see that because some of these lenders are
already willing to take haircuts on the debt that they have," he
said.

Mr Humphery-Jenner's prediction comes despite the typical
reluctance of banks to swap debt for equity.  He said that Slater
and Gordon's dire circumstances will likely prompt its lenders,
which include Westpac and NAB, to run the risk of holding equity
in the firm.

"[The big banks] typically don't want a debt for equity swap
because typically it creates prudential issues, in that equity is
more risky than debt, and they typically don't want to have equity
on their balance sheet that's understandable, from bank regulatory
perspectives," he said.

"The issue for banks of course is whether they believe they would
get very much, if anything, back in a liquidation."

In the event of a debt for equity swap, the value of current
shares would probably be highly diluted, Mr Humphery-Jenner said.
However, he said the long-term impact of this on Slaters' share
price is not immediately obvious.

"The reduction in share price, on the one hand, could come from
that dilution," he said.

"On the other hand, if this is the only plausible way to save the
company, there could potentially be some benefit at least in the
long term for those shareholders, in that saving the company, for
a person who holds the shares at the moment, is more valuable than
letting the firm go bankrupt.

"The shareholders who had already potentially sold their shares,
or have access to the class action, those shareholders may still
be able to recover depending on the extent to which Slater and
Gordon can rely on liability insurance."

However, Mr Humphery-Jenner said the ongoing ASIC investigation
into Slater and Gordon's operations could limit its capacity to
access liability insurance.

"If liability insurance is not available, then [current]
shareholders are unlikely to be able to recover as much. A nd
secondly, Slater and Gordon lacks assets to be able to pay out on
all of those claims, so therefore their avenues for recovery are
more limited if the ASIC investigation finds there's relevant
wrongdoing," he said.

Mr Humphery-Jenner took a pragmatic view on the probability of
Slater and Gordon's eventual recovery, listing three key hurdles
facing the firm.

"There are a few underlying issues with it recovering: in the
short term, Slater and Gordon has actually stated that it's
suffering a lack of confidence in its product and services.  That
lack of market confidence in actually hiring them is clearly going
to deter their recovery in the short term.

"A second short-term deterrent is that employees could easily
leave the company in fear of Slater and Gordon going bankrupt. The
lack of human capital could then reduce its chances of recovery.

"Then, thirdly, there are several other large players in this
similar space.  So Maurice Blackburn, for example, is a large
player in this class actions space.  This could seriously impact
its ability to recover because it is now going to need to compete
against a much larger incumbent competitor."

Add to these factors the towering class action brought against
Slater and Gordon by Maurice Blackburn, on behalf of Slaters'
former shareholders, and the outlook is bleak.

"The lenders, assuming they do this debt for equity swap, clearly
believe Slater and Gordon has the potential to continue as a going
concern," Mr Humphery-Jenner said.

"So in the long term it could potentially recover, although it
would certainly take a very long time for it to do so.  And it
certainly is contingent upon it not falling over in the short
term."

Disclosure statement: Mark Humphery-Jenner was a shareholder in
Slater and Gordon and lost money on these shares.  He elected not
to participate in the class action.


SPECTRA ENERGY: Texas and Delaware Class Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corp is defending class action lawsuits in Texas
and Delaware, Spectra said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We and our board of directors are named as
defendants in six putative class action lawsuits filed by
purported stockholders of Spectra Energy that challenge the
proposed merger with Enbridge. The lawsuits include Paul Parshall
v. Spectra Energy Corp, et al., 12809-CB, filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, and Mary Lincoln v. Spectra
Energy Corp, et al., 16-cv-03019, Joseph Koller v. Spectra Energy
Corp, et al., 16-cv-03059, Joseph Costner v. Spectra Energy Corp
et al., 16-cv-03065, John L. Williams v. Spectra Energy Corp et
al., 16-cv-03069, and Joseph McMillan v. Spectra Energy Corp et
al., 16-cv-03130, all filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas. The complaints allege, among
other things, that Spectra Energy and its board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties (in the Delaware lawsuit) and
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder (in the Southern District of Texas
lawsuits), as applicable, by issuing or causing to be issued an
allegedly materially misleading and incomplete preliminary proxy
statement in connection with the proposed merger."

"Enbridge and its subsidiary are also named as defendants in the
Delaware lawsuit, and the Delaware complaint alleges, among other
things, that Enbridge and its subsidiary aided and abetted Spectra
Energy's board of directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things, an injunction
against the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent it is
already implemented, declaratory relief, costs and attorneys'
fees, and/or damages. We believe the actions are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them."


STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Quinn, writing for Newser, reports that the makers of an
internet-connected sex toy that harvested data about its users'
intimate moments have settled a lawsuit from outraged customers.
Standard Innovation Corp., the company behind the "We-Vibe" smart
vibrator, has agreed to pay up to $10,000 to customers who used a
smartphone app that allowed one partner to remotely control
settings like vibration intensity, Fortune reports.  Those who
bought a We-Vibe without using the app are entitled to a $199
payout under the class-action suit, which was settled in federal
court in Chicago. The Canadian company has agreed to pay out a
total of around $3.75 million.

The lawsuit was filed by a woman who learned via a DEF CON hacking
convention talk that her vibrator was tracking information,
including temperature and vibration level, and sending it back to
the company's servers in Canada without her consent, Ars Technica
and Engadget report.  The company, which stresses that no user
data was compromised, says it has improved security features and
privacy notices and is still working "with leading privacy and
security experts to enhance the app."


STEAK 'N SHAKE: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Pay Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett and Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, report that
burger chain Steak 'n Shake Operations Inc. asked an Illinois
federal judge on March 14 to toss a proposed class action filed by
managers who allege they were improperly classified as exempt from
overtime pay, saying a nearly identical collective action has been
filed in Missouri and the newer case was duplicative.
Illinois resident and lead plaintiff Corinna Clendenen, a manager
at one of Steak 'n Shake's 400 restaurants nationwide, filed suit
in January saying that she and other current and former managers
should have been able to collect overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Steak 'n Shake said on March 14 that the suit
overlaps with a conditionally certified collective action in the
Eastern District of Missouri -- Drake et al. v. Steak N Shake --
and that both sets of plaintiffs are even represented by the same
counsel.

"Clendenen has filed a virtually identical case in a new court
which will unreasonably and unnecessarily increase the burdens on
both the courts, and on Steak N Shake, by increasing its
litigation costs and the disruption to its business," the company
said.  "Indeed, the claims in this case could have been raised in
the first instance in Drake, since one of the two named plaintiffs
in that matter, Randy Smith, worked in Illinois."

The company said that courts in the Seventh Circuit have long
recognized that in such circumstances it is appropriate to dismiss
the later-filed action to avoid duplicative litigation that will
only increase litigation costs and waste judicial resources.

"Dismissal of this case would conserve those resources, avoid the
same parties litigating the same issues, and eliminate the
possibility of inconsistent results," the company said.  "Such an
outcome is particularly appropriate where, as here, the second
action appears to be asserted for strategic reasons to increase
Steak N Shake's defense costs and use of resources, and/or to give
plaintiffs 'two bites' at the proverbial apple."

Ms. Clendenen had said that in her two-year stint as a manager for
Steak 'n Shake restaurants in Illinois, she often worked 55 hours
per week because that was the schedule she was given.

Ms. Clendenen also alleged that Steak 'n Shake did not keep
accurate records of the hours worked by managers -- the third rung
on a restaurant's leadership structure below "general manager" and
"restaurant manager."

Ms. Clendenen's proposed class includes any current or former
managers for Steak 'n Shake's corporate-owned retail restaurants
at any time in the three years prior to the suit's filing. The
putative class excludes any Steak 'n Shake location within the
"St. Louis Group Market" -- a collection of stores within the
city's vicinity.

The suit claims that Steak 'n Shake's classification of managers
as overtime exempt is a deliberate violation of the FLSA.
Ms. Clendenen's two-count complaint seeks the overtime wages she
said Steak 'n Shake owes its managers a court mandate that the
company change its policy going forward.

Ms. Clendenen's attorney Brendan John Donelon --
brendan@donelonpc.com -- told Law360 on March 14 that there are
different claims in the Missouri action and the Illinois action.

"Their basic claim is that they're the same lawsuits, but the
cases don't overlap," he said.

Counsel for Steak 'n Shake did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on March 14.

Ms. Clendenen is represented by Brendan John Donelon and Daniel
Craig -- dan@donelonpc.com -- of Donelon PC.

Steak 'n Shake is represented by David K. Haase --
dhaase@littler.com -- and Catherine S. Lindemann --
clindemann@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Clendenen v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., case
number 1:17-cv-01045, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.


SUNOCO INC: Defending Suits over Groundwater Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Sunoco, Inc.
and/or Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), along with other refiners,
manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, are defendants in lawsuits
alleging (methyl tertiary butyl ether) MTBE contamination of
groundwater.

The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and
municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and
governmental authorities. The plaintiffs primarily assert product
liability claims and additional claims including nuisance,
trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and
deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases
seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek
natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in six cases,
including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and two others by the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a
companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those
at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Four of these cases
are venued in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York
federal court. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and
Pennsylvania cases assert natural resource damage claims.

Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of 19
sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in
the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case.

The initial set of 19 New Jersey trial sites are now pending
before the United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey, the Hon. Freda L. Wolfson for the pre-trial and trial
phases. Judge Wolfson then referred the case to United States
Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Lois H.
Goodman.

Judge Goodman conducted a status conference with all of the
parties and inquired whether the parties will engage in a global
mediation and instructed the parties to exchange possible mediator
names. All parties agreed to participate in global settlement
discussions in a global mediation forum before Hon. Garrett Brown
(Ret.), a Judicial Arbitration Mediation Service mediator.

The remaining portion of the New Jersey case remains in the
multidistrict litigation. The first mediation session with Judge
Brown is scheduled for November 2 through November 3, 2016.  In
early 2017, Sunoco, Inc. and two other co-defendants reached a
settlement in principle with the State of New Jersey, subject to
the parties agreeing on the terms and conditions of a Settlement
and Release agreement.

It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the
remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Management
believes that an adverse determination with respect to one or more
of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of
operations during the period in which any said adverse
determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse
determination would have a material adverse effect on the
Partnership's consolidated financial position.

In November 2016, ETP and Sunoco Logistics entered into a merger
agreement providing for the acquisition of ETP by Sunoco Logistics
in a unit-for-unit transaction. Under the terms of the
transaction, ETP unitholders will receive 1.5 common units of
Sunoco Logistics for each common unit of ETP they own. Under the
terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco Logistics' general partner
will be merged with and into ETP GP, with ETP GP surviving as an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE. The transaction is
expected to close in April 2017.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization (approximately $20.97 billion as
of January 31, 2017). It is managed by its general partner, Energy
Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its general
partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. ("ETP LLC"), which is
owned by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded
master limited partnership ("ETE").


SUNOCO LOGISTICS: Deadline to Answer Merger Suit Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants'
dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the
Sunoco Logistics merger litigation have not yet been set.

Between January 6, 2017 and February 8, 2017, seven purported ETP
common unitholders ("Plaintiffs") separately filed seven putative
unitholder class action lawsuits challenging the merger and the
disclosures made in connection with the merger. The lawsuits are
styled (a) Koma v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-00060-G, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Koma Lawsuit");
(b) Ashraf v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00118-B, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Ashraf
Lawsuit"); (c) Shure v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-UNA, in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Shure Lawsuit"); (d) Verlin v.
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00045-UNA,
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(the "Verlin Lawsuit"); (e) Duany v. Energy Transfer Partners,
L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-UNA, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Duany Lawsuit");
(f) Epstein v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et. al., Case No,
1:17-cv-00069, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Epstein Lawsuit") and (g) Sgnilek v.
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00141, in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Sgnilek Lawsuit" and collectively with the Koma Lawsuit, Ashraf
Lawsuit, Shure Lawsuit, Verlin Lawsuit, Duany Lawsuit, and Epstein
Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). The Koma Lawsuit, Ashraf Lawsuit, Duany
Lawsuit, and Epstein Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, ETP
GP, LLC, ETE, and the members of the ETP Board. The Shure Lawsuit
and Verlin Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, the members of
the ETP Board, ETE, Sunoco Logistics, and Sunoco Logistics GP. The
Sgnilek Lawsuit is filed against ETP, ETP GP, ETP GP LLC, ETE, the
members of the ETP Board, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP
(collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection
with the merger. According to Plaintiffs, the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly misleading because, among
other things, it fails to disclose certain information concerning,
in general, (a) the background and process that led to the merger;
(b) ETE's, ETP's, and Sunoco Logistics' financial projections; (c)
the financial analysis and fairness opinion provided by Barclays;
and (d) alleged conflicts of interest concerning Barclays, ETE,
and certain officers and directors of ETP and ETE. Based on these
allegations, and in general, Plaintiffs allege that (i) Defendants
have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the ETP Board have
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs in the
Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit also allege that Sunoco Logistics
has violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also
assert, in general, that the terms of the merger (including, among
other terms, the merger consideration) are unfair to ETP common
unitholders and resulted from an unfair and conflicted process.
Based on these allegations, the Sgnilek Lawsuit alleges that (a)
the ETP Board, ETP GP, ETP GP LLC, ETP, and ETE have breached the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties, and (b) Sunoco
Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP have aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants
from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until
Defendants disclose the allegedly omitted information summarized
above. The Koma Lawsuit and Sgnilek Lawsuit also seek to enjoin
Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless
and until the ETP Board adopts and implements processes to obtain
the best possible terms for ETP common unitholders. To the extent
that the merger is consummated before injunctive relief is
granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs
also seek damages and attorneys' fees.

Defendants' dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the Lawsuits have not yet been set. Defendants cannot predict
the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed
subsequent to the date of the filing of this annual report, nor
can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve such litigation. Defendants believe the
Lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
the Lawsuits and any other actions challenging the merger.

Sunoco Logistics is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership
that owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a
geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline,
terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets which are used
to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs") and refined products. Sunoco Partners LLC, a
Pennsylvania limited liability company and the general partner of
Sunoco Logistics Partners, is a consolidated subsidiary of Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P., a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership ("ETP"). The principal executive offices of Sunoco
Partners LLC, our general partner, are located at 3807 West
Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073 (telephone (866) 248-4344).
Its website address is http://www.sunocologistics.com/


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Baker, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-01698 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Synergetic Communication Inc. operates a debt collection firm in
New York. [BN]

Denise Baker is a pro se plaintiff.


TACOS EL GAVILAN: Roman Seeks All Wages Due Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR ROMAN, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. TACOS EL GAVILAN, INC., a
California Corporation, CINGULAR STAFFING, INC., a California
Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC653410 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb., 2017), alleges that the
Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced against
Plaintiff Class the following unlawful practices and policies: a)
willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for all
hours worked, including both regular and overtime; b) willfully
refusing to permit Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class from taking meal
and/or rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; c)
willfully refusing to compensate Plaintiff and certain members of
the Plaintiff Class wages due and owed at the end of the
employment relationship between Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class'
employment and Defendants; and d) willfully refusing to furnish to
Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class accurate itemized wage statements
upon payment of wages.

Tacos El Gavilan is a busy local chain eatery for quick-serve
Mexican cooking, from tacos to mulitas, plus a salsa bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Treana L. Allen, Esq.
          Keren B. Serrano, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  tallen@mahoney-law.net
                  kserrano@mahoney-law.net


TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Class Action of Diabetic Supplies Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News Company, reports
that purchasers of disposable lancets and glucose test strips
cannot compel their pharmacies to seek refunds of sales taxes paid
on the items, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled on March
13.

Div. Two, in an opinion by Justice Brian Hoffstadt, upheld the
dismissal of a class action complaint, saying the remedy the
plaintiffs were seeking -- an order compelling the pharmacies to
apply to the State Board of Equalization for refunds -- was not
authorized by statute.  Nor did the plaintiffs show that there
were "unique circumstances" that would justify judicial creation
of a new tax refund remedy, the court said.

The plaintiffs sued 10 large pharmacy retailers, along with the
State Board of Equalization.  They alleged in the complaint that
they have diabetes, and must test their blood sugar by using skin
puncture lancets and glucose test strips in order to determine
their glucose levels, enabling them to know when to inject insulin
to reduce their glucose levels.

Board Regulation
Under a board regulation dating back to 2000, they alleged,
lancets and test strips are exempt from sales tax, but the
pharmacies have continued to collect it.  The purchasers, however,
are unable to make refund claims because the pharmacies, not the
customers, pay the tax and the pharmacies have no incentive to
make claims because they would have to pass the refunds back to
the customers, the plaintiffs asserted.

The plaintiffs' theories were that the pharmacies are breaching
implied contracts with their customers by paying an illegal tax
and not seeking refunds, and that doing so constitutes an unfair
business practice.  They also claim that the pharmacies commit
negligence and violate the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by
misrepresenting the items as taxable.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley Jr. sustained
demurrers by all defendants to all causes of action.  He cited
Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, which affirmed
the principle that a customer cannot seek a refund of sales taxes
paid by a retailer.

Justice Hoffstadt, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial
judge was correct.

He cited legislation that gives retailers the option of charging
customers a "sales tax reimbursement to the sales price" for
taxable items, or paying the sales tax itself.  The law creates a
rebuttable presumption that the retailer, by showing a sales tax
charge on the receipt, has entered into an agreement with the
customer allowing the retailer to collect reimbursement for sales
tax.

A retailer that believes it has paid sales tax not legally owed
has three years to file an administrative refund claim with the
board. If the board rejects the claim, the retailer has 90 days to
challenge the denial in court.

If the board or the court concludes that the tax was not owed, the
retailer can either return the "reimbursement" to the customer or
allow the state to keep the funds.

Case Distinguished
Justice Hoffstadt distinguished Javor v. State Board of
Equalization (1974) 12 Cal.3d 790, which allowed motor vehicle
purchasers to sue dealers in order to enforce regulations that the
board to ensure that the buyers obtained the benefit of a sales
tax refund resulting from the retroactive repeal of the federal
excise tax on motor vehicles.

The Javor court held that such actions were appropriate under the
unique circumstances of the case.

Based on that and other cases, Justice Hoffstadt wrote, there are
three prerequisites to judicial recognition of a non-statutory
remedy for the unauthorized collection or overpayment of a tax--
the lack of a statutory remedy, a "consonan[ce]" between the
remedy and statutory tax refund procedures, and a "precursor
determination" that a refund was due and owing.

The jurist rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a prior
determination of the issue is unnecessary. Granting relief without
such a determination, he wrote, would be an "affront" to the state
Constitution, which commits to the Legislature the authority to
establish remedies for taxpayers entitled to refunds.

Justice Hoffstadt went on to conclude that the plaintiffs failed
to show any of the three prerequisites.

The plaintiffs, he said, have other remedies--they can ask the
board to audit the pharmacies, they can initiate rulemaking before
the board, or they can sue the board for declaratory relief.

Consonance Requirement
The consonance requirement is not met, the justice said, because
creation of the remedy sought by the plaintiffs would be
inconsistent with a statute that expressly authorize a retailer to
waive its right to a refund, as well as with the "safe harbor"
provision that allows a retailer to choose between refunding tax
to the consumer or leaving the money with the state.

The precursor-determination requirement, Justice Hoffstadt said,
was not met because "the Board has yet to decide whether the
retail pharmacies -- and by extension, the customers -- are
entitled to a refund.

He noted that the regulation exempting relied on by the plaintiffs
only applies, by its terms, when the items are "furnished by a
registered pharmacist" and "used by a diabetic patient . . . in
accordance with a physician's instructions."  There have been no
determinations, he pointed out, as to the validity of those
qualifiers or whether the plaintiffs' purchases satisfied them.

The case is McClain v. Sav-On Drugs, 17 S.O.S. 1309.


TEMPUR SEALY: Denial of Class Certification Bid Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it is
unclear what additional actions the plaintiffs may take in light
of the denial of class certification in the case, Alvin Todd, and
Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International,
Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and
Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25,
2013.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California.

On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in
the case but with an amended petition adding additional class
representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek
certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.

The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in
the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion
to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and
the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss allowing certain claims to proceed.

The Court considered class certification motions in August 2016,
and in September 2016, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.

"It is unclear what additional actions the plaintiffs may take in
light of the denial of class certification," the Company said. As
a result, the outcome of the case remains unclear, and the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the
Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient
coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no
assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur Sealy is the world's largest bedding manufacturer.


TEXAS CHIROPRACTIC: "Prothro" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Travis William Prothro, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Texas Chiropractic
College, Foundation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00834,
(S.D. Tex., March 15, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage
compensation, liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Texas Chiropractic College Foundation, Inc. operates Texas
Chiropractic College. As part of Defendant's educational mission,
it operates a clinic on campus called Moody Health Center where
members of the public can receive chiropractic treatment.

Plaintiff, a student, was required to work the front desk, make
appointments, take and process payments, audit bills for accuracy
for insurance claims, perform janitorial work, clean equipment and
do laundry. Prothro was not paid the federally mandated minimum
wage for all work performed during the hours worked in each
workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


TILE SHOP: May 30 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has
scheduled a hearing on whether to grant final approval of a class
action settlement for May 3, 2017.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, three of its
outside directors, two of its former directors, and certain
companies affiliated with the directors, are defendants in a
consolidated class action brought under the federal securities
laws and now pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption Beaver County Employees'
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al.

Several related actions were filed in 2013 and subsequently
consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors who represent
classes consisting of (1) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock
between August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "class period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (2) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's December 2012 registration
statement, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933. Six firms who were underwriters in the December 2012
secondary public offering are also named as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose certain related party transactions in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases.  The plaintiffs assert
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Subsequent to December 31, 2016, the parties have entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") dated January 13, 2017
to settle all claims.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, $9.5 million will be paid on behalf
of all defendants.   The Company has agreed to pay $5.0 million of
that amount and the insurance company providing coverage for the
initial tier of the Company's directors and officer's policy has
agreed to pay $4.5 million of the settlement.  The Company and the
insurance provider subsequently transferred money to an escrow
account that had been established to hold the settlement fund.
The settlement is subject to court approval.  The court has
scheduled a hearing on whether to grant final approval of the
settlement for May 3, 2017.

The Tile Shop was founded in 1985.  The Company is a specialty
retailer of manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and
maintenance materials, and related accessories in the United
States.


TORONTO-DOMINION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of The Toronto-Dominion Bank securities (TD) from
December 3, 2015 through March 9, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for TD Bank
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the TD Bank class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1079.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TD Bank's wealth asset growth and increased fee-based
revenue was spurred by a performance management system that led to
its employees breaking the law at their customer's expense in
order to meet sales targets; (2) TD Bank illicitly increased
customer's lines of credit and overdraft protection amounts
without their knowledge; (3) TD Bank illicitly upgraded customers
to higher-fee accounts without informing them; (4) TD Bank lied to
customers as to the risk of TD Bank's products; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about TD Bank's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
11, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1079.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


TORONTO-DOMINION: May 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pawar Law Group on March 13 announced a class action lawsuit
on behalf of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) investors who
purchased TD Bank stock between December 3, 2015 and March 9,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The suit is for recovery of
investor losses.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, visit the firm's
website at http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/the-toronto-dominion-
bank/ or email Vik Pawar, Esq. at vik@pawarlawgroup.com or call
toll free at (866) 999-0873.

No class has been certified in the above action yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TD Bank's wealth asset growth and increased fee-based
revenue was spurred by a performance management system that led to
its employees breaking the law at their customer's expense in
order to meet sales targets; (2) TD Bank illicitly increased
customer's lines of credit and overdraft protection amounts
without their knowledge; (3) TD Bank illicitly upgraded customers
to higher-fee accounts without informing them; (4) TD Bank lied to
customers as to the risk of TD Bank's products; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about TD Bank's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 11, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  You may join the case here:
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/the-toronto-dominion-bank/or email
Vik Pawar, Esq. at vik@pawarlawgroup.com


ULTA SALON: Faces "Chang-Luna" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CHANG-LUNA; and ESTEBAN SOLIS, Plaintiffs, vs. ULTA SALON,
COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; ULTA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00214 (E.D. Cal., March 10, 2017), is
a collective action that seeks recovery for violations of state
and federal overtime wage provisions, as well as all other
applicable damages and penalties legally recoverable, as a result
of Defendants' actions in allegedly requiring Plaintiffs and Class
Members to work more than 40 hours per week and/or more than eight
and 12 hours in a day without proper overtime compensation.  The
case asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek statutory
penalties including wages, all legal fees and any other relief as
this court deems just.

Plaintiffs and the purported Class Members were/are employed by
Defendants as "Salesperson," "Cashier," "Cash Wrap Coordinator,"
"Operation Specialist," "Lead," "Consultant", "Cast Member,"
"Manager" paid on an hourly basis, and/or "Sales Consultant" at
any Ulta Beauty location.

Plaintiff CHANG-LUNA was employed by ULTA as a "Cashier," "Cash
Wrap Coordinator," and/or "Cast Member."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
     David D. Deason, Esq.
     DEASON & ARCHBOLD
     17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
     Huntington Beach, CA 92647
     Phone: (949) 794-9560
     E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
             david@yourlaborlawyers.com

        - and -

     John M. Norton, Esq.
     MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
     4105 East Broadway, Suite 190
     Long Beach, CA 90803
     Phone: (562) 433-3208


VCG HOLDING: Dancers File Class Suit Over Denied Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGINA SANTICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VCG HOLDING CORP., LOWRIE
MANAGEMENT, LLLP, and DENVER RESTAURANT CONCEPTS LP D/B/A PT'S
SHOWCLUB, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00631 (D. Col., March 10,
2017), alleges that Defendants have and continue to unjustly and
illegally enrich themselves at dancers' expense, denied Plaintiff
and other Class members their earned minimum wages, overtime pay,
and the full retention of their tips, charging the Plaintiff and
similarly situated dancers fees to work, and subjecting them to
fines.  The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

VCG HOLDING CORP. is a formerly publicly traded company that holds
ownership of over twenty adult entertainment establishments in
Colorado, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine,
and North Carolina.

The purported class consists of young women working as dancers in
adult entertainment establishments.

     Mari Newman, Esq.
     Darold W. Killmer, Esq.
     Andy McNulty, Esq.
     KILLMER, LANE &NEWMAN, LLP
     1543 Champa St., Ste. 400
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 571-1000
     Fax: (303) 571-1001
     E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
             dkillmer@kln-law.com
             amcnulty@kln-law.com


VCG HOLDING: Strippers File Class Action Over Predatory Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Mitchell, writing for The Denver Post, reports that a company
that owns strip clubs across Denver and the U.S. gets a piece of
every dollar strippers make and even that is not enough, according
to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver.

Georgina Santich also had to pay bouncers and disc jockeys.
Instead of getting paid a wage, Ms. Santich actually had to pay
Denver PT's Showclub to take off her clothes.  And after working
for the club for nine years, when Ms. Santich failed to meet the
company's appearance standards, she was fired.

Ms. Santich is the named plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed
March 10 by Denver civil rights attorneys Mari Newman, Darold
Killmer and Andy McNulty.  A federal judge must certify the
lawsuit as a class action.  The class encompasses more than 500
women, the lawsuit says.

"This case highlights the exploitation of one of the most
vulnerable groups of employees, young women working as dancers in
adult entertainment establishments," Newman said in a statement.
"This is a predatory business that preys on young women who it
hopes will be powerless to speak up because of society's
stigmatization of the work they are doing."

The lawsuit was filed against VCG Holding Corp. of Lakewood;
Lowrie Management and Denver Restaurant Concepts.  It seeks
reimbursement for unpaid back wages, overtime pay, fees and shared
tips on behalf of strippers who performed at the company's clubs
the past three years.

"(Santich) and other class members were . . . obligated to support
themselves exclusively through the tips received from customers
for performing exotic stage, table, lap, topless, nude and/or VIP
room dances," the lawsuit says.

PT's Showclub essentially required strippers to pay them illegal
"kickbacks" and fines to strip clubs that illegally misclassified
the dancers as independent contractors, the lawsuit says.

VCG owns five strip clubs in Denver and 10 strip clubs in
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine and North
Carolina.  The Denver clubs include La Boheme, The Penthouse Club,
PT's All Nude, the Diamond Cabaret & Steakhouse and PT's Showclub,
the lawsuit says.

"Defendants' business model is predicated entirely on the
exploitation of (Santich) and other class members in order for the
companies and their owners to earn a profit," the lawsuit says.

The fees, fines, additional fees and charges added up -- so much
so that strippers often recouped less than minimum wage, the
lawsuit says.

Strippers have to pay "house fees" to the club ranging from $30 to
$60 each night depending on their time slot.  The higher fees are
paid for premium late-night time slots, the lawsuit says.
Ms. Santich was required to use valet parking at $5 a night and
because she didn't have access to drinking water, she had to pay
$6 for bottled water.

The club employs someone whose job is to count how many songs a
disk jockey played while Ms. Santich stripped, to ensure she would
pay a $5-per-song fee, the lawsuit says.  The fees could add up to
$100 a night, the lawsuit says.  Strippers had to pay the club $5
of the $20 table dance fee, the lawsuit says.  The dancers also
absorbed 50 percent of the cost of promotional fees.

She had to pay $150 an hour to the club when she danced in a VIP
room, which costs clients $450 an hour.  Strippers who failed to
dance on stage on schedule were fined $50.  When Ms. Santich
worked 12 hours a day, she was not paid overtime, the lawsuit
says.

"Defendants reaped the benefits of the substantial profits from
door charges and drink sales without paying plaintiff and class
members a wage," the lawsuit says.

The strip clubs violate the federal Fair Standards Labor Act, the
Colorado Labor Code and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, the lawsuit
says. For example, workers are entitled to all of their tips by
law.

Strippers had to wear approved outfits and high heels at all
times.  They were forbidden from using lotion, gels or glitter
during performances, the lawsuit says.

Strippers do not have the skills required to elevate their status
as independent contractors, the lawsuit says. They were not
selected based on their dancing experience or skill, it says.

PT's Showclub fired Ms. Santich on Feb. 13 after working at the
club for nine years when she did not meet the club's physical
appearance requirements.

Last month, a federal judge in Michigan gave preliminary approval
to a $6.5 million settlement in a dozen wage-and-hour law claims
against Deja Vu Consulting, which owns 132 strip clubs.  Those
cases hinged on the classification of strippers as independent
contractors. A similar case against Deja Vu and nine Michigan
clubs was settled in 2011 for $11.3 million.


VCG HOLDING: Sued for Allegedly Exploiting Exotic Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Garcia, writing for CBS4, reports that attorneys in Denver
have filed a national lawsuit against a chain of strip clubs.

The class action suit accuses PT's Show Club, PT's All Nude,
Diamond Cabaret, La Boheme and The Penthouse Club of exploiting
their exotic dancers.

The 26-page lawsuit complaint filed in district court on March 10
involves hundreds of dancers in 20 strip clubs across eight
states.

VCG Holding Corp., the lawsuit defendant, operates all five
Colorado adult entertainment establishments that are named in the
suit.

Mari Newman, the attorney who filed the suit, said that the
company's lack of fair compensation for the dancers' work is
illegal.

"In many cases, dancers are young women, often times single
mothers, who are doing their best and are working and working and
working and just can't get ahead," Newman said.  "And these clubs
that are very, very well-funded take advantage of the dancers
because they know they can."

Newman said that the company exploits vulnerable women by charging
them to work at the clubs, rather than paying them to work there.

The suit alleges that at the start of each shift, dancers are
required to pay a stage fee, then additional fines for each dance
they perform -- more fees for VIP rooms -- and that the dancers
are even charged for the water they drink while on the job.

On top of that, dancers have to turn over part of their tips to
other workers, according to Newman.

"Not only are the clubs getting away with not paying the dancers,
they're then using the dancer's own tips to pay the DJs and the
bouncers," Newman said.  "The entire model is so profoundly unfair
to the dancers.  It's really mind-blowing."

CBS4's Melissa Garcia left messages on March 12 for Troy Lowrie,
CEO of VCG Holding Corp., but did not hear back.  She also sought
comment from local club management, who politely declined.

While the suit is asking for back-pay for all the dancers who
attorneys say should have been earning at least an hourly minimum
wage, Newman said that the lawsuit's ultimate goal is to change
the way the industry operates.


VIRGINIA: DMV Case Over Automatic License Suspension Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Harmon, writing for Newsplex, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed the class action lawsuit filed against the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles over its automatic license suspension
program.

In an opinion issued on March 13, Federal Judge Norman Moon
concluded, "That unflinching command may very well violate
Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process and equal
protection."

However, he also concluded that the matter could not be determined
by the U.S. Western District of Virginia, because the allegations
involve actions by Virginia state courts.

According to Judge Moon, those types of allegations need to be
handled in an appeals court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in July 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center filed a suit
against the DMV and its commissioner, Richard Holcomb.

The suit, filed on behalf of Damian Stinnie and others, alleged
that the DMV automatic license suspension program
unconstitutionally punishes people for being poor and unable to
pay court fees and fines.

"Although we are disappointed in the Court's decision, we stand
steadfast with our clients and the nearly one million long-
suffering Virginia drivers who will continue to endure a never-
ending cycle of debt and incarceration, so long as the law forces
them to choose between driving illegally and forsaking the needs
of their families," the Legal Aid Justice Center said in a
statement on March 13.  "We will not stop fighting until the
automatic suspension law is repealed."

The DMV countered the suit is actually going after a policy
created by the Virginia court system and should not be handled in
federal court.

On March 13, the judge agreed, dismissing the suit entirely.


VIZIO HOLDINGS: "Queenan" Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Queenan, on behalf of themselves, and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio,
Inc., Vizio Inscape Services, LLC and Vizio Inscape Technologies,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00462 (C.D. Cal., March 15,
2017), seeks to block further distribution, marketing and sales of
non-compliant Vizio Smart TVs.  The suit further seeks
compensatory, exemplary, punitive, statutory penalties and
damages, including interest, refund with interest, reasonable
attorney fees, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and such other
relief under the Video Privacy Protection Act, California Consumer
Records Act, Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Mr. Queenan purchased a VIZIO Smart TV, Model No. M55-C2, in
Miami, Florida. He connected his VIZIO Smart TV to the Internet.
He claims that VIZIO would collect his viewing data and
disseminate that information to third parties. At no time did
Plaintiff consent to having his viewing information collected and
disseminated to third parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Andre Mura, Esq.
      Linda Lam, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      505 14th Street, Suite 1110
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 350-9700
      Fax: (510) 350-9701
      Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
             amm@classlawgroup.com
             lpl@classlawgroup.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Fails to Compensate Emissions Claims Outside US
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theo Leggett, writing for BBC News, reports that it has been a
year and a half since the diesel emissions scandal at the German
carmaker Volkswagen first came to light.

Since then, the company has agreed to pay substantial compensation
to people in the US who bought cars equipped with illegal
software, capable of disguising their true emissions levels.

But Volkswagen has not yet made any payments to buyers in the UK
or elsewhere in Europe, even though millions of cars sold in the
region were also fitted with similar software.

Nor does it have any plans to do so.

However, efforts are now being made to force the company to change
its mind, orchestrated by the European Commission.  The Department
for Transport has been involved in the discussions.

Defeat devices

The scandal first became public in the US in September 2015.
It emerged that roughly 600,000 diesel vehicles had been fitted
with "defeat devices" -- software which could recognise when a car
was being tested, and turn on its emission controls systems.
They could then be turned off again when the car was being used on
the road.  That would improve its performance, but also
dramatically increase the levels of harmful nitrogen oxides it
produced.

The software had been developed by VW's engineers because they
realised that their cars were not capable of both passing strict
US emissions tests, and offering high levels of performance.

But the scandal was not confined to the US.  It soon became
apparent that cars sold all around the world had also been fitted
with defeat devices -- including about eight million in Europe.
They included cars sold under the Audi, Skoda, Seat and Porsche
brands, as well as Volkswagens.

Consumer anger

News of what Volkswagen had been doing prompted angry reactions
from buyers, many of whom demanded compensation.

In the US, they got what they wanted.

Under the terms of a $10bn settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission, VW agreed to buy back or repair all of the affected
vehicles, and provide their owners with a cash sum of at least
$5,000.

Buyers in Canada received a similar settlement, but only after
taking out a class action lawsuit against the company.

In Europe, things have been rather different.  Although Volkswagen
is in the process of recalling the affected vehicles and modifying
them, it has refused to provide any recompense for buyers.

Legal niceties

There is a good reason why Volkswagen has made payments in the US.
It simply had no choice.  What it was doing was clearly illegal.

The company has admitted that it deliberately set out to
circumvent the emissions testing process, and designed its defeat
device accordingly.  It also lied to regulators about what it was
doing.

The US authorities take a very dim view of this kind of thing. As
a result Volkswagen is facing a total bill in the US of $21bn.
That includes large criminal and civil fines, as well as the cost
of buybacks and compensation.  If VW had decided to fight the
charges rather than settling, it could have been even bigger.
It has also pleaded guilty to criminal charges of conspiracy to
commit fraud and obstruction of justice.

Europe complicated

In the UK and other European countries, the situation is more
complicated.

Although it is in the process of recalling millions of vehicles
fitted with software capable of cheating emissions tests,
Volkswagen denies actually doing anything illegal.

It says, for example, it "does not accept that a defeat device
prohibited under UK law was fitted to any of the affected UK
vehicles".

It also insists: "This issue has not caused any loss of engine
performance or any increase in running costs. Nor has it changed
fuel economy figures, CO2 emission figures or the vehicles' tax
status.

"In addition the value of the vehicles has not been negatively
affected by this issue."

So no compensation, it argues, is needed. Similar arguments are
used in other European countries.

Put simply, Volkswagen doesn't believe that in Europe the "defeat
devices" were actually defeat devices -- in the strictest legal
sense.

It also maintains that the software wasn't actually needed to pass
emissions tests in Europe, which were less stringent than those in
the US.

Combined action

Nevertheless, efforts are under way in Brussels to force
Volkswagen to pay up.

The European Commission hosted a meeting of 22 consumer protection
authorities from across the continent.

They agreed to prepare collective action against the company.
It is understood this could involve individual authorities
imposing co-ordinated fines on Volkswagen for alleged breaches of
consumer law, as well as taking a joint "administrative decision",
which could be used to support litigation against the company in
national courts.

According to people within the Commission, the main aim is to put
pressure on the carmaker, in the hope that it will voluntarily
provide compensation.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said afterwards that
the government took "the unacceptable actions of VW extremely
seriously" and was "pushing them to compensate the UK consumer".
Even if these efforts fail, VW could yet be forced to make
substantial payouts.

It is facing a range of class action lawsuits, representing
hundreds of thousands of disgruntled buyers -- and if it loses,
the bill could be very steep indeed.


WALGREEN CO: Flores Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Flores, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Walgreen Co.,
an Illinois corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 17-557424 (S.D. Fla., Feb., 2017), seeks
to recover compensation for all hours worked, overtime pay, and
minimum wage under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a Shift Leader on
July 7, 2014. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff's job duties
included but were not limited to interacting with customers and
overseeing other employees.

The Plaintiff and class members were not paid for all overtime
hours despite routinely and consistently working more than 8 hours
per day and 40 hours per week.

The Walgreen Co. is an American company which operates as the
second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind
CVS Health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tracey Scanlan, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C.
          555 California St #4925
          San Francisco, CA 94104


WESTIN LONG BEACH: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
UNITE HERE on March 14 disclosed that for over two years, the
Westin Long Beach hotel has been subject to a labor dispute with
the Los Angeles affiliate of UNITE HERE, a labor union
representing 270,000 workers across North America.  There is no
end in sight to the conflict.  Private equity manager AEW Capital
Management ("AEW") oversees the hotel on behalf of its owner, the
Utah Retirement Systems, according to UNITE HERE.

The Westin is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of housekeepers, restaurant workers, and banquet servers,
alleging that their employer committed wage-and-hour violations
related to missed rest breaks, missed meal breaks, and off-the-
clock work, which remains ongoing according to UNITE HERE.

Furthermore, the Westin has engaged in what UNITE HERE has alleged
are unfair labor practices, including threatening to reduce
workers' wages if they unionize and making statements implying
that employees who supported the Union were not loyal. In March
2016, a regional office of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), issued a complaint pursuant to charges filed by UNITE HERE
Local 11.  These charges remain pending.

In September 2016, UNITE HERE filed a complaint under the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises against Natixis Global
Asset Management, of which AEW is a subsidiary.  The complaint
alleges that the Westin has violated these international business
standards by among other actions, failing to perform due diligence
in order to avoid and address adverse impacts affecting the
Westin's workers resulting from violations of both domestic law
and the OECD Guidelines.  The complaint also remains pending.

Employees at the Westin are requesting a fair process that allows
workers to exercise their right to choose whether to organize in
an atmosphere of mutual respect free from management intimidation
and harassment, says UNITE HERE.

Other investment managers active in the hospitality industry have
demonstrated their ability to manage labor disputes in a way that
protects investors from labor disruption while not infringing upon
workers' rights, according to UNITE HERE.


WORLD WIDE: Faces "Pawlak" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Pawlak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. World Wide Signs Systems, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-357 (E.D. Wis., March 10, 2017), alleges that World
Wide Signs has a common policy and practice of impermissibly
rounding the start and end times of its hourly employees' work
hours so as to deny such employees compensation for all hours
worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

World Wide Signs Systems, Inc. is a wholesale sign manufacturer
that commercially manufactures electric sign products for national
sale out of its headquarters located in Bonduel, Wisconsin.

Plaintiff Pawlak is a former employee of World Wide Signs who
worked as a Vinyl Layer and Zunn Operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Summer Murshid, Esq.
     Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
     Timothy Maynard, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     222 East Erie, Suite 210
     P.O. Box 442
     Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
     Phone: 414-271-8650
     Fax: 414-271-8442
     E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
             ljohnson@hq-law.com
             tmaynard@hq-law.com


WYNYARD: Shareholders Sue Over Financial Forecast Misstatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hutching, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that directors of
failed Christchurch-based software company Wynyard must take
ultimate responsibility for its collapse last year, fund manager
Lance Wiggs said.

Voluntary administrators from KordaMentha, Neale Jackson and Grant
Graham -- now appointed liquidators -- have reported a recovery of
$2.8 million with $177m still owed to unsecured creditors.

Mr. Wiggs said the message to investors was to be very sceptical
and "really drill down" into forecasts.

Mr. Wiggs manages the Punakaiki Fund which has varying
shareholdings in about 20 young technology companies.

"Wynyard's board is probably guilty of being over optimistic about
the revenue stream.  I always tell people looking at startups to
look at the board and their previous experience,"
Mr. Wiggs said.

"It's also better to invest in a company which has lots of
customers rather than one like Wynyard which had a few large
ones," Mr. Wiggs said.

The financial summary provided by the statutory managers revealed
Wynyard's revenue remained nearly the same over the three years to
the end of 2016 at about $26m each year, while costs escalated
from $48m to $90m by the time directors pulled the plug in October
2016.

Wynyard employed 135 people in New Zealand and another 87
overseas.

The administrators' sale of assets include the Cognevo division
which preserved 27 jobs in New Zealand, sale of the Financial
Crime product maintaining eight jobs in New Zealand, and the
Wynyard Risk Management product preserving two jobs.

The managing director of Sourced IT recruitment company Jason
Bishop said most former staff had obtained jobs but he was
concerned the failure of Wynyard will deter investment in
technology.

Wynyard's business was inherited, at a cost, from Jade Software
which developed the cyber crime software products and transferred
them into the Wynyard group in exchange for shares.

The relationship remained close with the two companies jointly
providing services and Jade providing back office support until
the collapse.

"At the date of our appointment Wynyard remained heavily reliant
on Jade in order to continue to trade.

"The servers and infrastructure provided by Jade were critical to
Wynyard's day-to-day operations," the KordaMentha statutory
managers said in their final report.

When Wynyard listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange in 2013
after a $65m capital raising, it confirmed that cash of $23.6m was
paid to Jade for intangible assets, and $10 million of borrowings
from Jade was repaid, while Wynyard was left with cash of $29m to
fund operations.

There were further Wynyard capital raisings in 2014 of $45m, in
2015 of $35m, and an abandoned effort to raise $30m in the weeks
before collapse.

The sale of assets by the KordaMentha administrators plus cash in
hand came to $5.1m, offset by costs including their fee of
$659,054, legal costs of 424,686 and other other costs totalling
$2.6 million, leaving the final recovery of $2.8m when sundry
amounts were added.

As well as the creditors, shareholders also lost their money and
some have reportedly joined a class action relating to alleged
misstatement of financial forecasts.


YOSHINOYA AMERICA: "Monroy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
ERICK MONROY, an individual, and ILSE ASCENSIO, an individual
the Plaintiffs, v. YOSHINOYA AMERICA, INC., a California
corporation, YOSHINOYA HOLDINGS CO., LTD., a Japanese corporation,
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC653419
(Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, restitution, injunctive relief, civil and statutory
penalties, damages, attorneys' fees and costs by reasons of
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

The harm to Plaintiffs, and each of them of being wrongfully
denied lawfully earned but unpaid wages outweighs the utility, if
any, of Defendants' policies and practices, and therefore,
Defendants' actions constitute unfair business practices or acts
within the meaning of the Business & Professions Code.

Yoshinoya is a Japanese fast food chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan D. Saba, Esq.
          Krystle D. Meyer, Esq.
          ROSEN & SABA, LLP
          9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 285 1727
          Facsimile: (310) 285 1728
          E-mail: rsaba@rosensaba.com
                  kmeyer@rosensaba.com


* Chinese Companies Face Class Action Risks When Expanding Abroad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Zheng, writing for Forbes, reports that in reviewing the
facts and figures that dominated a remarkable year, 2016 is likely
to be remembered in the markets as the year Chinese buyers became
global powerhouses.  Over a relatively short period of time,
private Chinese companies have flourished domestically and begun
expanding overseas.  These Chinese corporations are economically
competitive, designed to reach a massive scale of consumers with
the ability to integrate rapidly-developing and efficiency-
generating technologies.

This trend is evident in the volume of mergers & acquisitions in
the region.  According to Mergermarket, Asia-Pacific is on track
to surpass Europe as the world's second largest region for M&A
dealmaking.  In 2016, over $720 billion USD was transacted in
Asia-Pacific including Japan, representing nearly a quarter of
global deals, and 258 of these deals were Chinese outbound
transactions valued at over $185 billion USD.

Expectations for Chinese M&A in 2017 are muted as a result of
guidance from Chinese regulators that outbound M&A deals valued at
over $10 billion USD will be subject to heightened scrutiny.
Nonetheless, the role of Chinese and Asian corporations in global
business is set only to continue growing.

Challenges when going abroad

When expanding overseas, it's easy to forget that companies will
face unique risks and liabilities in every market they enter. This
is particularly the case in markets outside of Asia, where
shareholder claims and class action lawsuits can cost companies
millions of dollars in defense and settlement costs.

This is not a phenomenon restricted to the United States, where
companies are generally aware that corporations face a generally
more litigious environment.  Australia has since 2004 seen
investor or shareholder class action suits rise by more than 50%.
Today, Australia is the jurisdiction where corporations are most
at risk of facing a class action outside of the U.S.

Employment practices are another oft-overlooked area of liability
for expanding Asian and Chinese corporates.  Anti-discrimination
legislation in developed markets can expose corporations to suits
from employees claiming sexual harassment, discrimination,
wrongful termination and breach of contract, among a range of
other potential accusations.

Meanwhile, expanding corporations must also begin re-evaluating
their liabilities in Asia, where regulators are taking an
increasingly active role in overseeing corporate governance. Asian
regulatory bodies are focused on addressing market misconduct and
corporate malfeasance; this is particularly evident in Hong Kong
where the city's Securities & Futures Commission has heightened
its focus on corporate investigations.

The nature of liability can change rapidly, and having a corporate
presence in multiple countries multiplies this uncertainty.
Insurance can help address and mitigate these risks, but a
comprehensive solution to risk doesn't come from a "one size fits
all" approach.

Insurance considerations

Companies building an overseas presence should carefully consider
the governance requirements for each market in which they will
operate.  Indeed, liability risks arising for potential
shareholder actions or regulatory investigations should be a top
priority when evaluating M&A targets in overseas markets.

Directors & Officers insurance, a relative rarity for Chinese
corporations in their home market, is a critical element of risk
mitigation for boards and officers of Chinese companies that wish
to operate in Western markets.  Many of today's best directorial
talent won't even serve on a board without the backing of a D&O
insurance policy.

As Chinese corporations reach scale that may match or exceed
global competitors, a broad global policy becomes an increasingly
important option for managing unknown liability risks.  In
addition, executing a comprehensive global policy alongside
locally-admitted policies is becoming a priority to comply with
local insurance regulations to insure the ability to deliver funds
for claims in overseas territories.  Locally-admitted policies may
also have enhanced coverage developed over many years to address
the unique exposure of that country.

Many insurers offer global cover from a single contact point in
say London or New York; unfortunately, this setup can rapidly
break down when claims are filed.  It is one thing to have a
claims professional sitting in London assessing a case in Vietnam
for a Chinese company -- it's quite another to have local contacts
and execution capability in each market to see a claim through the
process.  These cases, increasingly frequent in a globally-
connected business environment, require local knowledge and
expertise across a number of unique jurisdictions.

Local expertise and operational capabilities should thus be a key
consideration for Chinese corporations of any size as they move
ahead with global expansion plans, both organically and through
acquisitions.

Beyond D&O insurance, Chinese corporations may find themselves
best served by a more comprehensive multinational approach that
covers a broader range of liabilities across multiple
jurisdictions.  A multinational program includes a broader suite
of products tailored to meet the demands of the business, which
could range from property and casualty to professional indemnity
or cyber liability.

Global growth is the natural evolution of business in Asia. But it
is also an endeavor fraught with uncertainty.  By taking a clear-
eyed view of the potential risks and rewards, and how to mitigate
them on a market by market basis, corporations will set the
platform for global success.


* Companies' Class Action Spending Increases, Survey Shows
----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
companies are spending more to defend themselves against class
actions as the cases get significantly riskier, according to a
survey conducted by Florida law firm Carlton Fields.

The companies surveyed reported that the number of "bet-the-
company" and "high-risk" class actions against them increased from
9.5 percent of the cases they faced in 2015 to 25.3 percent in
2016.  Carlton Fields surveyed 373 companies across several
industries, with median annual revenue of $4.9 billion.
"There appears to be a trending increase in the magnitude of class
actions, with companies facing increasingly higher risk and
exposure," said Julianna McCabe, director of the survey and chair
of Carlton Fields' national class actions practice group.
"Understandably, companies are spending more to manage that
increased exposure."

The companies surveyed spent $2.17 billion defending class action
lawsuits in 2016, up from $2.1 billion the prior year. It was the
second consecutive year spending increased, after four years of
expenditures falling, according to the survey.

That higher spending goes along with shifting defense strategies.
Only about one-fifth of companies reported their philosophy is to
"defend at the right cost," compared with more than a third of
companies in 2015.  Instead, a growing number of companies are
defending class actions "at all costs" or by "going low," the
survey found.

"Every time you agree to certify a case, you will pay for it
someplace else," said one survey respondent, litigation team
leader for a Fortune 500 insurance company.  "If you have good
defenses, keep fighting -- hold them to their proof."

About 62 percent of companies reported settling cases brought as
class actions before any class is certified.

Labor and employment lawsuits are the most common type of class
action, making up 37.7 percent of class actions.  They surpassed
2015's most popular type of class action, consumer fraud, after a
flurry of wage and hour lawsuits in California.

Companies are expecting wage and hour lawsuits to continue to
increase, along with Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases,
according to the survey.

The number of companies including arbitration clauses in their
contracts that preclude class actions fell to 30.2 percent from
39.2 percent, the survey found.  That shift might be the result of
a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would
ban such class action waivers in certain consumer financial
contracts.

"The future of the proposed rule is uncertain, however, and there
may be a resurgence in the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in
such contracts if the rule is not implemented," the report found.


* Gibbs Law Discusses Consequences of Class Action Reform
---------------------------------------------------------
David Stein, Esq. -- ds@classlawgroup.com -- and Andre Mura, Esq.
-- amm@classlawgroup.com -- of Gibbs Law Group LLP, in an article
for Law360, report that on March 8, Law360 published an article
from two class action defense lawyers who argue that the anti-
class action bill currently working through Congress (known as
H.R. 985) doesn't go far enough in its quest to "stem[] class
action litigation."

They call in particular for legislation designed to mitigate the
"in terrorem effect" that they insist causes corporations to
"settle truly meritless claims."  This in terrorem boogeyman has
been trotted out for decades, every time that a pretext is needed
to close the courthouse doors to victims of corporate abuse.

Let's shoo away the boogeyman this time around, rather than again
allowing dramatic changes to the law.  There are many good reasons
to do so.

For one, studies of class actions and class settlements --
including by the Federal Judicial Center -- do not support the
intensely negative view of litigation as blackmail.  "[T]he class
action is more nearly a shield than a sword.  It has protected
companies from bankruptcy, but it appears to have rendered few
companies insolvent, if any."

The blackmail analogy has no empirical backing.  Again and again,
scholars have debunked the myth that class actions foster
extortionate claims.  The analogy also defies common sense.  The
likelihood of prevailing at trial is what gives class litigants
leverage; pressure largely comes from the merits and value of
claims.

Despite all this, the blackmail myth has garnered far more
legislative and judicial attention than the needs of plaintiffs
pursuing meritorious class claims.

The in terrorem boogeyman has already been used to justify at
least a half dozen colossal changes to the class action practice.
Let's consider just the most obvious of examples:

The PSLRA -- When Congress passed the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act in 1995, supporters pointed to the "many . .
. lawsuits [that] are filed as class actions [and have] had an in
terrorem effect on Corporate America."  Afterward, the Supreme
Court acknowledged the PSLRA "addressed the settlement pressures
associated with securities-fraud class actions." Amgen Inc. v.
Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1200 (2013).
CAFA -- When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act in
2005, its supports similarly "argued that magnet-state court
certifications [were having an] in terrorem effects on
defendants."  It was widely acknowledged "the goal of CAFA was to
deal with problems . . . including but not limited to . . . in
terrorem blackmail pressure."

Twombly -- The Supreme Court has likewise based major holdings on
the fear of "in terrorem" class actions.  When it rewrote Rule 8,
effectively changing it from a notice pleading standard to one
requiring factually-detailed allegations preceding discovery,[8]
the Twombly majority noted the risk that "a plaintiff with a
largely groundless claim be allowed to take up the time of a
number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in
terrorem increment of the settlement value." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).

Concepcion -- Again, in 2011, the Supreme Court invoked the in
terrorem threat in its Concepcion decision, using the threat to
justify providing corporate America carte blanche to bind many
customers and employees to forced arbitration clauses -- entirely
precluding a wide variety of meritorious lawsuits on their behalf.
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 350 (2011).

And now H.R. 985. Let's be clear about what H.R. 985 does.  It
proposes to stack a heap of bricks directly in front of the
courthouse doors.  These bricks are procedural rules corporations
have long sought but failed to obtain through court rulings or the
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial
Conference of the United States.

The bricks have been stacked high enough.  At what point do we
recognize that erecting additional procedural obstacles will only
serve to deny true victims of corporate fraud their constitutional
rights to a day in court? At what point do we stop making policy
based on a "class action as blackmail" charge that is unproven and
unpersuasive?

The campaign in support of the bill fails to acknowledge the need
for balance.  That has resulted in widespread opposition to the
bill.  Environmental, disability, consumer and civil rights groups
stand united against it. The American Bar Association has spoken
out against it.

Chairs of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and the Committee
on Rules of Practice and Procedure -- two esteemed federal judges
appointed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- have urged Congress
not to amend class action procedures through this bill.  Even the
House Liberty Caucus, conservative Republican members of the U.S.
House of Representatives, has opposed H.R. 985.

Though the bill has passed in the House, the House Liberty
Caucus's letter was spot-on: "Class action lawsuits," the caucus
explained, "are a market-based solution for addressing widespread
breaches of contract, violations of property rights, and
infringements of other legal rights."  H.R. 985 "adds immense
procedural hurdles for class action plaintiffs" and "allows bad
actors to avoid massive liability just because their victims
cannot be sorted into a perfect group in which every person has
the same injury."

We often say that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer.  What ratio should we aim for when it
comes to corporate fraud remediable through class actions? Should
we err on the side of protecting corporate wrongdoers or victims
of fraud? Haven't we already tilted the playing field enough
against the injured?


* JND Names Hoffman as Sr. Consultant for Class Action Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a premier legal management and
administration company headquartered in Seattle, has appointed Tom
Hoffman as a senior consultant for the firm's class action and
mass tort administration services division. Based in the company's
Los Angeles office, Tom consults with clients across the country
to serve the administrative needs of their class action and mass
tort legal proceedings.  He also leads business development
initiatives to further the expansion of JND Legal Administration
throughout California and the West Coast region.

"As JND Legal Administration continues its growth into new
markets, we are delighted to have Tom Hoffman as a member of our
expanding team to help accelerate this growth," said David Isaac,
executive co-chairman and founder of JND Legal Administration.
"He brings broad experience and keen business development skills
to his new role that will be invaluable to the firm and its
clients."

Previously, Tom served as senior vice president of business
development for a boutique legal administration firm where he
successfully established the company's client base while
overseeing its growth across numerous markets.  Prior to his work
within the legal administration profession, Tom was an
accomplished executive in the entertainment industry.  He began
his career developing and producing feature films and later
transitioned into high-level executive roles where he held
positions at multiple studios, including Paramount and Walt Disney
Pictures.  Tom gained expertise in business expansion and client
management by bringing many blockbuster films to the market.

Tom earned his Master of Fine Arts degree from USC School of
Cinematic Arts and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Brandeis
University.

JND Legal Administration -- http://www.JNDLA.com/-- is a
management and administration company led by a team of industry
veterans who are passionate about providing superior service to
clients. Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful set of
tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the intricacies
of multiple, intersecting service lines including class action
settlements, corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims
and government services. JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation. The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.

Contact:

Juliet Babros
JB Communications | Public Relations
t: 310-375-7870
m: 310-480-3657
e: juliet@julietbabros.com


* Lack of Class Action to Impact Enforcement of Competition Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sahin Ardiyok, Esq., and Baris Yuksel, Esq., of Balcioglu Selcuk
Akman Keki, in an article for Mondaq, report that the competition
law enforcement in Turkey is based on private and public
enforcement pillars.  Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) has sole
discretion to enforce the Competition Act whereas the litigations
initiated by the victims of anti-competitive conduct are seen in
private courts.  The Competition Act in Turkey which was enacted
in 1994 contains certain provisions concerning the damages claims
to be made by the victims of the violations of anti-competitive
conduct (e.g. treble damages) and the general provisions of the
Law of Obligations concerning tort are also applicable in that
respect.

Main problems and legal developments to date

Although the TCA has been enforcing the Competition Act for over
20 years and had issued numerous violation decisions, only a very
few individual litigations were initiated up until now.  The
reasons why the private enforcement pillar was much weaker
compared to the public enforcement pillar are twofold.  First, the
rules concerning the statute of limitations are widely unclear and
the precedents of the Turkish Court of Cassation requires that the
infringement decisions of the TCA are finalized via due judicial
review (or after the period for an action for annulment lapses),
which takes approximately 5 years.  Second there is a serious
incentive problem due to the absence of an effective collective
redress mechanism (i.e. a class action that would allow the
claimants to claim damage compensation).

In some recent decisions, the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the
Turkish Court of Cassation has solved the "statute of limitations
problem" and held that the 8-year period mentioned in the
Misdemeanours Act shall be applicable for damages claims related
with the violation of the Competition Act rather than the 2-year
period foreseen in the Law of Obligations.  The legal basis of
this holding is the Article 72 of the Law of Obligations which
stipulates that in case the criminal laws foresee a longer period
for tortious conducts that also constitute a crime (or a
misdemeanour according to the interpretation of the Assembly),
this longer period shall also be applied in private law.

With respect to the "finalization problem", decisions of the
various chambers of the Turkish Court of Cassation made it clear
that the courts must wait until the decisions of the TCA are
finalized and that the judicial review process constitutes a
"preliminary issue" in terms of Turkish law.  However, this does
not mean that the victims must wait until the finalization of the
TCA's infringement decision to initiate litigations (and thus risk
being barred by the statute of limitations).  Turkish Court of
Cassation also made it very clear that the finalization of the TCA
decision is not a "prerequisite" for initiating a litigation and
the courts may not refuse to examine the claims on the procedural
ground that the mandatory prerequisites are not satisfied.  To
recap, the finalization problem does not prevent, but greatly
delays the competition law based damages claims and is still a
major source of inefficiency.

Although the second issue is yet to be resolved, the "Banking
Decision" of the TCA condemning an anti-competitive agreement
between 12 major banks in Turkey to collectively determine the
interest rates for certain loans, attracted massive attention in
the media and significantly raised public interest in competition
law based damages claims.  Due to this increased demand for such
claims, a huge number of individual litigations have been
initiated for the same violation in various courts in different
cities of Turkey (courts in different cities have jurisdiction in
tort cases per the Civil Procedure Act).

Along with these developments, it is realized that, as the second
issue remains unsolved, the increased significance of the private
law pillar is not just an opportunity but also a threat.

Currently, in the absence of an efficient collective redress
mechanism, all these individual claims concerning the same
violation are litigated separately.  This means that the courts
should request (and afterwards probably rely on) different expert
reports, the preparation of which demands extensive resources
(e.g. data, time and expertise) and this could lead to huge
inefficiencies due to the multiplication of expenses.  Other than
that, the judicial costs and the legal expenses of the
undertakings would also multiply as many courts would spend
resources over the same issues and the undertakings would have to
incur immense legal costs for simultaneously following a vast
amount of cases.

We should add that the current laws which only require the losing
party to compensate a certain portion of other parties' legal
costs paves the way for abusive litigation.  It might be more
appropriate to require the losing party to compensate all the
legal costs of the other party especially in case of collective
redress.

Quantification of harm and treble damages

For now, there are no precedents or established practices
concerning the calculation of damages.  Assuming the experts would
probably rely on the European Commission's Practical Guide for
Quantification of Harm (as there seems to be no other
alternative), it seems very likely that all the expert reports
would include counterfactual scenarios.  Since there are many
different methods for the determination of counterfactual
scenarios, all of which require a significant amount of
assumptions and involvement of economists experienced in
industrial economics, it is almost certain that the counterfactual
scenarios in different cases will not be identical although they
are built to determine the same market conditions (i.e. the
Turkish banking market during the period of the infringement).  As
the counterfactual scenarios relied on would ultimately determine
the amount of compensation to be awarded, it would be inevitable
for the courts to award (significantly) different amounts of
compensation for the same damages incurred.

This discrepancy could also be exacerbated because the courts have
absolute discretion to award "treble damages" in competition law
based damages claims per the Article 58/2 of the Competition Act
and this means that some litigants would receive much higher
compensations than the actual harm the suffered (which conflicts
the basic principles of Turkish tort law and is against the EU
Directive on competition law based damages) whereas the others
would not.  The legal uncertainties and excessive costs that arise
due to the absence of an efficient legal framework is also
alarmingly dangerous for the undertakings that are the defendants
in these litigations.

Identification of the "victims"

Other than these, there is also a problem with respect to the
identification of the "victims" that have the right to initiate
damages claims.  In the United States, the "antitrust injury
doctrine" and more importantly the "indirect purchaser rule" are
useful tools to limit the number of potential victims of an
anti-competitive action who may initiate litigations.  Yet, the
Turkish Competition Act does not contain any special provisions in
that respect and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to argue
that the general principles of Law of Obligations might be
interpreted in a way that would allow the judges to adopt those
tools.  Although the problems associated with the absence of such
tools are not yet realized since the current debates are largely
influenced by the immediate threat posed by the Banking Decision,
there is also a pressing need to resolve this issue as fast as
possible.

In summary . . .

The Banking Decision seems to be the fuel for the private
competition law enforcement pillar that had been a very scary
"stick" that only acted as a tool to "fear up" the undertakings
and was never actually used.  Although these new litigations are
definitely a strong signal about the effects of private
enforcement mechanism, the threats posed by the current system
must also not be ignored.

It is crucial for the policy makers to understand that the current
system that lacks clear procedural rules concerning the statute of
limitations, the relation between the TCA decisions and the
damages claims made in private courts and most importantly a well-
functioning collective redress mechanism falls way short of being
efficient.  Absence of substantive rules for identifying (and
limiting the scope of) the victims that may claim compensation and
lack of precedents and guides for calculation of damages are also
significant defects.  The potential negative impacts of these
issues are further exacerbated by the institution of "treble
damages" which is completely alien to the Turkish legal framework
and is not required (for deterrence) in the presence of a well-
established public enforcement pillar (which is sufficiently
deterrent by itself).

If these problems are ignored or set aside for being "too
complicated to be solved" (as some claim when discussing the
pressing need for a collective redress mechanism), the increased
amount of litigations may become a curse rather than being a
blessing soon.



                            *********

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  * * *