CAR_Public/170331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, March 31, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 65



                            Headlines

A&P PARKING: Faces "Camara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wyche" Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schafer" Suit Claims
ALLIED NEVADA: Shareholder Class Action Litigation Amended
ASAP COURIER: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage

ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Bids for Judgment in "Spiegel" Denied
ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Court Partially OK's Class Action Notice
AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes
BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Used Public Funds for Political Ads, Suit Says

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits "Hussey" Plaintiff's Next Move
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Six Suits Over Sale to Broadcom
CALIFORNIA: Judge May Toss Portions of Inmates' Phone Class Suit
CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in CGC Suit
CASCADE BANCORP: Faces "Crosse" Shareholder Class Suit in Oregon

CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit by Sternheim Family
CCO HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
CCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Suit Remains Pending
CHAPS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Hart" Suit over Internet Service

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Scholl" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend RICO Suits in Pa. and Ohio
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims in Noteholders Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Oklahoma
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Alleging Wells Caused Earthquakes Ongoing

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Various Suits over Royalty Claims Underway
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suits Alleging Rigging of Bids Still Pending
CIOX HEALTH: Sued Over Overpriced Electronic Medical Record Fees
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Sobel" Suit Says
COOPER COMPANIES: Contact Lens Consumers Suits Still in Discovery

CVS PHARMACY: Calif. Judge Won't Certify 11 State Classes
CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
DAVID BOULEY LLC: "Ahmed" Alleges FLSA Violation in N.Y.
DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Brower Piven Disclose Class Action Filing

DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Refuses to Certify Mortgage Class Action
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Class Action in Illinois
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Bremer Appeals "Wright" Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Lambert" Suit over Skin Gel Label
GEO GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Decision in "Menocal" Suit

GERON CORP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of $6.25MM Settlement
GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Disburses Real Property Taxes Under Protest
HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Sale Prices
HERITAGE OAKS: Defends "Garfield" Suit Over Merger with Pacific
HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum-Seekers' Claims Stay in Federal Court

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in "Reniger" Suit Has Final OK
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
IVEST 360: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Trims Claims in "Mardis" Suit
JBS S.A.: Faces "LeonForte" Suit over Tainted-Meat Scandal

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Funds Already Credited to Claimants
LA CIMA RESTAURANTS: "Poole" Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
LEIDOS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Funds' Fraud Suit
LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit over Defective Leggings

LOUISIANA: Sued Over Tangipahoa Parish I-12 Flooding
MACHINE ZONE: 4th Circuit Affirms GoW Class Action Dismissal
MDL 2243: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Suits over Fosamax Fractures
MEDTRONIC PLC: Awaits Minn. Court Decision in "Merenstein" Suit
MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Remains Pending

MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Suit
MEDTRONIC PLC: Remaining INFUSE-Linked Claims to Be Tried in 2017
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Remains Pending
MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh Litigation Claims
METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Class Suit Challenges American Axle Deal

MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Xbox Case in June
MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Grills Lawyers on Rule 23 Issue
MICROSOFT CORP: Win 10 Update Destroyed Hard Drive, Suit Claims
MINI MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Smith" Suit Claims
MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law

MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Recertifies Collective & Class Action
NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Stock Suit Over 2016, 2017 IPO
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays $208MM GIA Class Action Settlement
NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Clayton" TCPA Suit in Cal.
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: American Trucking Appeals Order to 2nd Cir.

ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Tosses Amended "Vaccaro" Complaint
OSF HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
PEOPLES TRUST: Court Allows Appeal from Class Certification Order

PFIZER INC: United Food Fund, Others Appeal Ruling to 4th Circuit
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Anonymous Plaintiff Lacks Standing
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Underway in Calif.
REVLON INC: Second Consolidated Amended Class Complaint Filed

RICHARD CATENA: Faces Class Action Over Fake Warranties
SAKS FIFTH: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Payton" Suit Claims
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hansen" Suit Over Washing Machines
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "West" Class Suit v. Unit Underway in Oklahoma
SANOFI: 1,019 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31

SANOFI: 791 Taxotere(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31
SANOFI: Faces 2 Suits in New Jersey Alleging RICO Act Violations
SANOFI: Faces Claims and Suit in France Over Use of Depakine(R)
SANOFI: Faces Two Antitrust Class Action Suits in Massachusetts
SANOFI: Settles Menactra(R) Antitrust Class Suit for $61.5 Mil.

SANOFI: Says NY Shareholder Securities Class Action Now Over
SANOFI: CVR Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. Now Over
SANTA ROSA, CA: Faces "Aboudara" Suit Over FLSA Violation
SHENZEN SUNSHINE: Faces Class Suit over Defective Hobby Drones
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Judge Dismisss Shareholders' Suit

SPARK ENERGY: April 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in "Melville"
SPARK ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Veilleux" Suit Underway
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in N.D. Indiana Pending
TAILORED BRANDS: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Makhlouf"
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Doshi & Garbowski Merging
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Wu" Suit

TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Bid to Stay Jackie888 Class Suit
TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Spurlock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit over "Winter Warmup" Promo Dropped
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "McElrath" Suit Stayed Pending SCOTUS Appeal

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Dismisses Ex-Rowers' Class Action
VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FINANCIAL: Class Suit Challenges $40MM Citizens Deal
WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA

XPO LOGISTICS: "Quinlan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
YAHOO INC: UFCW Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit

* Arkansas House Approves Bill to Curb Class Actions
* Justice Murphy Applauds Australia's Current Class Action Regime
* Judge Says No Americanisation of Australian Class Action System
* Neil Gorsuch Says He's Not Biased Against Class Actions
* Perpetual Sr. Lawyer Balks at "Excessive" Class Action Fees


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warehouse Owner Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Moore"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Court Narrows Inmate's Pro Se Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Not Proper Venue for Suits vs. Law Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Babbidge Library

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Undergoes Asbestos and Mold Inspection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Test Conducted at Former Days Inn Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Auto Parts Building Treated for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medicare Liens Slow Asbestos Settlement Process
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos 'Double-Dipping' Reform Bill Nixed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah AG Sues 4 Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanly Conroy Renews $100,000 Pledge for ADAO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure A Major Issue in Puerto Rico
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains Major Health Hazard for Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranbury School Seek State Reimbursement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TLR Releases Paper on Texas Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Containing Dust Forces Closure of Lab


                            *********


A&P PARKING: Faces "Camara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mory Camara, on behalf of himself, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&P Parking Corp. and
Muhammad Arif and Pirzada Uddin, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02187 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2017) is brought against
the Defendant for non-payment of overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standardas Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a parking attendant.

Defendant is a corporation that operated several parking garages
in the City of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
   Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
   Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
   Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.
   655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 679-5000
   Fax: (212) 679-5005


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wyche" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Wyche filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion & order and judgment, both dated March 10, 2017,
in the lawsuit styled Wyche v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 15-cv-5955, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14,
2017, the putative stockholder class action was filed on July 29,
2015, naming the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Wyche v. Advanced Drainage
Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-743, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Wyche, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., is represented
by:

          Victor Genecin, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 872-9889
          Facsimile: (212) 872-9815
          E-mail: victor.genecin@squiresanders.com

Defendant-Appellee Joseph A. Chlapaty is represented by:

          Robert A. Scher, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 338-3405
          Facsimile: (212) 687-2329
          E-mail: rscher@foley.com

Defendant-Appellee Mark B. Sturgeon is represented by:

          Peter Joseph Pizzi, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
          1745 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 380-1043
          E-mail: ppizzi@walsh.law


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schafer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa J. Schafer, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Allied Interstate LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and Resurgent
Capital Services L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00233 (W.D. Mich., March
14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a time
barred debt without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued
on the debt because of the age of the debt.

The Defendants own and operate a collection agency in Michigan.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Telephone: (847) 701-5290
      E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

         - and -

      B. Thomas Golden (P70822)
      GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
      Lowell, MI 49331
      Telephone: (616) 897-2900
      E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com


ALLIED NEVADA: Shareholder Class Action Litigation Amended
----------------------------------------------------------
Morganti Legal, P.C., a cross border shareholder's rights law
firm, on March 21, disclosed that the plaintiff for the putative
class action on behalf of shareholders of "Allied Nevada Gold
Corp.", TSX: "ANV" (now known as Hycroft Mining Corporation) has
obtained leave from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to
abandon the claims of those shareholders who purchased securities
of ANV on the secondary market from January 18, 2013 to and
including August 5, 2013 (the "putative class period").

A copy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Order is available
at https://is.gd/V40ZiA

If you purchased securities of ANV on the Toronto Stock Exchange
or on any other exchange during the putative class period, other
than on an exchange located in the United States, there is no
putative class proceeding protecting your rights.  Any applicable
unexpired limitation periods will now resume and accordingly if
you are considering asserting any such claims you should
immediately seek legal advice.

Investors who purchased securities of ANV pursuant to Allied
Nevada Gold Corp.'s May 17, 2013 secondary public offering
continue to have their rights protected under this putative class
action.

                     About Morganti Legal

For further information: If you wish to obtain additional
information about the shareholder litigation against Hycroft
Mining Corporation, please contact Matthew Stroh at (647) 344-1900
or mstroh@morgantilegal.com.


ASAP COURIER: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cook, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asap
Courier & Logistics, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
d/b/a Need it Now Courier, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-60605-BB
(S.D. Fla., March 27, 2017) seeks payment of unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a van driver.

Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendant
failed to pay him any overtime wages, say the complaint.

Asap Courier & Logistics, LLC is a courier service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Eddy O. Marban
   1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 448-9292
   Fax: (305) 448-9477
   Email: marbanlaw@gmail.com


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Bids for Judgment in "Spiegel" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry J. McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied the
parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings in the case styled
MIKE SPIEGEL individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01998-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind.).

Mike Spiegel filed a complaint on July 26, 2016, alleging that the
letter he received from Ashwood Financial, Inc., last March, 16,
2016, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692g(a)(4) & (5), by failing to state that any dispute
of the debt or any request for the name and address of the
original creditor must be made in writing for a debtor to obtain a
verification of the debt or the name and address of the original
creditor, if different than the current creditor.

Spiegel further argues that Ashwood's failure to notify debtors
that such disputes or requests must be in writing constituted
unfair and unconscionable collection actions in violation of the
FDCPA because whether a dispute could be made orally or in writing
could determine whether a consumer wishes to dispute the debt.

Ashwood filed its answer to Spiegel's complaint on September 16,
2016, providing eight affirmative defenses in its answer. In its
first affirmative defense Ashwood indicated that the letter did
not violate the FDCPA but stated that any alleged violation of the
FDCPA was purely technical, the result of bona fide error and not
intentional, resulting in no actual damages, no lack of material
information that would play a role in a consumer's decision as to
whether to dispute a debt, notwithstanding Ashwood's maintenance
of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

On January 21, 2017, Ashwood filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the letter did not violate the FDCPA
because 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) does not require consumer
disputes to be in writing to be effective. Spiegel submitted his
response in opposition to the Ashwood motion on February 14, 2017
and additionally Spiegel concurrently filed his cross motion for
judgment on the pleadings. Spiegel argues that he is entitled to
judgment because the letter fails to state that a debtor's dispute
must be in writing in order to protect the debtor's right to
verification of the debt and to the name and address of the
original creditor, as required by the plain language of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(4) & (5).  Moreover, Spiegel contends that
Ashwood's first affirmative defense does not prevent the court
from granting the Spiegel cross motion because the first
affirmative defense was not plead with sufficient factual support
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Judge McKinney held that Ashwood's argument regarding the
effectiveness of oral disputes does not address Spiegel's
allegations and Ashwood improperly introduced its bona fide error
defense in its reply in support.

Ashwood fails to provide any factual context as to what errors
existed in the letter and to address how such errors meet the
definition of a bona fide error. The court sua sponte strikes
Ashwood's first affirmative defense.

Judge McKinney denied Ashwood's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and denied Spiegel's cross motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The Court also strikes Ashwood's first affirmative
defense without prejudice and grants Ashwood seven days from the
date of the order to amend its answer.

A copy of Judge McKinney's order dated March 23, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ALCaF7 from Leagle.com.

MIKE SPIEGEL, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Steven James Halbert, Esq.
     David J. Philipps, Esq.P
     PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
     9760 S. Roberts Ed. Suite 1
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Tel: 708-974-2900
     Fax: 708-974-2907

ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, represented by:

     Karen B. Neiswinger, Esq.
     ATTORNEY AT LAW
     5335 N Tacoma Ave #12
     Indianapolis, IN 46220
     Tel: 317-251-2250


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Court Partially OK's Class Action Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry J. McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in
part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to approve and denied
defendant's motion to stay the case styled MIKE SPIEGEL
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC. an Indiana corporation,
Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01998-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind.).

Mike Spiegel filed a complaint on July 26, 2016, alleging that the
letter he received from Ashwood Financial, Inc., last March, 16,
2016, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692g(a)(4) & (5), by failing to state that any dispute
of the debt or any request for the name and address of the
original creditor must be made in writing for a debtor to obtain a
verification of the debt or the name and address of the original
creditor, if different than the current creditor.

Spiegel further argues that Ashwood's failure to notify debtors
that such disputes or requests must be in writing constituted
unfair and unconscionable collection actions in violation of the
FDCPA because whether a dispute could be made orally or in writing
could determine whether a consumer wishes to dispute the debt.

On February 2, 2017, the court certified Spiegel's proposed class,
which was defined as:

     "All persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from
whom Ashwood attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, via
the same form collection letter that Ashwood sent to Spiegel from
one year before the date of the complaint to the present."

Spiegel filed a motion to approve on February 22, 2017, requesting
that the court approve his proposed notice of class action and
order Ashwood to provide the names and addresses of all of the
class members so that Spiegel could notify the class members about
this action. Spiegel's proposed notice of class action stated that
the letter allegedly failed to advise consumers that disputes and
requests for the name of the original creditor had to be in
writing for them to be effective, in violation of Section 1692g
and of the FDCPA.

Ashwood objects and argue that the description of the letter
constitutes an incorrect statement of the law set forth in
Spiegel's complaint" because disputes are not required to be in
writing to be effective under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. Ashwood
filed a motion to stay, claiming that it should not be required to
provide the names and addresses of the class members to Spiegel
until the court rules upon the parties' pending cross-motions for
judgment on the pleadings, to protect the interest of judicial
economy and to prevent possible violations of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.

Judge McKinney held that the court cannot approve Spiegel's
proposed notice of class action as it is currently written. The
proposed notice of class action indicates that Ashwood allegedly
failed to advise consumers that disputes and requests for the name
of the original creditor had to be in writing for them to be
effective, in violation of Section 1692g and of the FDCPA.
However, the statement does not clearly communicate the class's
claim that Ashwood specifically violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(4) & (5) because the letter did not notify debtors that a
dispute of a debt must be in writing if the debtor wishes to
obtain a verification of the debt or the name and address of the
original creditor. Spiegel must revise the notice of class action
to more clearly state the specific claims set forth by the class
and the issues involved. Even though the court cannot approve the
proposed notice of class action at this time, there is no need for
Ashwood to delay in providing the names and address of the class
members to Spiegel.

Judge McKinney granted in part and denied in part Spiegel's motion
to approve, and denied Ashwood's motion to stay. The parties shall
confer regarding a proposed amended notice of class action, which
shall provide greater specificity as to the subsections serving as
the basis for the class's claims. After the parties have conferred
about the amended notice of class action, Spiegel shall either
submit a notice of an agreed amended notice of class action or a
notice of continued dispute within fourteen days from the date of
the order. If the filing is only a notice of continued dispute,
Spiegel shall file his motion to approve class notice within
fourteen days thereafter. Ashwood must also provide Spiegel with
the names and addresses of all class members with fourteen days
from the date of the order.

A copy of Judge McKinney's order dated March 23, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/IUVa6b from Leagle.com.

MIKE SPIEGEL, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Steven James Halbert, Esq.
     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
     9760 S. Roberts Ed. Suite 1
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Tel: 708-974-2900
     Fax: 708-974-2907

ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, represented by:

     Karen B. Neiswinger, Esq.
     ATTORNEY AT LAW
     5335 N Tacoma Ave #12
     Indianapolis, IN 46220
     Tel: 317-251-2250


AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T INC., Delaware
corporations, AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
Delaware limited liability companies, AT&T CORP., a New York
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00403
(D. Conn., March 9, 2017), challenges Defendants' alleged practice
of sending unsolicited facsimiles under the Junk
Fax Prevention Act.

AT&T Services, Inc. tests, commercializes, and markets Internet
services to residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
     BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
     85 Miles Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: 914-358-5345
     E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: 847-368-1500
     E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on March 20 issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of BioAmber Inc. ("BioAmber") (NYSE:BIOA) (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to BioAmber's secondary public offering on or
about January 23, 2017; and/or (2) on the open market from January
23, 2017 through March 16, 2017.  You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for
the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to:

             http://www.zlk.com/pslra/bioamber-inc

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period BioAmber
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was
expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016
experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and
postponed the order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants'
statements about BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in BioAmber you have until May 17, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Used Public Funds for Political Ads, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Canadian voters filed a class action in Vancouver, British
Columbia and its ruling party, claiming they are using public
money to pay for partisan ads to buff the B.C. Liberal Party's
image.

Voters will go to the polls May 9 in the province The New York
Times has dubbed the Wild West of political fund raising.

Lead plaintiff David Trapp filed a notice of civil claim in B.C.
Supreme Court against Her Majesty the Queen in right of British
Columbia, and the right-wing B.C. Liberal party -- not to be
confused with the federal Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau.

Trapp claims the B.C. Liberal Party has spent millions of dollars
on "taxpayer-funded partisan and non-essential advertising," to
promote the party's agenda on job creation and natural gas
resource development.

"The purpose of the above-noted advertising is to enhance the
image and reputation of the elected defendants' political party
and to improve their likelihood of success in the provincial
election," the complaint states.

Trapp says the governing party has wrongfully deleted public
records, and that under former Premier Gordon Campbell, it
suspended non-essential advertising before the 2009 election.
Advertising then was limited to benign topics such as foster
parent recruitment, service changes, public meetings, and traffic
pattern changes, according to the complaint.

Trapp seeks class certification and wants the party ordered to
repay the public treasury for the partisan and non-essential ads
it bought.

The B.C. Liberal Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Trapp's attorney Paul Doroshenko said in a phone interview that
the lawsuit was spurred by public anger over the government ads,
which have been running concurrently with ads for the B.C. Liberal
Party, produced by the same advertising firm.

While there are no precedents to cite in the case, Doroshenko
said, the B.C. government breached its fiduciary duty to taxpayers
by spending public money on the ads.

"My concern is that they've taken what appears $15 million of our
taxpayer money and they're running ads in the hopes of getting
reelected," he said. "The [B.C.] Liberal Party is converting
taxpayer money to their own [uses] and reaping the benefit and
distorting the electoral process in the process. . . . The number
one rule of a fiduciary [is], 'Don't take it for your own good.'"

In a Jan. 13 article under the headline: "British Columbia: The
'Wild West' of Canadian Political Cash," The New York Times
reported, among other things, that in addition to her annual
salary of 195,000 Canadian tax dollars, B.C. Premier Christy Clark
gets another 50,000 Canadian dollars from her party's coffers.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits "Hussey" Plaintiff's Next Move
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., awaits the Plaintiff's next
move in the lawsuit titled Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., et
al., according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 28, 2017.

On May 27, 2016 ("Acquisition Date"), the Company completed its
acquisition of Ruckus Wireless, Inc., a public company
incorporated in the state of Delaware, to strengthen its Internet
Protocol ("IP") Networking product portfolio by adding Ruckus'
wireless products and services to the Company's networking
solutions.

A putative class action captioned Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
et al. is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (referred to as the "Hussey
action"). The original complaint in the Hussey action filed on
June 3, 2016, alleged that Ruckus, members of the Ruckus board of
directors, Ruckus' chief financial officer, Brocade, and a Brocade
subsidiary violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act based on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or alleged
omissions in the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 filed by Ruckus with the SEC on April 29, 2016, and violated
Section 14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated
thereunder based on the allegedly differential consideration
received by members of the Ruckus board of directors and Ruckus'
chief financial officer in connection with the acquisition.

An amended complaint filed on October 24, 2016, named the same
defendants as the original complaint and alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(7), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder, that the
members of the Ruckus board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Ruckus stockholders, and that Ruckus' chief financial
officer, Brocade and the Brocade subsidiary aided and abetted the
members of the Ruckus board of directors in breaching their
fiduciary duties to Ruckus stockholders by purportedly doing one
or more of the following: agreeing to terms preferential to the
defendants and other Ruckus insiders; accepting overly restrictive
deal protection measures in the merger agreement; failing to
negotiate for a collar on Brocade's stock price; engaging a
financial advisor with conflicts of interest; providing allegedly
false, misleading, and/or incomplete disclosures regarding
conflicts of interest and the opinion of Ruckus's financial
advisors; and ultimately agreeing to unfair transaction
consideration for the Ruckus shares. The amended complaint sought
an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

On December 8, 2016, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the court granted the motion and dismissed
the amended complaint, with leave to amend as to all claims except
the claim for violations of Section 14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder, which claim was dismissed
without leave to amend. The plaintiff is required to file any
further amended complaint regarding its remaining claims on or
before March 20, 2017.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is a supplier of networking
hardware, software, and services for businesses and organizations
of various types and sizes.  The Company's end customers include
global enterprises and other organizations that use its products
and services as part of their communications infrastructure.  In
addition, service providers, such as telecommunication firms,
cable operators, and mobile carriers, use the Company's products
and services as part of their commercial operations.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Six Suits Over Sale to Broadcom
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is defending six purported
class action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by
Broadcom Limited, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 28, 2017.

On November 2, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Broadcom Limited, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, Broadcom
Corporation, a California corporation and an indirect subsidiary
of Broadcom ("Parent"), and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. On December 19, 2016, Parent
assigned all of its rights under the Merger Agreement to LSI
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect subsidiary of
Broadcom.

Subsequent to the announcement that Brocade had agreed to be
acquired by Broadcom, six purported class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of Brocade's stockholders against Brocade and
members of its board of directors in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. Three of the six
complaints also name Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation,
and/or Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants. The six complaints
are captioned as follows: Steinberg v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 12, 2016) (the "Steinberg
action"); Gross v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al.
(filed December 15, 2016); Bragan v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2016); Jha v. Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2016)
(the "Jha action"); Chuakay v. Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., et al. (filed January 5, 2017) (the "Chuakay action"); and
Matthew v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al. (filed
January 18, 2017) (collectively, the "Broadcom Acquisition-Related
Litigation"). The complaints each allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 arising out
of the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
December 6, 2016 (the "preliminary proxy statement") and/or the
Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on
December 20, 2016 (the "definitive proxy statement") relating to
Broadcom's proposed acquisition of Brocade.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy
statement and/or the definitive proxy statement omits material
information regarding the background of the transaction, the
Company's financial projections, the Company's intrinsic value and
prospects, the valuation analyses performed by Evercore Group
L.L.C. ("Evercore"), the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the transaction, and alleged conflicts of interest faced by
Evercore. The plaintiffs in each action seek to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the transaction, or, if the
transaction is consummated, the plaintiffs alternatively seek
rescission and/or damages. The plaintiffs also seek costs and
fees.

On January 11, 2017, the plaintiff in the Jha action filed a
motion (the "Injunction Motion") seeking to preliminarily enjoin
the special meeting of Brocade stockholders scheduled for January
26, 2017, at which time Brocade stockholders were to vote on the
transaction. The plaintiffs in the Steinberg action and the
Chuakay action subsequently joined the Injunction Motion. To
mitigate the risk of the Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation
delaying or adversely affecting the transaction, and to minimize
the expense of defending the Broadcom Acquisition-Related
Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on
January 18, 2017, the Company made certain disclosures that
supplemented and revised those contained in the definitive proxy
statement. The plaintiffs in the Jha action, the Steinberg action,
and the Chuakay action subsequently withdrew the Injunction
Motion.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., is a supplier of networking
hardware, software, and services for businesses and organizations
of various types and sizes.  The Company's end customers include
global enterprises and other organizations that use its products
and services as part of their communications infrastructure.  In
addition, service providers, such as telecommunication firms,
cable operators, and mobile carriers, use the Company's products
and services as part of their commercial operations.


CALIFORNIA: Judge May Toss Portions of Inmates' Phone Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland Calif. indicated on March 21, she
would toss at least some claims in four related class actions
accusing Bay Area jails of allowing telecoms to overcharge inmates
and their families for phone calls in exchange for a slice of the
profits.

Inmates filed virtually identical class actions accusing Alameda,
Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties of forcing them
to pay excessive fees to make and receive phone calls, in
violation of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's unlawful
takings provision, the Equal Protection Clause and Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act. All four class actions were filed in
August 2016 and amended in December.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

The inmates say the four Bay Area counties struck deals with
Global Tel Link Corp. and Securus Technologies, granting them
exclusive rights to run phone systems in their jails. Inmates or
their families must set up prepaid accounts with the telecoms, are
charged "unreasonable, unjust and exorbitant rates," and most of
the money goes to the counties as "commissions," according to the
four virtually identical complaints.

The counties and their jails get $1.5 million annually or nearly
71 percent of the commissions, whichever is higher, and a yearly
$150,000 technology grant, according to the complaints.

At oral argument on March 21, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers ripped apart most of the plaintiffs' arguments, and turned
her most scathing critique upon their constitutional claims.

The lawsuits claim that the phone rates "essentially extort()
monies from mostly poor and minority families trying to get by and
stay in contact with loved ones," in violation of the First
Amendment. They also claim that the fees and the "extortionate and
outrageous 'commissions'" disproportionately charge poor people
and people of color for county services whose costs should be
borne by all taxpayers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's
takings provision.

"What concerns me in this case is the needle the plaintiffs are
trying to thread," Gonzalez Rogers said.

"'No, judge, we're just talking about, you issue an order setting
aside all future contracts, but we are really not trying to
invalidate the contracts in front of you.' It seems to me that if
I find that these contracts are unconstitutional as a matter of
law, how can I sit here and allow them [the contracts] to proceed
until the expiration of their terms?"

Plaintiffs' attorney Barrett Litt told Gonzalez Rogers they are
challenging the constitutionality of the commissions, not the
constitutionality of the contracts themselves. He said the court
could segregate the commissions and put them into an inmate
welfare fund for education and other inmate services.

Gonzalez Rogers seemed dissatisfied with that argument, saying
that by challenging the commissions, the plaintiffs are also
challenging the terms of the contracts.

The parties then turned to joinder. In a consolidated motion to
dismiss, filed in January, the counties say the claims should be
dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to join Global Tel Link
and Securus, which charge and collect the phone rates and fees,
with the counties as defendants.

Litt countered on March 21, that the suits are focused on the
government, not the telecoms, and that adding the telecoms "would
unnecessarily complicate what we have tried to make a very clear
focus of this litigation."

"There are lots of cases challenging on a nationwide basis whether
or not these phone companies can engage," he said. "This is not
what this case is about. This case is about the role of government
entities and whether it's permissible role for them to play."

Gonzalez Rogers seemed equally skeptical of the plaintiffs'
joinder argument, essentially telling Litt that his clients would
lose on the issue.

"I think both sides concede that joinder is feasible, correct?"
she asked of Litt.

Gonzalez Rogers largely refrained from offering her opinion on the
Sherman Act arguments.

The plaintiffs claim that instead of keeping prices low by putting
phone services out for bid, or allowing multiple companies to
provide service, the counties sign exclusive agreements with the
company "willing to pay the highest kickback."

The counties say the Sherman Act claims are barred because
counties collect the commissions pursuant to state law. They deny
that exclusive contracting and collecting commissions violate
antitrust laws.

"The county's decision to have one phone provider, that's what
makes it anticompetitive. The size of the commissions has nothing
to do with being competitive or anticompetitive," said San Mateo
County attorney Michael von Loewenfeldt.

"The question is: Did the Legislature understand it was going to
be anticompetitive activity? Yes. Did the Legislature also foresee
that anticompetitive activity included charging commissions? Yes,
because they told us what to do with the money."

Von Loewenfeldt is with Kerr & Wagstaffe in San Francisco; Litt
with Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt in Pasadena.


CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Ruling in CGC Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sandy Hutchens, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled CGC Holding Co., et al. v.
Hutchens, et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-01012-RBJ-KLM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The appellate case is captioned as CGC Holding Co., et al. v.
Hutchens, et al., Case No. 17-1091, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CGC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company; CRESCENT SOUND YACHT CLUB, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HARLEM ALGONQUIN LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company; and JAMES T. MEDICK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          P. Box 10
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
          E-mail: mmcguckin@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com

Defendants-Appellants SANDY HUTCHENS, AKA Fred Hayes, AKA Moishe
Alexander, AKA Moshe Ben Avraham; TANYA HUTCHENS; JENNIFER
HUTCHENS, AKA Jennifer Araujo; 1681071 ONTARIO INC., an Ontario
corporation which has changed its name to Canadian Funding
Limited; NORTHERN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD, an Ontario corporation;
2800 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE UNITS 106-107 LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ESTATE OF JUDITH HUTCHENS; 129 LAREN STREET
INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141250 Ontario Inc.; 3415
ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129974 Ontario
Inc.; 367-369 HOWEY DRIVE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA
1714530 Ontario Inc.; 3419 ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario
corporation, AKA 2129982 Ontario Inc.; 17 SERPENTINE STREET INC.,
an Ontario corporation, AKA 1714529 Ontario Inc.; 720 CAMBRIAN
HEIGHTS INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2154461 Ontario Inc.;
331 REGENT STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2126929
Ontario Inc.; 789 LAWSON STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA
2128417 Ontario Inc.; 110-114 PINE STREET INC., an Ontario
corporation, AKA 2173061 Ontario Inc.; 15-16 KEZIAH COURT INC., an
Ontario corporation, AKA 2128412 Ontario Inc.; 193 MOUNTAIN STREET
INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141249 Ontario Inc.; 625 ASH
STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2128413 Ontario Inc.; 364
MORRIS STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2119821 Ontario
Inc.; SANTAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.; 101 SERVICES ROAD INC.; 146
WHITAKER STREET INC., an Ontario corporation; 1697030 ONTARIO
INC.; JBD HUTCHENS FAMILY HOLDINGS INC., an Ontario corporation,
AKA 2129981 Ontario Inc.; JBD HOLDINGS; 1539006 ONTARIO INC.; 308
ELGIN STREET INC.; CANADIAN FUNDING CORPORATION; FIRST CENTRAL
HOLDINGS INC.; and FIRST CENTRAL MORTGAGE FUNDING INC. are
represented by:

          Scott Eric Gessler, Esq.
          HALE WESTFALL LLP
          1600 Stout Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 904-6010

               - and -

          Steven A. Klenda, Esq.
          ADROIT ADVOCATES
          1624 Market Street, Suite 202
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 432-5705
          E-mail: sklenda@adroitadvocates.com


CASCADE BANCORP: Faces "Crosse" Shareholder Class Suit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Bancorp is facing a purported shareholder lawsuit styled
Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, according to the Company's March 3,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 17, 2016, First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First
Interstate") and Cascade announced a definitive agreement (the
"First Interstate merger agreement") under which First Interstate,
parent company of First Interstate Bank, will acquire Cascade in a
cash and stock transaction for total consideration valued at
approximately $590.5 million in aggregate, or $7.62 per share
based on the First Interstate closing price of $38.40 per share on
November 17, 2016 (the "First Interstate merger").

On February 24, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon styled
Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV08305.  In the complaint, the
plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by filing with the SEC a Registration Statement
that fails to disclose all material information about the First
Interstate merger.  The plaintiff further alleges that the Company
and First Interstate aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief to
prevent the First Interstate merger from going forward, as well as
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations of the Complaint are
without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims set forth in the Complaint.

Cascade Bancorp is an Oregon corporation and registered bank
holding company that was formed in 1990 and is headquartered in
Bend, Oregon.  Bancorp and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bank of
the Cascades, operate in Central, Southern, Coastal and Northwest
Oregon, as well as in the greater Boise/Treasury Valley, Idaho and
Seattle Metro areas.


CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit by Sternheim Family
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Bancorp is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by
shareholder Sternheim Family Trust, the Company said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 17, 2016, First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First
Interstate") and Cascade announced a definitive agreement (the
"First Interstate merger agreement") under which First Interstate,
parent company of First Interstate Bank, will acquire Cascade in a
cash and stock transaction for total consideration valued at
approximately $590.5 million in aggregate, or $7.62 per share
based on the First Interstate closing price of $38.40 per share on
November 17, 2016 (the "First Interstate merger").

On February 16, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the Circuit Court for Deschutes County, Oregon styled
Sternheim Family Trust v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV06744.  In the
complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and agreeing to the
First Interstate merger.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that
the directors failed to obtain the highest possible value for the
Company, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions in the
merger agreement, and failed to disclose all material information
in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC.  The plaintiff
further alleges that the Company and First Interstate aided and
abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the First Interstate
merger from going forward, damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations of the Complaint are
without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims set forth in the Complaint.

Cascade Bancorp is an Oregon corporation and registered bank
holding company that was formed in 1990 and is headquartered in
Bend, Oregon.  Bancorp and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bank of
the Cascades, operate in Central, Southern, Coastal and Northwest
Oregon, as well as in the greater Boise/Treasury Valley, Idaho and
Seattle Metro areas.


CCO HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
CCO Holdings, LLC, awaits final approval of a settlement resolving
a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's
March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO
Holdings, LLC "CCO Holdings") completed its previously reported
merger transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy
TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and
certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction").

In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast Corporation and
Legacy TWC of their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others
filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
County of New York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their
respective officers and directors.  Later five similar class
actions were consolidated with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The
NY Actions were settled in July 2014, however, such settlement was
terminated following the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger
in April 2015.

In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.
Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the
members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders
during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York
Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the
settlement in October 2016.

A hearing to consider final approval of this settlement has been
set for March 2017.

In the event that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the
settlement, Charter intends to vigorously defend this case.

CCO Holdings, LLC, is the second largest cable operator in the
United States and a leading broadband communications services
company providing video, Internet and voice services to
approximately 26.2 million residential and business customers at
December 31, 2016.  In addition, the Company sells video and
online advertising inventory to local, regional and national
advertising customers and fiber-delivered communications and
managed information technology ("IT") solutions to larger
enterprise customers.  The Company also owns and operates regional
sports networks and local sports, news and lifestyle channels and
sells security and home management services to the residential
marketplace.


CCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the stockholder lawsuit initiated by Matthew
Sciabacucchi remains pending in Delaware, CCO Holdings, LLC, said
in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO
Holdings, LLC "CCO Holdings") completed its previously reported
merger transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy
TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and
certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction").

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew
Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging
the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the
"Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty
Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New
Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions.  Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions. Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this
litigation but the court has not yet ruled upon it.

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

Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial
defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit.

CCO Holdings, LLC, is the second largest cable operator in the
United States and a leading broadband communications services
company providing video, Internet and voice services to
approximately 26.2 million residential and business customers at
December 31, 2016.  In addition, the Company sells video and
online advertising inventory to local, regional and national
advertising customers and fiber-delivered communications and
managed information technology ("IT") solutions to larger
enterprise customers.  The Company also owns and operates regional
sports networks and local sports, news and lifestyle channels and
sells security and home management services to the residential
marketplace.


CHAPS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chaps, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Shops, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01417 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay exempt-classified Store Managers'
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chaps, Inc. operates more than 100 stores in New York using the
"Rainbow Shops" brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Hart" Suit over Internet Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Santa Ana, Calif. claims that Charter
Communications and Spectrum Management Holding Co., fka Time
Warner Cable, promised internet service at speeds they knew they
could not deliver.

The case is captioned, ELIZABETH HART and LE'ROY ROBERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and SPECTRUM
MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY LLC, Defendants Case 8:17-cv-00556-DOC-
RAO (C.D. Cal. March 28, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

     Jamin S. Soderstrom Esq.
     SODERSTROM LAW PC
     3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Tel: (949) 667-4700
     Fax: (949) 424-8091
     E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Douglas L. Mahaffey Esq.
     MAHAFFEY LAW GROUP
     20162 SW Birch Street, Suite 300
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: (949) 833-1400
     Fax: (949) 263-8736
     E-mail:  dougm@mahaffeylaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Scholl" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Scholl, Brian K. Glover, and Dennis W. Vaughn, on behalf
of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation Savings and Incentive Stock
Bonus Plan, themselves, and a class consisting of similarly
situated participants of the Plans v. Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, The Benefits Committee of Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, The Investment Committee Of Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, Jay Hawkins, and John Does 1-20, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00279-R (W.D. Ok., March 14, 2017), arises from the failure of the
Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation
Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan, to protect the interests
of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries in
violation of the Defendants' legal obligations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the putative class members who are also
Participants by, permitting the Plan to continue to offer
Chesapeake Stock as an investment option to Participants even
after they knew or should have known that: Chesapeake Stock was,
for a substantial portion of the Class Period (between February
27, 2015, and September 28, 2016), artificially inflated; through
their access to massive amounts of publicly-available information,
Chesapeake was in extremely poor financial condition; and the
Company faced equally poor long term prospects, making it an
imprudent retirement investment for the Plan.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emmanuel E. Edem, Esq.
      L. Mark Bonner, Esq.
      127 N.W. 10th St.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73103
      Telephone: (405) 272-0200
      Facsimile: (405) 272-1055
      E-mail: lmb@nemw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend RICO Suits in Pa. and Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against
statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and
purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on
behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages
related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the
Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream
business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These
cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral rights.
One of the cases includes claims of intentional interference with
contractual relations and violations of antitrust laws related to
purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas
gathering sources.

                      Oklahoma Suit Tossed

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in the 2016 Shareholder
Litigation, Chesapeake Energy also disclosed in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 19, 2016, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the
Company and current and former directors and officers of the
Company alleging, among other things, violation of and conspiracy
to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate
assets, gross mismanagement and violations of Sections 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act related to actions allegedly taken
by such persons since 2008. The lawsuit sought to assert
derivative and direct claims, certification as a class action,
damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The District Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on August 30, 2016.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims in Noteholders Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit brought on behalf
of holders of Chesapeake Energy Corporation's 6.875% Senior Notes
due 2020 and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021, according to the
Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the
Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125%
Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company
privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien
Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior
unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are
qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit,
as a result of the Company's private debt exchange in which only
QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to
participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense
of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value
of the 2020 Notes and the 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages
and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the
debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second
Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange
effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the
2020 Notes and the 2021 Notes.

In June 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and in
October 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on February 8,
2017.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending a purported class
action lawsuit alleging violations of securities laws, according
to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company received a Department of Justice subpoena and a
voluntary document request from the SEC seeking information on the
Company's accounting methodology for the acquisition and
classification of oil and natural gas properties and related
matters. Chesapeake has engaged in discussions with the DOJ and
SEC about these matters.

On October 4, 2016, a securities class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
the Company and certain current directors and officers of the
Company alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws for purported misstatements in the Company's SEC
filings and other public disclosures regarding the Company's
accounting for the acquisition and classification of oil and
natural gas properties. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class
action, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit Alleging Wells Caused Earthquakes Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending itself against a
putative class action lawsuit alleging it operated wells in a
manner that has caused earthquakes, the Company said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 14, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, alleging that the Company and the other
defendants have operated produced water disposal wells in a manner
that has caused earthquakes. The proposed class would consist of
property owners in a twenty-six county area of Oklahoma. The
petition seeks, among other relief, reimbursement of insurance
premiums and an award of damages for injury to real property.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Various Suits over Royalty Claims Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending itself against numerous
lawsuits asserting royalty claims, according to the Company's
March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas
producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty
underpayment. The suits against the Company allege, among other
things, that the Company used below-market prices, made improper
deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered
into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of
royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural
gas and NGL. Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their
respective leases. Oil and gas law varies from state to state, and
royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the
legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations.
The Company has resolved a number of these claims through
negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has
prevailed in various other lawsuits. The Company is currently
defending lawsuits seeking damages with respect to royalty
underpayment in various states, including, but not limited to,
Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and
Arkansas. These lawsuits include cases filed by individual royalty
owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a
statewide class. The Company also has received DOJ, U.S. Postal
Service and state subpoenas or information requests seeking
information on the Company's royalty payment practices.

Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual
royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to
properties in Texas. These lawsuits, organized for pre-trial
proceedings with respect to the Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford
Shale, respectively, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid
royalties by making improper deductions, using incorrect
production volumes and similar theories. Chesapeake expects that
additional lawsuits will continue to be pursued and that new
plaintiffs will file other lawsuits making similar allegations.

On December 9, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the
Office of Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the Bradford County
Court of Common Pleas related to royalty underpayment and lease
acquisition and accounting practices with respect to properties in
Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, which primarily relates to the
Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale, alleges that Chesapeake violated
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law (UTPCPL) by making improper deductions and entering into
arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of
royalties. The lawsuit includes other UTPCPL claims and antitrust
claims, including that a joint exploration agreement to which
Chesapeake is a party established unlawful market allocation for
the acquisition of leases. The lawsuit seeks statutory
restitution, civil penalties and costs, as well as temporary
injunction from exploration and drilling activities in
Pennsylvania until restitution, penalties and costs have been paid
and a permanent injunction from further violations of the UTPCPL.
Chesapeake has filed preliminary objections to the most recently
amended complaint.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suits Alleging Rigging of Bids Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against
antitrust lawsuits alleging it conspired to rig bids and depress
the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas, according to
the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company is defending lawsuits alleging various violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016,
putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in
Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court of Kansas, in each case against the
Company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that,
since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants
conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of
oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the
Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The
lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as
well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would
restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the
lawsuits.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation owns interests in approximately
22,700 oil and natural gas wells and produced an average of
approximately 575 mboe per day in the 2016 fourth quarter, net to
the Company's interest.  The Company has a large and
geographically diverse resource base of onshore U.S.
unconventional natural gas and liquids assets.  The Company has
leading positions in the liquids-rich resource plays of the Eagle
Ford Shale in South Texas, the Utica Shale in Ohio, the Anadarko
Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the stacked pay in the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming.  The Company also owns an oil and natural
gas marketing business.


CIOX HEALTH: Sued Over Overpriced Electronic Medical Record Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Roscoe, on behalf of all other similarly-situated class
members v. CIOX Health, LLC f/k/a HealthPort Technologies, LLC,
Case No. 2017CV287340 (Ga. Super. Ct., March 14, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for violation the Health Records Act,
specifically by charging the Plaintiff a fee that was more than
the reasonable costs to produce Electronic Medical
Records/Electronic Health Records.

CIOX Health, LLC is engaged in the business of the release,
retrieval, and management of health information. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
      W. Daniel "Dee" MILES III, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb II, Esq.
      Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      E-mail: iere.beaslev@beaslevallen.com
              dee.miles@beaslevallen.com

         - and -

     Matt Harman, Esq.
     Eric Fredrickson, Esq.
     HARMAN LAW LLC
     3414 Peachtree Rd NE Suite 1250
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Telephone: (404) 554-0777
     E-mail: mharman@harmanlaw.com
             efredrickson@harmanlaw.com


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Sobel" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
pointing to oil's miraculous market turnaround, shareholders claim
in a federal class action in Wilmington, Del. that the planned
$3.2 billion acquisition of a Texas tycoon's company falls short.

Filing suit in Delaware on March 22, lead plaintiff Alan Sobel
notes that shares of Clayton Williams Energy have more than
tripled over the past six months. The company's stock went from
$29.53 to $103.98 in the half-year prior to the January
announcement that Noble Energy Inc. would acquire all of Clayton
stock, plus $500 million in debt, according to the complaint.

The spike in stock value aligns with a surprising comeback for the
industry. Forbes reported that the eponymous CEO of Clayton
Williams Energy appeared poised for financial ruin when oil prices
had plummeted to a decade low in early 2016.

Now that prices are trending upward, Sobel says the deal with
Noble "appears . . . unfair and inadequate" to company's
shareholders.

"The intrinsic value of the company's common stock is materially
in excess of the amount offered for those securities in the
proposed merger given the company's recent financial performance
and prospects for future growth and earnings," the complaint
alleges.

Worse, says Sobel, board members attempted to pull the wool over
shareholders' eyes by submitting a "materially incomplete and
misleading" financial report to the Securities Exchange
Commission.

With shareholders putting the the buyout offer to a vote on April
24, the company filed an Amended S-4 Registration Statement with
the SEC that Sobel says contained several omissions.

Sobel argues that the monetary projections and other data crucial
missing from the statement are crucial to shareholders making an
informed decision on the fairness of the deal, including terms of
confidentiality agreements between the two sides and a financial
analysis on the buyout rendered by Goldman Sachs.

The incomplete S-4 statement constitutes a violation of the
federal Securities Exchange Act, which prohibits both outright
falsehoods and the practice of misleading shareholders by omitting
certain facts, according to complaint.

Sobel wants the court to put a stop to the proposed transaction
and to postpone the shareholder vote until Clayton Williams Energy
execs pony up all the numbers relevant to the merger, including
the Goldman Sachs valuation analysis.

Individual defendants to the class action include the 84-year-old
eponymous CEO of Clayton Williams Energy.

Williams looked poised to trade the oil rigs for politics in 1990
when he held a huge lead in the Texas gubernatorial race. His
campaign went awry, however, when he jokingly compared bad weather
to rape. "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it," Williams
had said.

Representatives from Clayton Williams Energy did not return on
March 27 a phone call seeking comment.

The class is represented by James Banko of Faruqi & Faruqi.

The case is captioned, ALAN  SOBEL, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CLAYTON WILLIAMS
ENERGY, INC., CLAYTON W. WILLIAMS, JR., MEL G. RIGGS, DAVIS L.
FORD, Ph.D., P. SCOTT MARTIN, RONALD  D. SCOTT, JORDAN R. SMITH,
and NATHAN W. WALTON, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00312-UNA (D. Del.,
March 22, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel.: (302) 482-3182
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
     Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Contact Lens Consumers Suits Still in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The actions initiated by contact lens consumers are currently in
discovery, according to The Cooper Companies, Inc.'s March 3,
2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The
plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various
courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class
action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints in December 2015. In June 2016, the motion
to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the motion to dismiss
with respect to claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and other state laws was denied.

The actions currently are in discovery.

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

CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the
actions vigorously. At this time, the Company does not believe a
loss or adverse effect on its financial condition is probable nor
is any range of potential loss reasonably estimable.

The Cooper Companies, Inc., is a global medical device company
publicly traded on the NYSE Euronext.  Cooper operates through its
business units, CooperVision and CooperSurgical.  CooperVision
primarily develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of soft
contact lenses for the worldwide vision correction market.
CooperSurgical primarily develops, manufactures, markets medical
devices and procedures solutions, and provides services to improve
health care delivery to families.


CVS PHARMACY: Calif. Judge Won't Certify 11 State Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. refused to certify 11
state classes in a national class action accusing CVS Pharmacy of
cheating customers.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found the plaintiffs
had not satisfied predominance, commonality and typicality
requirements for certification, and gave them until April 24 to
file an amended motion to certify, if they choose.

"Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the class action
procedure can resolve common questions, which predominate all the
identified transactions. Certification would be inappropriate,"
Gonzalez Rogers wrote in the March 21 order denying class
certifying and denying other motions to strike as moot.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran sued CVS in August 2015,
claiming it charged insured customers and their insurers up to
four times more for generic prescription drugs than it charged
uninsured customers.

Corcoran said that by law, the co-pay that CVS charges insured
customers cannot exceed its "usual and customary price" -- the
amount it charges uninsured customers for a prescription. But
CVS's co-pays do exceed that price, he said.

In calculating a customary price, a pharmacy takes into account
the most common prices it charges for drugs without insurance. The
pharmacy then reports its customary price to insurers, and
insurers and patients pay the pharmacy what they owe based on that
price, according to the plaintiffs' motion to certify.

In 2008, CVS launched its Health Savings Pass (HSP) program, a
discount program for generic drugs aimed at uninsured patients.
When CVS rolled it out, a 90-day supply of a covered drug cost
$9.99. Corcoran said that CVS should have used that rate to
calculate its customary price, but did not.

In fighting certification, CVS argued that determining customary
prices, and which contracts required it to report the HSP price as
customary, would require analyzing thousands of individual
contracts between it and insurers, because each contract contains
a different definition of customary price.

The plaintiffs maintained that the contracts all contained the
same definition of customary price.

"Plaintiffs do not persuade," Gonzalez Rogers wrote on March 23.
"First, even ignoring contracts that expressly exclude membership
programs from their definition of U&C [usual and customary], the
showing before the court demonstrates significant variation with
how the different contracts define U&C."

She said several insurance executives have submitted declarations
stating that they did not consider the HSP prices to be customary.

Finally, Gonzalez Rogers found that four of the class
representatives were not typical of the classes they sought to
represent.

CVS had argued that the four representatives were atypical because
they did not buy a 90-day supply of drugs, and so paid less than
the HSP price.

The plaintiffs said the class representatives paid prorated prices
based on the HSP price for 30- and 60-day supplies.

Gonzalez Rogers called that argument "speculative," and added that
the plaintiffs had not submitted a reference price for the
prorated drugs. The lack of a reference price, she said, would
subject the claims to individual analysis.

The plaintiffs sought to certify 11 classes of CVS customers, in
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

They are represented by Robert Gilmore with Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner; and CVS by Frank Heard with Williams &
Connolly, both of Washington, D.C.

Both attorneys declined to comment on March 24.


CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LORI LECLAIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. CWI, INC. d/b/a CAMPING WORLD, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017),
alleges that instead of paying Plaintiff overtime, Camping World
paid all of its parts coordinators a base salary and bonuses in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Camping World is a camping and outdoor lifestyle retail company
with significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-751-0025
     Fax: 713-751-0030
     E-mail: jbresler@fibichlaw.com
             mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Fax: (312) 419-1025
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


DAVID BOULEY LLC: "Ahmed" Alleges FLSA Violation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
Enam Ahmed, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. David Bouley LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02189 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff is a former food service employee of Defendant's
restaurant.

Defendant is a limited liability company owned and operated by
Chef David Bouley that operated a number of restaurants and event
spaces in New York City, including but not limited to the
following: Bouley Restaurant, Bouley Test Kitchen and Bouley
Botanical. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory N. Filosa, Esq.
   Filosa Law Firm, PLLC
   111 John Street, Suite 2510
   New York, NY 10038
   Tel: (212) 256-1780
   Fax: (212) 256-1781
   Email: gfilosa@filosalaw.com


DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Sues Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Tames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. DE C.V. a/k/a Homex
Development Corp., Gerardo De Nicolas Gutierrez, and Carlos
Moctezuma Velasco, Case No. 1:17-cv-01416 (E.D.N.Y., March 14,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. DE C.V. develops, constructs, and
sells housing properties in Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


DESARROLLADORA HOMEX: Brower Piven Disclose Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Desarrolladora
Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. a/k/a/ Homex Development Corp.  American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) during the period between April 30, 2012
through May 5, 2016, inclusive.  Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until May 15, 2017 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that 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, that
between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated the number of units it
sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of actual units sold, and that
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.

According to the complaint, following the April 30, 2014
announcement that Homex had filed for bankruptcy protection; a May
2, 2014 announcement that the New York Stock Exchange determined
to commence proceedings to delist American Depository Shares
("ADS's") and suspended trading of those ADSs; and a May 6, 2016
SEC filing revealing that the SEC had issued a Wells notice to the
Company in connection with alleged anti-fraud, internal control
and reporting violations and revealing that the Company's
financial statements for 2010-2012 should not be relied upon, the
value of Homex ADSs declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Homex ADSs purchased on or after April 30, 2012 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

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

                            About Homex

Desarrolladora Homex, S.A.B. de C.V. is a vertically integrated
home-development company focused on affordable entry-level and
middle-income housing in Mexico.

Homex shares were suspended 2014, when a debt crisis and lack
of demand for its homes prompted the company to file for
bankruptcy.  The Company emerged from bankruptcy proceedings in
July 2015, and the national securities regulator CNBV has cleared
its shares to trade again.



DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Refuses to Certify Mortgage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge on March 21 said investors seeking to hold Deutsche Bank AG
liable for causing $3.1 billion of losses by failing to properly
monitor 10 trusts backed by toxic residential mortgages cannot
pursue their claims as a group.

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan said Belgium's
Royal Park Investments SA/NV failed to show it was more likely
than not that the proposed class was "sufficiently ascertainable"
to justify class-action status.

The two-page denial was without prejudice, meaning Royal Park and
its law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd may seek class
certification later.

Judge Nathan kept a decision outlining her reasoning under seal,
saying it may contain material that Royal Park believes should not
be made public.  She asked both sides to advise within two weeks
whether all or part of that decision can be made public.

Class certification can make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain
higher recoveries at lower cost than if they sued individually.

Royal Park accused Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, in its role as
bond trustee, of ignoring "widespread" deficiencies in how loans
underlying the trusts were underwritten and serviced, and failing
to require that lenders buy back defective loans.


The 10 trusts date from 2006 and 2007.  Many investors have in
recent years sued trustees, as well as lenders and underwriters,
over losses on badly underwritten mortgages.

The case is Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
14-04394.


DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that DirecTV LLC asked an
Illinois federal court on March 20 to toss a proposed class action
accusing the satellite TV provider of trying to collect debts from
consumers who'd never actually signed up for the service, saying
the laws it allegedly broke don't apply in this instance.

DirecTV's motion to dismiss said plaintiff Mary Arnold's Fair
Credit Reporting Act claims fail because that law doesn't allow
individuals to bring suits and that her claims under Illinois's
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or ICFA, also
fail because she can't prove she was damaged when DirecTV
allegedly sent her bills for a different Mary -- or that the
alleged practice was deceptive or unfair.

"First, plaintiff fails to allege any details about the alleged
fraud or deception by DirecTV," the company said.  "Second,
plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any deceptive statement by
DirecTV."

In the alternative, DirecTV also filed a simultaneous motion to
strike the class allegations from the suit, saying Ms. Arnold
"offers nothing more than 'mere speculation' to support" the
number of consumers she says could have been affected by its debt
collection practices.  It also said the Illinois state law cannot
provide the legal basis for a multistate class action, as Arnold
proposes.

Ms. Arnold filed the suit on Feb. 22 alleging DirecTV began
sending her bills last year for a different Mary, Mary Rennie.
Ms. Arnold says she's never been a customer of DirecTV, but the
company refused to listen when she notified them of the mistake.
Since then she says the debt has damaged her credit and been
transferred to a collection agency, which is still trying to
collect on her "delinquent account" despite her contention she's
never used DirecTV in the first place.

Ms. Arnold is suing DirecTV on two counts of violating the FCRA
and one count of violating the ICFA.  The collection agency,
Enhanced Recovery Co., is also named in the suit.  She proposes
two classes, one consisting of consumers wrongfully billed for
debts that weren't theirs, and the other of consumers Enhanced
Recovery improperly tried to collect from.

She estimates thousands of consumers nationwide could fall into
the first category and hundreds in the second, but says she does
not know the exact number in either case.

A spokesman for AT&T Inc., which owns DirecTV, told Law360 the
company "does not believe the lawsuit has merit."

A representative for Arnold declined to comment on March 21.

DirecTV said the FCRA claims fail because although the law
prohibits collecting debts that have been disputed for reasons of
identity theft, it also says private cases can't be brought for
"failure by any person to comply" with those rules.  "Such an
alleged failure is precisely what plaintiff is asserting here,"
the company said.

It said the other FCRA claim, accusing DirecTV of providing
inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, fails for
roughly the same reason.

For the ICFA claim, DirecTV said the issue is better litigated in
state court. And even in federal court, the claim fails because
Arnold doesn't allege any damages, or demonstrate DirecTV's
actions were either deceptive or unfair, the company says.

"To maintain an action under the ICFA, the plaintiff must actually
be deceived by a statement or omission made by the defendant," the
motion said, quoting the law.  "Here, plaintiff does not allege
that she was 'actually . . . deceived' by any 'statement or
omission,'" only that the company may have made a mistake in
pegging Mary Rennie's past-due account on Arnold.

Arnold is represented by Shannon M. Geier of Geier Law LLC.

DirecTV is represented by Hans J. Germann, Kyle J. Steinmetz and
Christopher S. Comstock of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Mary Arnold et al. v. DirecTV et al., case number
1:17-cv-01363, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Bremer Appeals "Wright" Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Trisha Bremer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Molly Wright, et al. v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00249-SPC-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Molly Wright, et al. v. Dyck-
O'Neal, Inc., Case No. 17-11170, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Awaiting Appellant's CIP due on or before March 29, 2017,
      as to Appellant Trisha Bremer; and

   -- Awaiting Appellee's CIP due on or before April 12, 2017, as
      to Appellee Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TRISHA BREMER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, f.k.a. Trisha Rohrs; and Plaintiffs
MOLLY F. WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, f.k.a. Molly A. Bauer; SHAWN FISHER, KIMBERLY FISER,
THOMAS PATTERSON, ANGELA MCDOUGALL, f.k.a. Angela Tobin, MICHAEL
PIASECKI, CHRIS A. WIGLESWORTH, and DOROTHY WILLIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Carmen Dellutri, Esq.
          David W. Fineman, Esq.
          THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA
          1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd.
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049
          Telephone: (239) 939-0900
          Facsimile: (239) 939-0588
          E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com
                  dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., a Texas corporation, is
represented by:

          Dale Thomas Golden, Esq.
          Charles James McHale, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph C. Proulx, Esq.
          GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC
          201 North Armenia Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 251-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 251-3675
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com
                  cmchale@gsgfirm.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Lambert" Suit over Skin Gel Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Chicago claims General Nutrition Corp. labeled its Aloe Vera Skin
Gel as 99 percent aloe vera gel containing aloe barbadensis leaf
juice, but lab testing showed the product contained no actual aloe
vera.

The case is captioned, THERA LAMBERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02149 (N.D. Ill., March 21,
2017).

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com
     Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
             isalam@litedepalma.com
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.750.1265

          - and -

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Rd.
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Tel: (313) 303-3472
     E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Shub, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel: (215) 238-1700
     E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

          - and -

     Jason Thompson, Esq.
     Amy L. Marino, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Tel: (248) 355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             amarino@sommerspc.com

          - and -

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL  60008
     Tel: (847) 368-1500
     E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
             jberman@andersonwanca.com

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
     THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Tel: (877) 561-0000
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C.
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Tel: (865) 247-0090
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     Susan S. Brown, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA  94104
     Tel: (415) 433-4949
     E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
             sbrown@rocklawcal.com

          - and -

     Rachel Soffin, Esq.
     Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 223-5505
     E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com
             jcohen@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     E-mail: denright@zlk.com
             lfeldman@zlk.com

          - and -

     Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
     TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
     613 Williamson Street, #209
     Madison, WI 53703
     Tel: (608) 237-1775
     E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com


GEO GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Decision in "Menocal" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Geo Group, Inc., filed an appeal from an order
granting class certification in the lawsuit styled ALEJANDRO
MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ,
LOURDES ARGUETA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO
VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO VALEGRA, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:14-cv-02887-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The appellate case is captioned as ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS
BRAMBILA, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, LOURDES ARGUETA,
JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO
VALEGRA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 17-701, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 17,
2017, the District Court has certified a class of about 62,000
people, who claim they were forced to work for $1 a day while
detained at a privately run immigrant detention center.

In its petition for permission to appeal, Geo Group argues that
the District Court's class certification presents legally
unsettled issues of national importance and manifest errors that
warrant immediate review.  The Appellate Case asks the Tenth
Circuit to decide whether the District Court properly certified
classes authorizing an alleged 60,000 immigration detainees to
seek monetary relief based on two novel theories:

   (1) Does a contractor operating a detention facility for the
       federal government compel "forced labor" in violation of a
       federal human trafficking statute by requiring detainees
       to periodically perform housekeeping chores, when that
       contractor and its housekeeping policies are subject to
       extensive federal contractual and regulatory requirements
       as well as direct federal supervision, and the
       housekeeping policy is both longstanding and
       judicially-accepted?

   (2) Is the contractor "unjustly enriched," and required to pay
       restitution to detainees for the detainees' participation
       in a federally-created, sponsored and supervised voluntary
       work program, when the settled expectation for decades has
       been that participants are provided a daily allowance of
       $1?

Defendant-Petitioner The GEO Group, Inc. operates immigration
detention facilities under contracts with the Department of
Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, subject
to extensive contractual, regulatory and statutory requirements.
Since 1986, GEO has operated Colorado's Aurora Detention Center
(the "Facility"), where this dispute arises.

The Plaintiffs are current and former immigration detainees at the
Facility.  They have obtained certified classes on two theories:
(1) the "Trafficking Claim," alleging that they are entitled to
damages and restitution under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, which the Defendant has allegedly violated by requiring
detainees to perform housekeeping chores under an ICE-approved and
-supervised policy; and (2) the "Unjust Enrichment Claim,"
alleging that GEO has been unjustly enriched, under Colorado law,
by work ICE detainees performed under the federally-sanctioned
Voluntary Work Program for the $1 daily allowance paid by GEO,
authorized by Congress, and reimbursed by ICE.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE-DENVER
          1535 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 239-2606
          E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
          600 Grant Street, Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333-7751
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com

               - and -

          Hans C. Meyer, Esq.
          MEYER LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 40394
          1029 Santa Fe Drive
          Denver, CO 80204
          Telephone: (303) 831-0817
          E-mail: hans@themeyerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          R. Andrew Free, Esq.
          R. ANDREW FREE LAW OFFICE
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: Andrew@lmmigrantCivilRights.com

               - and -

          Brandt P. Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Dana Eismeier, Esq.
          BURNS, FIGA & WILL
          6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1000
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 796-2626
          E-mail: deismeier@bfwlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Emery, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-0210
          E-mail: mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Charles A. Deacon, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          300 Convent Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 270-7133
          E-mail: charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com


GERON CORP: Awaits Preliminary Approval of $6.25MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation awaits preliminary approval of its $6.25 million
settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Geron Corporation and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in a consolidated class action securities lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The securities class action lawsuit,
captioned In re Geron Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:14-cv-01224-CRB, was initially filed in the California District
Court on March 14, 2014 by certain stockholders of the Company on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from December 10, 2012, through and
including March 11, 2014.

On March 2, 2017, the parties to the Securities Class Action,
through their respective counsel, executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") and related documents
formalizing an agreement to settle the Securities Class Action.
Under the Stipulation, in exchange for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants in connection with
the Securities Class Action, the Company has agreed to settle the
Securities Class Action for $6.25 million in cash. The Company
expects $6.0 million of the settlement amount to be paid by the
Company's insurance providers and the remaining $250,000 to be
paid by the Company. The settlement does not constitute any
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or any of the
individual defendants.

On March 2, 2017, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the terms and conditions of the settlement
and the form of notice to all record holders and beneficial owners
of the Company's common stock during the Proposed Class Period
(the "Notice"), which included the Stipulation and related
documents. The Notice filed by plaintiff's counsel includes, among
other things, the general terms of the settlement, the proposed
plan of allocation of the settlement amount, and the terms of the
plaintiff's counsel fee application. The proposed settlement and
the Stipulation remain subject to approval by the California
District Court and certain other conditions.

A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement is available
in SEC at https://goo.gl/ZT5OjM

Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel is represented by:

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          Megan M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  msullivan@faruqilaw.com
                  klenahan@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Barbara Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom,
and Stephen M. Kelsey are represented by:

          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          Brett De Jarnette, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com
                  bdejarnette@cooley.com

               - and -

          Ryan E. Blair, Esq.
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: rblair@cooley.com


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Disburses Real Property Taxes Under Protest
---------------------------------------------------------------
LeAnne Kavanagh, writing for Cut Bank Pioneer Press, reports that
Glacier County published a notice in a paper announcing the
disbursement of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Real Property Taxes paid
under protest under the Mitchell, et al. v. Glacier County and the
State of Montana Class Action Lawsuit.  According to Glacier
County Treasurer Galen Galbreath, all of those protested taxes
were disbursed to the appropriate funds in January and February.

In a letter dated Feb. 13, the Glacier County Commissioners
instructed Mr. Galbreath to disburse the protested taxes citing
the dismissal of the class action lawsuit by District Judge Mike
Menahan's for "lack of standing."  In their letter the
commissioners stated, "We are hereby directing you as Treasurer to
remove the 2016 taxes protested based upon the Mitchell case.
Money located in the tax protest fund should be delivered to the
appropriate taxing jurisdictions, including but not limited to
City of Cut Bank, Town of Browning, Glacier Conservation District,
Northern Montana Joint Refuse District, Cut Bank School District
15, Browning School District 9, East Glacier Elementary School
District 50 and Mountain View Elementary District 64."

According to Mr. Galbreath, he has disbursed a total of
$1,006,479.94 in protested taxes to the appropriate taxing
jurisdictions.

The commissioners stressed to Mr. Galbreath, "We believe it is
important to note that tax protests for 2016 that are not based
upon Mitchell et al. vs. Glacier County should not be removed from
the protested tax funds."

Mr. Galbreath said the balance of protested taxes not related to
the class action lawsuit is $4,459,367.23 and those funds will be
held in the Protested Tax Fund until those protests are resolved.
Mr. Galbreath said those funds are all centrally-assessed
protests.

Lawrence Anderson, the Great Falls attorney representing Mitchell,
et al., notified the attorneys for Glacier County and the State of
Montana the case has not been dismissed and is "on appeal.  The
Montana Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case, and the case
is not finally resolved."  Mr. Anderson cited an Attorney General
opinion in his letter to the attorneys, claiming Glacier County
"has no authority over the funds paid under protest until the
litigation is resolved."  Mr. Anderson filed the appeal to the
Montana Supreme Court, Cause No. DA
16-0716, on Feb. 8, 2017.

Mr. Anderson continued, "We have previously objected to the
county's disbursement of moneys paid under protest during the
pendency of this appeal via our letter to you of December 13,
2016.  However, we have not even received the courtesy of a
response to that letter."

In his letter to Kirk Evenson, attorney for Glacier County, and
Gary Zadick and James Zadick, attorneys for the State of Montana,
Anderson concluded, "Unless we hear from you that the Glacier
County Treasurer's Notice has been rescinded, we will proceed with
whatever legal remedies available to protect the status quo in
this matter."

Mr. Evenson responded to Mr. Anderson in a letter dated March 17
and confirmed, "Glacier County did in fact disburse the 2015 and
2016 protested taxes which were protested by individual taxpayers"
involved in the class action lawsuit against Glacier County and
the State of Montana.

Mr. Evenson pointed out Anderson failed to filed a motion for
"stay or suspension of the Court's Order" dismissing the case the
lack of standing.  "Specifically, you did not file a motion in
District Court for a stay of the Order pending appeal, for
approval of a supersedeas bond or for an order suspending,
modifying, restoring or granting an injunction pending appeal.  As
a result, the taxes were disbursed to the appropriate taxing
jurisdictions."

Mr. Evenson concluded, ". . . Glacier County objects to your
proposed motion or writ to prohibit disbursement of tax protest
funds."


HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Sale Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Cheromcha, writing for TheDrive, reports that "discount"
tools emporium Harbor Freight has settled a class action lawsuit
over misleading sale prices, and depending on how often you
shopped there between April 2011 and December 2016 you could be in
line for up to 10 percent back on your total purchases during that
time, reports Yahoo Finance.

Here's the gist -- you know how you always see a higher "compare
at" price listed alongside the sale price, so you can feel smart
and savvy about getting such a great deal? Well, it turns those
higher prices never existed in the first place.  Also the Tooth
Fairy isn't real.  Shocking, I know.

But plaintiff Jeffrey Beck wasn't going to take this deception
lying down, so he sued on the grounds that Harbor Freight was
violating consumer protection laws with its pricing tricks, and
now you can reap the rewards of his determination if you're so
inclined.  The specific dates included in the settlement are April
8, 2011 to December 15, 2016.  There are a couple paths to your
just reward -- if you have itemized receipts (right), you can
submit a claim for 20 percent of the "you saved" amount (in other
words, the difference between the sale and comp price) in cash, or
30 percent of that on a gift card.

Perhaps recognizing that almost all their stuff is priced like
this, they're also allowing you to submit non-itemized credit or
debit card statements for 10 percent cash back (or 12 percent in
gift cards) on total purchases of "qualifying products."  Finally,
if you don't keep receipts and somehow paid for everything in
cash, you can fill out a form to make a sworn statement confirming
your claim and get a $10 gift card.

Even with the cheap prices, it's easy to spend thousands of
dollars there over the years, especially if you do your own
wrenching.  It's up to you to decide if you wouldn't have spent
that much without the allure of the fake sales, or if you're
satisfied with the affordability either way.


HERITAGE OAKS: Defends "Garfield" Suit Over Merger with Pacific
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Oaks Bancorp is defending a shareholder lawsuit filed by
Robert Garfield challenging its proposed merger with Pacific
Premier Bancorp, Inc., according to the Company's March 3, 2017,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 12, 2016, the Company and Pacific Premier Bancorp,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("PPBI"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which the Company will be merged with and into PPBI, with PPBI
surviving (the "Corporate Merger"), immediately followed by the
merger of Heritage Oaks Bank with and into Pacific Premier Bank,
the wholly-owned bank subsidiary of PPBI ("Pacific Premier"), with
Pacific Premier surviving (the "Bank Merger").

On February 16, 2017, Robert Garfield, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a complaint seeking class action status in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Luis
Obispo, against the Company, each of its directors and PPBI,
entitled Robert Garfield vs. Heritage Oaks Bancorp, et. al. (Case
No. 17cv0097). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties with regard to
the proposed merger. Among other things, the complaint seeks class
action status, a court order enjoining the Company and its
directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger,
disclosure of all material information to the Company's
shareholders, compensatory or recessionary damages and the payment
of attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes that it has defenses to all of the claims and
requested relief. The Company is unable to state whether the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is probable or
remote. The Company is also unable to provide an estimate of the
range or amount of potential loss (if the outcome should be
unfavorable). The Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.

Heritage Oaks Bancorp is a California corporation organized in
1994 and is registered as a bank holding company for Heritage Oaks
Bank.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum-Seekers' Claims Stay in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Seattle, Wash., refused the government's
request to throw out a class action brought by thousands of
asylum-seekers who say immigration authorities didn't inform them
of a one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and erected
procedural roadblocks.

U.S. District Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez said the asylum-
seekers' claims should be heard in federal court, not immigration
court as the government requested.

"Plaintiffs are not asking this court to make any finding with
respect to how immigration judges analyze the extraordinary
circumstances exception or on the asylum applications themselves.
Rather, they allege that defendants' action or inactions have
deprived them of a statutory right to apply for asylum by
foreclosing their opportunity to apply within the one year
statutory time period," Martinez wrote in the 4-page order.

Four named plaintiffs, refugees from Central and South America and
the Caribbean, filed their due-process class action last year.
They claim immigration agents never told them they had to file for
asylum within one year after they entered the United States, and
did not present the asylum-seekers with a viable path for meeting
that deadline.

Martinez granted class status to the group in January.

The case is captioned, CONCELY del CARMEN MENDEZ ROJAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.
Case 2:16-cv-01024-RSM (WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
March 28, 2017).


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in "Reniger" Suit Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Oakland,
Calif. on March 28 gave final approval to a class action
settlement in which Hyundai promises to fix cars for 10 years and
offer rebates toward buying or leasing replacement cars to settle
claims it deceived buyers about a stalling defect in one of its
SUVs.

Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants will reimburse, on a
claims-made basis, reasonable and documented Out-of-Pocket Costs,
subject to, where applicable, the Maximum Reimbursement Amount,
incurred by the Class.  Class Members eligible to make a Claim are
those who experienced a stall associated with the "929A Condition"
up to mailing date of the Class Notice.

Defendants agree that the Campaign 929A Software Update (or its
functional equivalent) will remain available free-of-charge for 10
years after the date the Class Vehicles were first put into
circulation as "new" vehicles.

Defendants also will provide a special cash incentive, on a
claims-made basis, to Class Members who wish to replace their
Class Vehicles. The New Vehicle purchase/Lease Incentive Program
provides Class Members who have experienced one documented 929A
Condition stall a rebate of $250 to $1,000 on the purchase or
lease of a new Hyundai vehicle, depending upon the specific new
vehicle purchased or leased.  The Enhanced Rebate Program doubles
this incentive, providing a rebate of $500 to $2,000 (again,
depending upon the new Hyundai vehicle purchased or leased) for
those who have experienced at least two 929A Condition stalls,
with at least one occurring after the implementation of Campaign
929A.

Hyundai has the right to contest the Class Member's claim for an
Enhanced Rebate Certificate if there is evidence in the submitted
documentation, Hyundai's records, or through third party records
to suggest that the claimed 929A Condition stall that post-dates
the installation of the Campaign 929A Software Update on the Class
Vehicle was the result of the improper or incomplete installation
of the Campaign 929A Software Update. Rebate Certificates and
Enhanced Rebate Certificates can be redeemed by sending proof of a
new Hyundai vehicle purchase or lease within one year of the
Rebate Certificate's issuance. Because the Certificates are paid
by Hyundai, and because any particular Class Member's possession
of a Certificate will be unknown to the dealer, there is no danger
of the Certificate's value being factored into the deal (i.e., of
the dealer offsetting the value of the certificate during price
negotiations).

Moreover, any dealer or customer incentives that otherwise would
be available to the Class Member at the time of the new vehicle
purchase or lease will remain available notwithstanding
availability of the Rebate Certificate or Enhanced Rebate
Certificate. The Court finds that the Settlement is not subject to
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712 as a result of these cash
rebates, which are made available to Class Members in addition to
other substantial relief.

The case is captioned, JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, OREN JAFFE,
LUCIA SAITTA and ANN MANCUSO, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a
California corporation, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, Defendants. Case 4:14-cv-03612-CW (N.D. Cal. March
28, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Lionel Z. Glancy Esq.
     Mark S. Greenstone Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile:  (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on March 20 issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of INSYS Therapeutics, Inc. ("INSYS") (NASDAQ:INSY)
between February 23, 2016 and March 15, 2017.  You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the USDC for the Southern District of New York. To get more
information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/insys-therapeutics-inc-2

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) INSYS had overstated its 2015 net revenue; (2) INSYS had
misstated its sales allowances for 2016; (3) accordingly, the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result, INSYS public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in INSYS you have until May 16, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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


IVEST 360: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that an
Ohio man has filed a class-action lawsuit against several
Pennsylvania telemarketing companies, citing alleged violation of
telephone harassment statutes.

Sean Bauer filed a complaint on behalf of himself and others in
similar situations on March 8 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Bauer alleges that Ivest
360 LLC, Fast Capital 360, Ivest 360 Syndication Group and other
unknown entities called the plaintiff using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
sustained damages from receiving unwanted calls on his cellular
telephone in March 2015.  The plaintiff holds the defendants
responsible for allegedly continuing to call the plaintiff even
after he advised the callers that he was not interested in their
services.  The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the
defendant.  Mr. Bauer also wants actual damages, statutory
damages, treble damages, court costs and any further relief the
court grants.  He is represented by Arkady "Eric" Rayz --
ERayz@kalraylaw.com -- and Demetri A. Braynin --
DBraynin@kalraylaw.com -- of Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC in Huntingdon
Valley.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-01030-AB


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Trims Claims in "Mardis" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned WANDA MARDIS et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON HEWITT et al., Defendants Civil Action No.
2:16-cv-02115 (JLL) (JAD) (D.N.J.).

Defendants include Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., ("JHTSI"),
Jackson Hewitt, Inc., ("JHI"), Tax Services of America, Inc.,
("TSA"), and Unknown Franchisees 1-100. Doing business as Jackson
Hewitt, defendants collectively provide tax preparation services
to Americans seeking to file their income taxes with the federal
government and governments of their respective state governments.
Throughout a network of over 6,300 locations nationwide, Jackson
Hewitt is the second largest full-service tax preparation business
in the United States with franchised and company-owned office
locations throughout the country. JHI and TSA are subsidiaries
corporations of parent corporation JHTSI. JHTSI and/or JHI operate
though a tightly controlled system of franchisees. Of the
franchisees, TSA is the largest, directly operating approximately
20% of the locations operating under the name Jackson Hewitt while
the rest of the locations are run by other franchisees.

At the beginning of each tax season, defendants employ teams of
tax preparers, such as the plaintiffs, to draft and file clients'
income tax returns. The tax preparers' term of employment runs for
the length of the year's tax season. Before the tax season begins,
the tax preparers are presented with a commission-based
compensation plan, which is based upon the revenues generated by
each individual tax preparer. Under the sales commission plan
provided to the employees of JHTSI, JHI and TSA, employees receive
a percentage of the net revenues the tax preparer employee
generates for the defendants. For all plaintiffs, commissions are
based on the net revenue generated by each individual plaintiff.
At the beginning of the 2013-2014 tax season, in an effort to
incentivize a specific customer base to employ their tax filing
services and generate new business, defendants implemented a
prepaid gift card promotion by which JHI and or JHTSI allegedly
instructed tax preparers at TSA and franchisee locations to
provide a $50 to $100 gift card to customers that utilize the
company's tax filing services at a location doing business as
Jackson Hewitt. At the end of the 2013-2014 tax season plaintiffs
contend that each received substantially lower commissions than
that of which they were entitled. Plaintiffs assert that they did
not receive what they were due under the commission plan because
defendants deducted the value of the gift card promotion from the
net revenue earned by each plaintiff.

Plaintiffs contend that at the end of the 2014-2015 tax season,
defendants reduced the costs of the gift cards from the net
revenues earned by the plaintiffs which again resulted in a lower
commission payment to each plaintiff. Subsequently for the 2015-
2016 tax season, plaintiffs assert that similar to the 2013-2014
and 2014-2015 tax seasons, defendants deducted the cost of the
gift card promotion from the net revenues plaintiffs earned again
resulting in lower commission payments to each individual
plaintiff. Plaintiffs argue TSA and franchisees breached their
contracts with plaintiffs, JHTSI and JHI have been unjustly
enriched and JHI and/or JHTSI and TSA and JHI and/or JHTSI and the
franchisees have violated the wage and hour laws of the various
State Sub-Classes.

A five count class action complaint was commenced by plaintiffs
Mardis, Alexander, Morris, Dozier, Baker, Corbitt and Nichols,
individually and on behalf of themselves alleging Breach of
Contract against TSA or Unknown Franchisees (count I) and Unjust
Enrichment against JHTSI and Jackson Hewitt (count II) on behalf
of all plaintiffs. The three other counts included in the
Complaint alleged violations of Kentucky Revised Statutes Section
337, et seq. (count III), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
(count IV) and Tennessee Wage and Hour Law (count V).

Thereafter, on June 16, 2016, defendants JHTSI, JHI and TSA filed
the first motion to dismiss and on July 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Dickson granted by order plaintiffs' unopposed request for leave
to file an amended complaint in lieu of a response to defendants'
first motion to dismiss. The eleven-count amended complaint was
filed on August 22, 2016, including six additional state law
claims on behalf of newly joined named plaintiffs and alleging
violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (count VI),
Pennsylvania Wage and Hour Law (count VII), California Wage and
Hour Law (count VIII), South Carolina Wage and Hour Law (count
IX), North Carolina Wage and Hour Law (count X), and Oklahoma Wage
and Hour Law (count XI).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6).

Judge Linares granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss counts I and II
of plaintiffs' amended complaint is denied. Defendants' motion to
dismiss counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI is granted
without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the issuance of the opinion to cure the pleading
deficiencies.

In denying the motion to dismiss as to counts I and II, Judge
Linares agrees with the plaintiffs and finds that it is not clear
that a valid waiver is present and when interpreting a contract,
it is well established that the contract be interpreted as against
the drafter. In the interest of fairness and with public policy
considerations in mind, the court finds that the plaintiffs did
not validly waive their rights as against TSA or any unknown
franchisees. In count II, the court finds that plaintiffs have
sufficiently plead the elements of an unjust enrichment claim
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Linares's opinion dated March 23, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/lMggU8 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON -- PHILIP D. STERN
-- at STERN THOMASSON LLP; BRADLEY KEITH KING --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- at AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC

Defendants, represented by KEVIN JOSEPH O'CONNOR --
koconnor@pecklaw.com -- JOSEPH MICHAEL VENTO -- jvento@pecklaw.com
-- at PECKAR & ABRAMSON, PC


JBS S.A.: Faces "LeonForte" Suit over Tainted-Meat Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that battling charges in Brazil that it bribed food
inspectors to overlook rotting chicken, meat-processing giant JBS
now has a class in Philadelphia of livid shareholders to fight.

The federal complaint filed on March 23 in Philadelphia caps off
what has been a bad week for the world's largest meat processor.

JBS saw its shares drop 9.2 percent on March 17, 2017, after
Reuters reported that morning its offices had been raided by
Brazilian authorities following a two-year bribery investigation.
In a follow-up article that night on what authorities are calling
"Operation Weak Flesh," Reuters reported that seemingly
unprecedented scandal threatens $12 billion in annual exports.

Both the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal published
articles on the raids as well, according to the March 22 complaint
by investor Leonforte Holdings.

The articles quote investigators as having found 40 separate
incidents of meatpackers bribing inspectors to overlook
"unsanitary practices such as processing rotten meat and running
plants with traces of salmonella."

In some cases, according to the second Reuters article, the bribed
inspectors even allowed meatpacking employees "to enter government
offices, access computers and issue their own export
certificates."

The exports are believed to have been directed at markets in
Europe, China and the Middle East, but the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service says its market
was protected by rigorous inspection on all imported meats.

Accusing the Sao Paolo-based JBS of violating the Securities
Exchange Act,, lead plaintiff Leonforte says the company
misrepresented its quality control in multiple filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

"To ensure the quality, health and sustainability of its entire
line of products, JBS has rigorous processes that permeate its
entire chain of production," the company wrote in a 2014 annual
report.

"Quality is an obsession for JBS. It is a fundamental value that
permeates the Company's culture and is present in all of its
production processes," it wrote in the next year's report.

JBS netted around $55 billion in profit in 2016.

In addition to the company, the class action names as defendants
JBS CEO Wesley Mendoca Batista and Gilberto Tomazoni, the global
president of its operations management team.

The class is represented by Jacob Goldberg of the Rosen Law Firm
in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Goldberg declined to comment, and JBS spokesman Cameron Bruett has
not return a call requesting comment.

The case is captioned, LEONFORTE HOLDINGS LTD., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JBS S.A., WESLEY
MENDONCA BATISTA, and GILBERTO TOMAZONI, Case 2:17-cv-01288-LDD
(E.D. Pa., March 22, 2017)

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, New York 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Funds Already Credited to Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
All settlement funds have now been credited to claimant's
respective accounts in accordance with JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.'s
settlement of the class action lawsuits filed by members of the
JELD-WEN, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership and Retirement Plan,
according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The JELD-WEN ESOP Plan, Administrative Committee, and individual
trustees were sued by three separate groups of former employees
and members of the ESOP for alleged violations relating to the
management and distribution of the ESOP funds. These matters were
pled as class actions and none of the cases were certified. In
January 2015, the Company executed settlement agreements with
applicable parties resulting in the Company's recording $5.0
million in settlement expense in December 2014. Pursuant to the
agreements, the Company accrued a $15.7 million liability to the
plaintiffs in other accrued expenses and a $10.7 million insurance
receivable in accounts receivable.

In June 2015, the Company paid all settlement funds into an escrow
account. On October 19, 2015, the court provided final approval of
the settlement in all respects. The Company received $10.7 million
from insurance carriers on December 1, 2016.

All settlement funds have now been credited to claimant's
respective accounts.

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., is one of the world's largest door and
window manufacturers.  The Company designs, produces, and
distributes an extensive range of interior and exterior doors,
wood, vinyl, and aluminum windows, and related products for use in
the new construction and R&R of residential homes and, to a lesser
extent, non-residential buildings.


LA CIMA RESTAURANTS: "Poole" Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Poole and Holly Hilton, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. La Cima Restaurants, LLC,
d/b/a Twin Peaks, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00469-SGC (S.D.
Cal., March 27, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as Tipped Employees by the Defendant.

Due to Defendant's unlawful practices concerning gratuities,
including its failure to properly inform Tipped Employees of its
intention to utilize a tip credit and specifying the precise
amount it was taking, and failing to guarantee that Tipped
Employees earned sufficient tips to claim the tip credit,
Defendant has improperly applied a tip-credit against the wages
paid to Plaintiff and current and former Tipped Employees, thus
paying them less than the mandated minimum wage, says the
complaint.

Defendant La Cima Restaurants, LLC is a Georgia limited liability
company that operates approximately 15 Twin Peaks restaurant under
the trade name Twin Peaks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian Clark, Esq.
   Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb
   The Kress Building
   301 19th St. No.
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 314-0500
   Fax: (205) 254-1500
   Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com

        - and -

   Allan L. Armstrong, Esq.
   Armstrong Law Center, LLC
   The Berry Building
   2820 Columbiana Road
   Vestavia Hills, AL 35216

        - and -

   Darrell Cartwright, Esq.
   Cartwright Law Center
   The Berry Building
   2820 Columbiana Road
   Vestavia Hills, AL 35216


LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL HERRERA and HUGO ORDONEZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC
d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFE & BAKERY, LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS II,
LLC d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFE & BAKERY, NOHO HOSPITALITY, LLC
d/b/a NOHO HOSPITALITY GROUP, ERIC MELO, GUSTAVO DIAZ, LUCIANO
DUCO, LUKE OSTROM, NICHOLAS LORENTZ, BRYAN NASWORTHY, and DOMINIC
"DOE" (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01776
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants have willfully
and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiffs, compensation for minimum wages, overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, spread of hours pay
for workdays lasting 10 hours or more, for failing to provide wage
notices as required by the NYLL, and for illegally and
fraudulently manipulating employee clock-in and clock-out times to
reduce the number of Plaintiffs' hours recorded in business
records.

Defendant LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC owns and operates
Lafayette Grand Cafe & Bakery, a restaurant.  The work performed
by Plaintiffs included handling food and washing dishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     Flushing, NY
     Jian Hang, Esq.
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718-353-8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


LEIDOS: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Funds' Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Supreme Court took up a class action on March 27, brought
by retirement and pension funds that lost money in what has been
called "the single largest fraud ever perpetrated on the city of
New York."

SAIC, short for Science Applications International Corp., had been
the lead contractor for New York City's automated payroll system,
known as CityTime.  Widespread corruption soon brought federal
charges against several CityTime executives, however, and the
system itself was made to pay $500 million in restitution and
penalties.

In the fallout of the scandal, six retirement and pension funds
led by the Indiana Public Retirement System accused SAIC and five
of its executives of misleading investors about the corporation's
liabilities for employee fraud.

Though a federal judge denied the funds' motions for relief on
judgment, the Second Circuit partially reversed that decision last
year. The March 2016 ruling said two of SAIC's filings may have
been misleading: the corporation's Financial Accounting Standard
No. 5 and Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K.

"We conclude that the allegations support the inference that SAIC
acted with at least a reckless disregard of a known or obvious
duty to disclose when, as alleged, it omitted this material
information from its March 2011 10-K in violation of FAS 5 and
Item 303," U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier wrote for a three-
judge panel.

Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue a comment on March
27, in taking up the case.

Docket records show that the class is represented by Douglas
Wilens, an attorney with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Boca
Raton, Florida.

SAIC, now known as Leidos, is represented by Andrew Tulumello of
the Washington firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.  A spokeswoman for the
law firm noted that Leidos has cooperated fully in the Justice
Department's investigation and "implemented a first-rate
compliance program."

Citing recent Leidos accomplishments, the spokeswoman noted that
it was one of two companies to win the Pentagon's $9 billion
health care modernization contract, as well as several Air Force
contracts. Leidos also received more money than any other single
information-technology vendor on three of the five key IT
contracts within the Defense Health Agency.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is
represented by Goodwin Procter attorney William Jay, also of
Washington. The National Association of Manufacturers is
represented by Edward Joseph Fuhr of the Richmond, Virginia, firm
Hunton & Williams.

A federal jury ultimately convicted Mark Mazer, an ex-consultant
for the city's payroll office, and his associates Dimitry
Aronshtein and Gerard Denault, of conspiring to defraud the city
into paying more than $700 million for a project originally budget
at $63 million.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is LEIDOS, INC. V. IN
PUBLIC RETIREMENT, ET AL., No. 16-581.


LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit over Defective Leggings
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Cleveland
that clothing company LuLaRoe sells leggings made with a special
brushing technique intended to make them "buttery soft," but the
method actually weakens fibers and causes the leggings to rip,
tear and form holes immediately.

The case is captioned, CAITLIN GOODWIN individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, 577 Brigton Drive Berea, OH
44017 Plaintiff, vs. LLR, INC. D/B/A LULAROE C/O INCORP SERVICES,
INC. 5716 Corsa Ave, Ste. 110 Westlake Village, CA 91362
Defendant.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
     Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
     Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Tel: (440) 352-3391
     Fax: (440) 352-3469
     Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
            nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
            fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

          - and -

     Nolan T. James Jr, Esq.
     Nolan James Legal Group LTD.
     16651 Selby Cir
     Strongsville, OH 44136
     Tel: (330) 237-9999
     E-mail: nolan@nolanjameslaw.com


LOUISIANA: Sued Over Tangipahoa Parish I-12 Flooding
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Tangipahoa Parish man has filed a class action against the state
over flooding allegedly caused by the construction of an
interstate highway in the parish.

Levi E. Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on March 10 in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against State
of Louisiana and the Department of Transportation and Development
alleging that they violated the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution.

According to the complaint, the defendants constructed a section
of Interstate Highway 12 in Tangipahoa Parish across a flood
plain.  The suit states the construction caused flooding in 1983
and twice in 2016 that inundated the property of thousands in the
parish.

The plaintiff holds the state of Louisiana and the Department of
Transportation and Development responsible because the defendants
allegedly failed to take reasonable care regarding the
construction, use and control of the highway and wrongfully took
said property without just compensation.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, along with costs of this
suit and all other relief that are just and proper.  He is
represented by Eric R. Nowak of Harrell & Nowak LLC in New Orleans
and Byard Edwards Jr. in Hammond.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Case
number 3:17-cv-00138


MACHINE ZONE: 4th Circuit Affirms GoW Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Queenin, Esq., of Nixon Peabody LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
concluded that players who lost "virtual gold" in the virtual
casino of a mobile video game did not lose real money and,
therefore, could not bring a class action under Maryland's
gambling loss recovery statute, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law Sec.
12-110 (the Loss Recovery Statute).  The decision provides
guidance to developers on how to avoid being accused of creating
or supporting unlawful gambling or being liable under gambling
loss recovery statutes.

In Mia Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., No. 15-cv- 2469 (4th Cir.), a
Maryland resident filed a class action against Machine Zone, Inc.,
the developer of the mobile gaming app Game of War: Fire Age (GoW)
-- one of the top-grossing apps in recent years (and perhaps most
well-known for its high-profile advertising campaign featuring
Kate Upton).  GoW is a multiplayer online strategy video game that
centers on a player building an empire and waging battle against
an opposing player's empire.  To be successful in battle in GoW,
players must progress through a leveling system in order to
acquire and upgrade items, resources and abilities for use in
battles.  When a new level is reached, players, for example, can
create new buildings, add to a fortress, produce more troops or
acquire new weapons.  GoW relies on a "freemium" pricing strategy,
meaning while it is free to download the app and play the game,
players can spend real money to purchase "virtual gold" -- ranging
from $4.99 for 1,200 pieces of virtual gold to $99.99 for 20,000
pieces of virtual gold -- that players use to "speed up" their
progress through levels and acquire new items and resources for
use in battle.

Importantly for this case, in addition to using virtual gold to
"level up," GoW allows players to spend virtual gold on "chips"
for use on a prize wheel in the game's virtual casino.  The
virtual prizes include virtual items and resources for use in
battle, as well as additional virtual chips or virtual gold.
Players who spin the virtual wheel have no control over the
outcome of the spin and, thus, no skill on the part of the player
influences what virtual prize the player will receive.

This virtual casino aspect of the game is what gave rise to the
putative class action complaint.  The complaint alleged that class
members lost money participating in an unlawful "gaming device"
under the Loss Recovery Statute -- specifically, the portion of
GoW that allows players to spin the virtual wheel to win virtual
prizes for use in the battle-based portion of the game.  The
complaint sought recovery of alleged gambling losses the class
members incurred from spinning the virtual wheel --specifically,
the difference between the amount of money paid to spin the
virtual wheel, and the monetary value of the virtual prizes she
won.  The complaint also asserted claims under California's unfair
competition law, as well as a common law claim of unjust
enrichment.  The district court dismissed the complaint at the
pleading stage before ruling on plaintiff's request to certify a
class action, concluding that the plaintiff did not "lose money"
when she "spun" the virtual wheel and, therefore, had failed to
state a claim under the Loss Recovery Statute.  The district court
similarly dismissed the claim under California's unfair
competition law and the claim for unjust enrichment.  The
plaintiff appealed only from the district court's dismissal of her
claim under the Loss Recovery Statute.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.  While
the court assumed, without deciding, that the virtual casino in
GoW was a prohibited "gaming device" under the Loss Recovery
Statute, the court found that that the plaintiff did not meet the
statute's requirement that a claimant "lose money."  According to
the court, the plaintiff did not lose real money in the virtual
casino.  While she paid real money to obtain virtual gold -- which
she later used to accrue virtual chips for use in the game's
virtual casino -- the virtual chips were not redeemable for money
and could be used only in GoW.  In contrast to real -- world
casinos, which operate by converting cash into chips and then
converting chips back into cash, GoW did not convert chips back
into cash.  In fact, Machine Zone's terms of service expressly
stated that "[V]irtual Currency and Virtual Goods may never be
redeemed for 'real world' money, goods or other items of monetary
value from Machine Zone or any other person."

Furthermore, according to the court, the "lose money" requirement
meant that there must be a "winner" of the money plaintiff sought
to recover.  Here, the developer of GoW retained the real money
that the plaintiff paid for virtual gold regardless of the outcome
of the virtual spin.  If plaintiff spun the wheel and won
"resources" of "lesser value" than virtual gold, as she claimed
she did, Machine Zone did not win money as a result.  Conversely,
according to the court, Machine Zone did not lose money if the
plaintiff spun the virtual wheel and won high-value resources or
more virtual gold.  In short, the only loss that plaintiff
sustained was when she chose to spend real-world dollars in
exchange for a nontransferable license to play with virtual
currency in a virtual world.

The takeaway from the court's ruling is that developers must
ensure that in-game purchases for virtual items and currencies are
available and used only within a given online game.  The outcome
in this case may have been different had Machine Zone created or
facilitated a "secondary market," whereby players could trade or
sell in-game items for real money.  As the court pointed out, a
successful GoW player could sell her account for sale on a
secondary market, such as eBay, Facebook, and other websites, for
hundreds, and, sometimes, thousands of dollars. However, only a
player's entire account (which includes the player's progress in
the game) -- and not simply virtual gold and chips -- could be
sold in the secondary market and, at any rate, there was no
indication in the decision that Machine Zone facilitated this
secondary market.  Instead, as mentioned before, Machine Zone's
terms of service expressly stated that its virtual currency could
not be redeemed for real world money.

The allegation that a developer created an unlawful gambling
market by facilitating a secondary market for the sale of in-game
purchases underlies the ongoing class action suit against Valve
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The well-publicized suit relates to sales of "skins"
for use in its game, Counter Strike: Global Offensive (CO:GO).
Skins are purely cosmetic additions to weapons that do not affect
gameplay (e.g., different colors, textures or finishes).  The suit
concerns Valve's creation of a marketplace called Steam Community
Market that allowed users to buy, sell and trade skins from each
other using virtual currency (that users purchased with real
money).  Valve allowed CO:GO players to link their Steam account
to third-party websites.  Some of which, according to the lawsuit,
allowed users to gamble using skins on CO:GO matches, while others
offered virtual casino-style games, jackpots, and lotteries.
According to the suit, the skins were the casino chips that had
monetary value outside the game itself, because of the ability to
convert them directly into cash. The suit alleges that Valve
"[k]nowingly allowed, supported, facilitated[] and/or sponsored
illegal gambling" by allowing CO:GO players to link their
individual Steam accounts to these third-party websites, and
brings claims under Washington's consumer protection statute and
gambling loss recovery statute, as well as claims for negligence
and unjust enrichment.

The news of the class action against Valve attracted the attention
of regulatory bodies.  This past fall, the Washington State
Gambling Commission directed Valve to stop facilitating the use of
skins for gambling activities through its Steam platform. The
Norwegian Gaming Authority published a note stating that a website
that allows skin betting may be in violation of Norwegian law.  In
a discussion paper, the UK Gaming Commission had raised similar
concerns.  Valve, for its part, has denied any illegal activity.
While other game developers -- including Psyonix, Inc., the maker
of the popular Rocket League
-- have refrained from Steam Marketplace integration with third-
party websites for trading and selling upgrades/skins to avoid
similar allegations that they inadvertently created a gambling
industry, the fact remains that potential plaintiffs, regulators
and, perhaps, prosecutors are paying attention.  Well-intentioned
additions to popular games can have unintended effects. Developers
must ensure game micro-transactions do not lead to the creation of
derivative gambling markets and, if so, that developers do not run
afoul of any jurisdiction's regulations and anti-gambling laws.


MDL 2243: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Suits over Fosamax Fractures
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Baker, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a sweeping reversal against the drugmaker Merck, the Third
Circuit revived hundreds of class actions by people whose thigh
bones shattered while they were taking the osteoporosis drug
Fosamax.

The multidistrict litigation turns on whether Merck Sharp & Dohme
had a duty to include a warning on Fosamax labels about the drug's
risk of femoral fractures.

Merck nearly dodged the case altogether, however, thanks to a 2009
decision in the case Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Supreme
Court found that federal law pre-empts consumers from bringing
failure-to-warn claims under state law when there is "clear
evidence" that the Food and Drug Administration would not have
approved the warning that a plaintiff claims was necessary.

Though a federal judge in New Jersey granted Merck summary
judgment on the remaining Fosamax cases based on Wyeth, the Third
Circuit overturned that ruling in an 89-page opinion on March 22.

"Preemption is an affirmative defense, and Merck has not carried
its burden to prove that it is entitled to that defense as a
matter of law," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for a three-person
panel. "The Wyeth 'clear evidence' standard is demanding and fact-
sensitive. It requires the factfinder to predict a highly probable
outcome in a counterfactual world and, therefore, requires a court
sitting in summary judgment to anticipate both the range of
conclusions that a reasonable juror might reach and the certainty
with which the juror would reach them."

Merck contended that the law was on its side since it had in fact
proposed a revision to the Fosamax label that would have included
a warning about the risk of bone fractures.

Though the FDA rejected the proposal in 2009, Fuentes said this
does not put Merck in the clear.

"The burden and the responsibility to correct a drug label rests
with the manufacturer, not the FDA," he wrote. Once the FDA
rejected Merck's proposal, the ball was back in Merck's court to
submit a revised, corrected proposal."

For the appeals cour, the award of summary judgment to Merck was
premature.

"Here, plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to conclude that the FDA would have approved a
properly worded warning about the risk of thigh fractures -- or at
the very least, to conclude that the odds of FDA rejection were
less than highly probable," Fuentes wrote.

The case is captioned, In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium)
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Awaits Minn. Court Decision in "Merenstein" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company awaits decision, which is
expected to be entered in 2017 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in
the consolidated lawsuit filed by Lewis Merenstein and Kenneth
Steiner, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 27, 2017.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014,
Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an
injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants'
motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on January
5, 2015 issued its opinion.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the
Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court
is expected in calendar year 2017.

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and
remanded the consolidated case commenced by West Virginia Pipe
Trades and Phil Pace to the District Court for further
proceedings, Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, for the quarter period ended January 27, 2017.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding
the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8,
2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in
September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs
alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3,
2011. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the consolidated matters.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth
Circuit Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings.

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that pretrial proceedings
are still underway in the lawsuit related to Sprint Fidelis.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

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

The Company says it has not recognized an expense related to
damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss
is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Remaining INFUSE-Linked Claims to Be Tried in 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for
the quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that certain of the
remaining claims in the INFUSE Litigation could proceed to trial
beginning in calendar year 2017.

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000
claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims
against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving
the INFUSE bone graft product.

As of March 1, 2017, the Company has reached agreements to settle
approximately 4,300 of these claims, and certain of the remaining
claims could proceed to trial beginning in calendar year 2017. The
Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within
accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and
other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit by St. Paul Teachers' Fund Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit initiated by the St. Paul
Teachers' Retirement Fund Association against a subsidiary of
Medtronic Public Limited Company remains pending, according to the
Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 27, 2017.

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against HeartWare International, Inc., on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January
11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint was amended on June
29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and one of its executives violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements about, among other things,
HeartWare's response to a June 2014 FDA warning letter, the
development of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD)
System and the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The
Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or
acquirers of HeartWare's stock during the Class Period. In August
of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare.

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

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh Litigation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 1, 2017, Medtronic Public Limited Company has reached
agreements to settle approximately 11,300 of Pelvic Mesh
Litigation claims, according the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017.

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently
involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against
manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries
resulting from the implantation of those products. Two
subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of
the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The
litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and
cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S.
Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July
2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company
$121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims.
That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company
and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As
part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's
obligation to defend and indemnify the Company.

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800
claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products
manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries.

As of March 1, 2017, the Company has reached agreements to settle
approximately 11,300 of these claims.

The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within
accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and
other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

Medtronic plc is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world.  The Company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, ear, nose, and throat and
diabetes conditions.


METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Class Suit Challenges American Axle Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of shareholders
claims in a federal lawsuit in Detroit that metal parts maker
Metaldyne's proposed $1.6 billion sale to American Axle &
Manufacturing undervalues Metaldyne stock by more than $8 a share.

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

The case is captioned, BRIAN ZIMMER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. METALDYNE PERFORMANCE
GROUP INC., GEORGE THANOPOULOS, KEVIN PENN, LOREN EASTON, MICHAEL
FISCH, NICK BHAMBRI, WILLIAM JACKSON, JEFFREY STAFEIL, and JOHN
PEARSON SMITH, Defendants. 2:17-cv-10911-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
March 22, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
     ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
     14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170
     Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
     Tel:  (313) 821-5905
     Fax: (313) 821-5906
     E-mail: Anthony@aldplc.com

          - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
     E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Xbox Case in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. Supreme
Court justices expressed support on March 21 for Microsoft Corp's
bid to fend off class action claims by Xbox 360 owners who say the
videogame console gouges discs because of a design defect.

Microsoft told the court in oral arguments that the
San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2015 ruling
allowing console owners to appeal the dismissal of their class
action lawsuit was unfair to defendants.

Typically parties cannot appeal a class certification ruling until
the entire case has reached a conclusion.  But the 9th Circuit
allowed the console owners to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit so
they could immediately appeal the denial of a class certification.

Microsoft lawyer Jeff Fisher said defendants could not use this
maneuver because they cannot voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit if they
want to get an automatic appeal of a decision granting class
certification.

Class action cases can lead to larger damages or broader remedies
than individual lawsuits.  The prospect of winning large damages
in a class action can be the only way for consumers to find
lawyers to take their cases, so a denial of this certification can
effectively end some lawsuits.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged as the harshest critic of the
9th Circuit ruling.  She suggested allowing plaintiffs to
manufacture a final judgment to trigger an automatic appeal could
have negative repercussions, like permitting parties to skip over
the district court on a legal question.

The Xbox console owners filed a proposed class action against
Microsoft in federal court in 2011, saying the design of the
console was defective and that its optical disc drive could not
withstand even small vibrations. They said this caused game discs
to spin out of control and become scratched even under normal
playing conditions, making them unusable.

Microsoft has sold tens of millions of Xbox 360 consoles since
introducing them in 2005.

The company said class certification was improper because just 0.4
percent of Xbox owners reported disc scratches, and that misuse
was the cause. A federal judge in Seattle dismissed the class
action claims in 2012.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of the
term in June.


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Grills Lawyers on Rule 23 Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 grilled lawyers in a high-
profile class action about a controversial procedural tool that
allows plaintiffs to appeal a class certification order by
dismissing their own case.

The case, Microsoft v. Baker, is one in which the Supreme Court
delayed oral arguments after Justice Antonin Scalia died last
year.  The issue is a critical one in class actions, where
certification rulings can make or break the case.  In many cases,
plaintiffs attorneys have little desire to continue pursuing
individual claims once they lose class certification.

The 2011 case involved alleged defects in Xbox 360.  A federal
judge in Washington had granted Microsoft's motion to strike the
class claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denied the plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review of that
order.  The plaintiffs, rather than press their individual claims,
voluntarily dismissed the case, which allowed them to appeal the
order.  In 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district judge
had abused his discretion, remanding the case, but made no finding
as to whether class certification was appropriate.

On March 21, plaintiffs attorney Peter Stris --
peter.stris@strismaher.com -- fielded numerous questions about the
procedural move his clients used, including how many circuits
permitted such a tactic and whether it ran afoul of a federal rule
granting appellate courts discretionary review over interlocutory
appeals of class certification orders.

"The rule makers went through a lot of work to figure out what to
do with an interlocutory ruling on class action status.  And it
came up with 23(f)," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, referring
to the provision in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  "And
this device seems to be just a way to get around 23(f)."

Mr. Stris, founding partner of Stris & Maher in Los Angeles,
denied that the move was "an end run around Rule 23."  Without it,
he said, class actions involving small amounts of monetary damages
due each class member would be impossible to pursue.

"You're going to have small dollar value individual claims that
are abandoned without regard to merit," he told the justices.

But Microsoft counsel Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of the Supreme
Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School, cautioned that the
tactic, if approved, could be applied not just in class actions
but "to any pretrial order on which the plaintiff would be willing
to bet their case."

More to the point, Microsoft argued in its briefs that the tactic
gives plaintiffs an unfair advantage since defendants don't have
the option to dismiss the case if it goes the other way.  The
defense bar has long sought unsuccessfully to push for automatic,
rather than discretionary, appeals of class certification rulings.
Automatic appeals of class certification rulings made its way into
a class action reform bill that the U.S. House of Representatives
passed this month.  And in public comments to a civil rules
committee that is weighing the first proposed amendments since
2003 to Rule 23, many in the defense bar noted that most appeals
courts, while they have discretion to do so, don't take up class
certification decisions.

That's exactly what happened to the plaintiffs in the Microsoft
case, leaving them with the unenviable options of pursuing their
individual claims to a final judgment or dismissing their case.

Although class certification could effectively wipe out the
plaintiffs' case, Fisher argued that the Supreme Court has
rejected that argument as a means to appeal.  In a 1978 decision
called Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, the Supreme Court rejected
the so-called death knell doctrine in finding that an appeals
court should not have reviewed a decertification order.

Mr. Stris countered that Livesay focused on interlocutory appeals,
not final judgments.  "That's the whole enchilada in my view," he
told the justices. He also said the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Microsoft case only on the condition that they would
appeal the class claims order.

But the justices questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to
do that.

After all, in regular appeals, parties argue why judgment should
not have been entered against them, Chief Justice John Roberts
noted.  "But you told the district court to enter a judgment
against you, so you can't argue that it shouldn't have done that,"
he said.


MICROSOFT CORP: Win 10 Update Destroyed Hard Drive, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of Illinois PC users claims upgrading to the new
Windows 10 operating system destroyed their hard drive or caused
them to lose data, forcing them to either buy a new computer or
pay for repairs.

Microsoft released the latest version of its ubiquitous operating
system, Windows 10, in July 2015.  For a year following its
release, Microsoft offered all Windows users a free upgrade to the
new operating system.  The company aggressively marketed its new
product by inserting advertising pop-ups for Windows 10 into
users' security updates to their prior operating system.  After
installing a system update, a Windows popup box appeared on users'
screens several times a day offering them a free upgrade to
Windows 10.

PC users say the ads were difficult to uninstall, even for a savvy
computer user, and offered no option to refuse an upgrade or block
future ads. In some cases, users reported that Windows 10
installed itself without their approval, according to a lawsuit
filed on March 23, in Chicago federal court.  Further, once users
installed Windows 10, there was no way for a user to reverse the
process and go back to their prior operating system.

"Allegedly the Windows 10 installer genie checks the consumer's
computer for compatibility; it does not, however, check the
condition of the PC and whether or not the hard drive can
withstand the stress of the Windows 10 installation," or whether a
user's third-party software is compatible with the new system,
according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Stephanie Watson says her hard drive failed after
Windows 10 installed without her express approval, and she had to
buy a new computer. Co-plaintiff Robert Saiger elected to upgrade
his computer but his existing applications ceased working after
the installation, the complaint states.  A third plaintiff, Howard
Goldberg, says he upgraded his system after clicking "no" to daily
popup ads on his computer for six months.

"After three attempts to download Windows 10, each of which tied
up his computer for extended periods of time, Goldberg's computer
was damaged, and Windows 10 was not actually downloaded and
functional," the lawsuit states. Goldberg claims he had to pay
Microsoft to make his computer work again.

Windows 10 is now running on about 400 million devices.

On March 23, lawsuit seeks punitive damages for all Illinois
residents who suffered loss of data or damage to their computer
within 30 days of a Windows 10 upgrade. It asserts claims for
breach of warranty, product liability, negligence, and consumer
fraud.

The proposed class is represented by Daniel Edelman with Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin in Chicago.

In response to the lawsuit, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "The
Windows 10 free upgrade program was a choice designed to help
people take advantage of the most secure, and most productive
Windows. Customers had the option not to upgrade to Windows 10. If
a customer who upgraded during the one year program needed help
with the upgrade experience, we had numerous options including
free customer support and 31-days to roll back to their old
operating system. We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."


MINI MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Smith" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mini Mart, Inc., d/b/a "Loaf 'N Jug," and The Kroger
Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-00671 (D. Col., March 14, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week and 12 hours per day, as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Class consists of Kroger employees who were required to drive
to the stores of Kroger's competitors to observe and record the
gas prices of Kroger's competitors on a daily, weekly, or monthly
basis, and were required to deliver money to a bank on a daily or
weekly basis.

The Defendants own and operate 175 "Loaf 'N Jug" convenience
stores, with stores in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Miller, Esq.
      Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
      THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
      1600 Ogden Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 839-1650
      E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
              AHarrison@sawayalaw.com

MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Trujillo, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. Mediterranean Kitchens, Inc. dba
Pita Inn and Falah Tabahi, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01887 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
was not paid his earned overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Instead,
Defendants paid Plaintiff and other employees straight-time wages
for all hours worked weekly.

Defendants operate a restaurant commonly known as "Pita Inn."
Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and busboy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Recertifies Collective & Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Devin Rauchwerger, Esq. -- Devin.Rauchwerger@jacksonlewis.com --
and Gregg E. Clifton, Esq. -- Gregg.Clifton@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that Federal Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero struck a blow
to MLB when he reversed course on his earlier decision and
recertified a minor league collective and class action against
MLB.

In July 2016, the court decertified the minor league collective
and class action in Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball
Corp., et al., No. 14-CV-00608-JCS. However, on August 4, 2016,
the Court granted in part the plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, giving them the opportunity to narrow the class
definitions and address the court's concerns expressed in its July
decision.

The previously proposed class included "All persons who under a
Minor League Uniform Player contract, work or worked for MLB or
any MLB franchise as a minor league baseball player within the
relevant state at any time."  The court found too many
individualized issues to certify the class.

The new classes approved by the court include a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective consisting of minor league players
participating in the California league, spring training,
instructional league, or extended spring training on or after
February 7, 2011.  The court also recertified a California class
consisting of minor league players who participated in the
California league on or after February 7, 2010.

In reversing course, Judge Spero stated,

"The Court now reaches a different conclusion and finds that the
classes have been narrowed sufficiently that any individualized
issues that arise in connection with the representative evidence
offered by Plaintiffs will not predominate over common issues."

In its previous decision, the court took issue with the plaintiffs
including winter conditioning activities as part of the class
definition.  The court found that players are given wide latitude
in their winter conditioning workouts, giving rise to too many
individualized issues.  By excluding these winter activities under
the new class definition, the focus is on team activities and
conditioning, rather than individualized winter programs of each
player.  The court also relied on the fact that "many of the
individualized inquiries cited by Defendants go to damages and not
liability, and therefore do not present an impediment to class
certification."

The court ordered the parties to file a proposed schedule of the
case by April 28, 2017.  Ultimately, MLB may be forced to take
this issue to trial.


NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Stock Suit Over 2016, 2017 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DI RIENZO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON-
SHIONG, and PAUL A. HOLT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01912 (C.D.
Cal., March 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants, in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, issued false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus, in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on June 2, 2016; and/or (2) in
the open market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017.
Specifically, that (i) Defendant Soon-Shiong funneled business to
NantHealth through his donation to the University of Utah,
pursuant to the contractual terms of which the university was
effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis
performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the number of test
orders that NantHealth reported to investors was artificially
inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong's donation to
the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a result,
NantHealth's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

NantHealth, Inc. is a transformational healthcare cloud-based IT
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
             brian@goldberglawpc.com
             sherin@goldberglawpc.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays $208MM GIA Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21, 2017, a California federal judge granted preliminary
approval of a $208 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by
student-athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) alleging that it violated national laws in
unlawfully capping the value of athletic scholarships or Grants-
in-Aid (GIAs), according to Hagens Berman.

Under the court's preliminary approval of the settlement, Hagens
Berman can begin mailing notice to class members starting late
July 2017.

"For years, we've fought on behalf of tens of thousands of
student-athletes who simply haven't been given a fair shake," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney
representing the class of student-athletes.  "We're grateful to
the court for preliminarily approving this monumental settlement
that will bring real change to the way the NCAA treats Division 1
players, and grateful to the players themselves for stepping up to
the plate."

Who's Affected?

The settlement affects approximately 40,000 Division I collegiate
athletes who played men's or women's basketball, or FBS football
between Mar. 5, 2010 and the date of preliminary approval of the
settlement, and who received from an NCAA member institution for
at least one academic term (such as a semester or quarter) (1) a
full athletics GIA required by NCAA rules to be set at a level
below the cost of attendance, and/or (2) an otherwise full
athletics GIA.

How Much Will Student-Athletes Receive?

The monumental settlement was recently reached between the NCAA
and approximately 40,000 Division 1 student-athletes and will
bring an estimated average amount of $6,500 to each eligible class
member who played his or her sport for four years, pending final
approval of the settlement.

What do Student-Athletes Need to do?

Under the settlement preliminarily approved on March 21 by Judge
Claudia A. Wilken, each student-athlete will be directly notified
and eligible class members will have a check mailed to him or her,
with no claim form required and no right of any reversion of funds
to defendants.

The case, originally filed in 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, is a first-of-its-
kind antitrust class action.  The suit alleges that the NCAA and
five power conferences have systematically colluded to disrupt the
free market and deprive NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
(FBS) football players and Division 1 men's and women's basketball
players of the full economic benefits of their labor.  The lawsuit
argues that without this antitrust collusion, NCAA member schools
would gladly compete for student-athletes' attendance and talent
by at least providing the full cost of attendance.

The same court previously certified a class in In re NCAA Student-
Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (later titled,
O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association), a case also
brought by Hagens Berman.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.


NATIONAL DEBT: Faces "Clayton" TCPA Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------
Laurence Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Debt Relief LLC and Does
1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-at-00262 (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2017) seeks payment of damages
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint says Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its
services.

During all relevant time, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
prior express consent to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
his cellular telephone.

National Debt Relief is one of the country's debt settlement
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: American Trucking Appeals Order to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs American Trucking Associations, Inc., Lightning Express
Delivery Service Inc., Wadhams Enterprises, Inc. and Ward
Transport & Logistics Corp. filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated February 28, 2017, relating to the lawsuit titled
American Trucking Associations v. New York State Thruway
Authority, Case No. 13-cv-8123, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, American
Trucking, which bills itself as the largest trucking industry
trade association, alleges that Thruway Authority overcharged
truckers for tolls for years, and diverted $1.1 billion of the
money to maintain the state's canal system for tourists.  American
Trucking contends that the Thruway Authority violated its members'
rights by spending the $1.1 billion on the Canal System since
taking over its management in 1992.

The appellate case is captioned as American Trucking Associations
v. New York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 17-737, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
Wadhams Enterprises, Inc., Lightning Express Delivery Service Inc.
and Ward Transport & Logistics Corp., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Evan Mark Tager, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3240
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5240
          E-mail: etager@mayerbrown.com

Defendants-Appellees New York State Thruway Authority; New York
State Canal Corporation; Thomas J. Madison, Jr., in his official
capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway
Authority; Howard Milstein, in his official capacity as Chair of
the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of
Directors; Donna J. Luh, in her official capacity as Vice-Chair of
New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of
Directors; E. Virgil Conway, in their official capacities as
members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation
Board of Directors; Richard N. Simberg, in their official
capacities as members of the New York State Thruway
Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Brandon R. Sall,
in their official capacities as members of the New York State
Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. Rice
Donald, Jr., in their official capacities as members of the New
York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of Directors;
and Jose Holguin-Veras, in their official capacities as members of
the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Board of
Directors, are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE COLEMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00013-CEJ (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 hours in a work week as
required by law; and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides technology resources.  Plaintiff was a "Quality
Assurance Technician" and performed related activities for
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II
     4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (913) 661-2900
     Fax: (913) 312-5841
     E-mail: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com

        - and -

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WASSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID
R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR PATEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01758 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017),
alleges that each of the Individual Defendants are liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Ophthotech's
securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The alleged
scheme includes (i) deceiving the investing public regarding
Ophthotech's business, operations, management and the intrinsic
value of its securities and (ii) causing Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Ophthotech securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Ophthotech Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of novel therapeutics to treat
back of the eye diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
     Meghan Daley, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Tosses Amended "Vaccaro" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the amended complaint filed in the lawsuit initiated by
Enrico Vaccaro, Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners,
L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units
("NSLP Complaint"). Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as
certain officers and directors of NSLP, and underwriters
Oppenheimer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird &
Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities,
Inc. Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's
prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus, filed with the
SEC on May 7, 2015, and the base prospectus and shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21,
2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents"). The NSLP Complaint alleged that
the NSLP Offering Documents failed to disclose certain cash flow
problems facing NSLP and sought damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On or around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state
court action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY"). On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP
filed with the SDNY notice of its March 15, 2016 voluntary
petition for relief under chapter 7 title 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, which operates as an automatic stay of the claims
as to NSLP. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint ("NSLP Amended Complaint"), which seeks
unspecified damages, including interest, punitive and exemplary
damages, as well as rescission.

On December 19, 2016, the SDNY dismissed the NSLP Amended
Complaint without prejudice.

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., through its Operating Subsidiaries, is
a leading middle-market investment bank and full service broker-
dealer. With roots tracing back to 1881, the Company is engaged in
a broad range of activities in the financial services industry,
including retail securities brokerage, institutional sales and
trading, investment banking (both corporate and public finance),
research, market-making, trust services and investment advisory
and asset management services. The Company owns, directly or
through subsidiaries, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., a New York-based
securities broker-dealer, Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc., a New
York-based investment adviser, Freedom Investments, Inc., a
discount securities broker-dealer based in New Jersey, Oppenheimer
Trust Company, a Delaware limited purpose bank, OPY Credit Corp.,
a New York corporation organized to trade and clear syndicated
corporate loans, and Oppenheimer Multifamily Housing & Healthcare
Finance, Inc., a Federal Housing Administration ("FHA")-approved
mortgage company based in Pennsylvania.


OSF HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Darrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division, denied plaintiffs' motion
for an order designating interim class counsel in the case styled
BONNIE BAILEY, PEGGY WISE, and JUNE SCHWIERJOHN, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, THE SISTERS OF THE THIRD
ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, THE SAINT ANTHONY'S HEALTH CENTER RETIREMENT COMMITTEE,
and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01137-SLD-TSH
(C.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Bonnie Bailey and Peggy Wise filed a lawsuit on May 3,
2016, alleging that defendant OSF HealthCare System maintains a
retirement savings plan for the benefit of its employees, but that
the plan is underfunded by at least $350 million. They alleged
that this was so because, while OSF claims that the plan falls
within the church plan exemption to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461, the plan does
not fall within the exemption and must be funded at the level
ordinarily required by ERISA.  Both plaintiffs were or had been
employees at OSF's Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria,
Illinois. They purported to sue on behalf of themselves and all
participants in and beneficiaries of The Sisters of the Third
Order of St. Francis Employees Retirement Savings Plan.

Six days before Bailey and Wise filed the suit in the Central
District, prospective intervenor Sheilar Smith, a former employee
of Saint Anthony's, filed a similar lawsuit in the Southern
District alleging much the same thing as to all OSF retirement
plans that OSF is justifying underfunding its retirement plan by
treating it as a church plan exempt from the requirements of
ERISA. Smith purported to sue on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of defined benefit pension plans that are
established, maintained, administered, and/or sponsored by OSF,
OSF's affiliates, or other OSF committees.

OSF, a named defendant in both cases and represented by the same
counsel in both, moved on June 13, 2016 in the Southern District
to transfer Smith to the Central District, to which the judge
denied.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order designating their present
counsel, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Izard Kindall and
Raabe LLP, and the Janssen Law Center, as interim lead class
counsel pending a motion for class certification, and also a
motion to file a notice of supplemental information. Intervenors
Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith filed a motion to intervene and
transfer their case to the Southern District of Illinois on August
9, 2016. Intervenors also filed a motion for leave to file a reply
to the responses thereto. Defendants filed a motion for a hearing
on the motions to intervene and transfer, and Plaintiffs' motion
to file a notice of supplemental information.

Judge Darrow held that until and unless other parties seek to join
the case before the class certification phase, there is no need to
appoint interim counsel, whether or not the Rule 23(g) factors are
satisfied. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for an order
designating interim class counsel is denied without prejudice.
Proposed intervenors Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith's motion to
intervene is granted, their motion to transfer the case to the
Southern District of Illinois is denied and their motion for leave
to file a reply to the responses thereto is granted. Defendants'
motion for a hearing on the motions to intervene and transfer is
denied and plaintiffs' motion to file a notice of supplemental
information is granted.

A copy of Judge Darrow's order dated March 23, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/UjKZHC from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick S. O'Shaughnessy -- at JANSSEN
LAW CENTER; Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Douglas P.
Needham -- dneedham@ikrlaw.com -- Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- at IZARD KINDALL RAABE LLP; Edward W.
Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie E. Siebert-Johnson --
jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- at
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP

OSF Healthcare System, Defendant, represented by Erin E. McAdams -
- erin.mcadams@morganlewis.com -- Brian T. Ortelere --
brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Roberta H. Vespremi --
roberta.vespremi@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

John Does 1-20, The Saint Anthony's Health Center Retirement
Committee, and The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis
Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee, Defendants,
represented by Brian T. Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com
-- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Kasandra Anton and Sheilar Smith, Intervenors, represented by
Matthew H. Armstrong -- at ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC


PEOPLES TRUST: Court Allows Appeal from Class Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Maniago, Esq. -- MManiago@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in Jiang v.
Peoples Trust Company, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from
a class certification order and remitted the matter for further
consideration by the chambers judge.

The defendants are all issuers of general use prepaid cards,
branded as VISA, American Express or MasterCard.  All defendants
charged various fees in relation to the purchase and use of the
prepaid cards.  The cards were acquired by purchasers for a
variety of reasons, including for reasons other than personal use.
Ms. Jiang purchased a prepaid card for personal use, and alleged
that the prepaid cards infringe the Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act ("BPCPA").  At certification, the chambers
judge came to a final conclusion about whether the prepaid cards
at issue were "prepaid purchase cards" within the meaning of the
BPCPA, which, based on this analysis, led him to conclude there
was a reasonable cause of action.  On the issue of identifiable
class, he concluded that it was impossible to define the class
with reference to objective criteria.  Despite that finding, the
chambers judge went on to certify 5 common issues, while rejecting
others.

On appeal, the plaintiff Ms. Jiang and the defendants each raised
issues with the chamber judge's reasoning.  Three issues drove the
result in the appeal.

   1. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge properly
determined that the plaintiff's claim was not bound to fail, but
erred when he actually decided the merits of the issue of whether
the prepaid cards were "prepaid purchase cards" within the meaning
of the BPCPA.  Final determinations of such issues, which would
have resulted in the plaintiff being bound to "succeed" in that
element of her cause of action, should have been left to the
common issues trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge erred in finding
the class definition to be deficient.  In doing so, the Court
rejected the "objective standards" analysis articulated by the
Supreme Court of British Columbia in Ileman v. Rogers
Communications.  The Court noted that the appeals in Ileman did
not require the appellate courts to comment on this issue.  The
Court commented: "it cannot be the case that a definition
incorporating any subjective element denies the plaintiff resort
to the [Class Proceedings Act] by virtue of failing the s. 4(1)(b)
requirement.  To hold otherwise would be to essentially rule that
class actions under the BPCPA are impossible because the
definition of "consumer transaction" will always incorporate a
subjective inquiry: did this person purchase the good or service
for a primarily personal, family or household purpose?" The Court
held that it was an error to conflate the identifiable class
requirement with the consideration of managing individual issues
(which should appropriately be dealt with at the preferable
procedure stage of the analysis (s. 4(1)(d)).

     2. The Court concluded that the chambers judge did not
properly consider the s. 4(1)(d) analysis (given his error in
conflating the identifiable class and preferable procedure
requirements) and failed at all to address the requirements under
s. 4(1)(e), relating to the proposed representative plaintiff.

     3. The Court held it appropriate to remit the certification
application back to the lower court to reconsider its s. 4(1)(d)
analysis and perform a s. 4(1)(e) analysis.


PFIZER INC: United Food Fund, Others Appeal Ruling to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest
Health Benefits Fund, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled United Food and Commercial Workers Unions
and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00395-AWA-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of antitrust laws.

The appellate case is captioned as United Food and Commercial
Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v.
Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 17-1333, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Justin Boley, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Kenneth Alan Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  KAE@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Joshua Seth Devore, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Rose, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: mr@hachroselaw.com
                  fs@hachrose.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS
AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND; WISCONSIN MASONS'
HEALTH CARE FUND AND IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; AFSCME
HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND; A.F. OF L. - A.G.C.
BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT
AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL #6 HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Barrett Erskine Pope, Esq.
          DURRETTECRUMP PLC
          1111 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@durrettecrump.com
                  bpope@durrettecrump.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS
AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE
FUND AND IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and AFSCME HEALTH
AND WELFARE FUND are represented by:

          J. Buckley Warden, IV, Esq.
          DURRETTECRUMP PLC
          1111 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 916-6597
          E-mail: Bwarden@Durrettecrump.com

Plaintiff-Appellant WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND AND
IRONWORKERS LOCAL 383 HEALTHCARE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Elvin Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Sarah J. Payne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

Plaintiff-Appellant AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND is represented
by:

          Jeffrey Louis Kodroff, Esq.
          John Angelo Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS PC
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
                  jmacoretta@srkw-law.com

Plaintiff-Appellant INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 49 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND is represented by:

          Heidi M. Drewes-Silton, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue, South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kriebekh@locklaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellant A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE
PLAN is represented by:

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLP
          55 Cedar Street
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700
          E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLP
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
          DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
          1101 King Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
          Telephone: (703) 684-4333
          Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
          E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com

Plaintiff-Appellant INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST
INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL #6 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND
is represented by:

          Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq.
          Matthew Joseph Perez, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  mperez@labaton.com

               - and -

          Susan Rebecca Podolsky, Esq.
          1800 Diagonal Road
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 366-1702
          Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
          E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees PFIZER, INCORPORATED, G.D. SEARLE LLC, and
PFIZER ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. are represented by:

          Jaime Manuel Crowe, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE, LLP
          701 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 626-3640
          Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
          E-mail: jcrowe@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Dimitrios Drivas, Esq.
          Adam Robert Gahtan, Esq.
          Raj Gandesha, Esq.
          Bryan Gant, Esq.
          Sheryn George, Esq.
          Ryan Johnson, Esq.
          Robert Alexander Milne, Esq.
          Jayashree Mitra, Esq.
          John Padro, Esq.
          Amit Thakore, Esq.
          Brendan G. Woodward, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE, LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-0000
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: ddrivas@whitecase.com
                  agahtan@whitecase.com
                  rgandesha@whitecase.com
                  bgant@whitecase.com
                  sheryn.george@whitecase.com
                  rjohnson@whitecase.com
                  rmilne@whitecase.com
                  jmitra@whitecase.com
                  jpadro@whitecase.com
                  athakore@whitecase.com
                  bwoodard@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Stephen Edward Noona, Esq.
          Lauren Tallent Rogers, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC
          150 West Main Street
          P. O. Box 3037
          Norfolk, VA 23514-3037
          Telephone: (757) 624-3239
          Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
          E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com
                  ltrogers@kaufcan.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00488 (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff frequently worked more than 40 hours in a
single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour
statute.

Defendant is an insurance company licensed to do business and
issue insurance policies in the State of Ohio.  Plaintiff, the
Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case, and the members of the
Ohio Class, are current or former hourly employees of Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street NW, Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4429
     Fax: 330-754-1430
     E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
             hans@ohlaborlaw.com

        - and -

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Anonymous Plaintiff Lacks Standing
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 8992 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.)

Quest Diagnostics, Inc. is a company providing diagnostic medical
testing and possessed a facsimile number similar to that of APS, a
Brooklyn-based marketing agency. Only their area codes differed.
For at least a year, APS has received thousands of medical forms
from medical facilities and providers containing private medical
information intended for Quest. APS employees have contacted
medical providers, including Counseling Services of New York, LLC
(CSNY), Dr. Ferdinand B. Banez, and Quest about such misdirected
faxes, but they continued to receive them.

In August 2015, anonymous plaintiff Jane Doe began treatment at
CSNY, which included clinical tests such as urine testing. On
October 14, 2015, Banez signed a document containing plaintiff's
personal information and medical data. On October 15, 2015, CSNY
and Banez faxed the document to APS, although the directions on
the form stated that it should be faxed or mailed to Quest.

Anonymous plaintiff Jane Doe filed a purported class action
against Quest, CSNY, and Dr. Banez, on November 16, 2015, alleging
state law claims of negligence, violation of New York General
Business Law Section 349, and fraud, for the faxing of medical
information to the wrong fax number. Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, damages, court costs and attorneys' fees based on this
misdirected fax.

Defendants CSNY and Banez answered the complaint but did not
assert any counterclaims. Defendant Quest, in lieu of an answer,
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the
motion, but the day before Quest filed its reply, plaintiff filed
a letter seeking voluntary dismissal of the case pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and stating her
intention to refile in state court.

Plaintiff's resulting letter stated that plaintiff was willing to
withdraw her opposition to Quest's Rule 12(b)(1) motion, but with
an additional condition that she would not waive any rights or
concede Quest's arguments as to whether plaintiff had met her
burden for Article III standing. Quest argued that the two types
of dismissal were not equivalent, and that plaintiff should not be
able to avoid a final, jurisdictional dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) and assessment of fees by obtaining a voluntary dismissal
under Rule 41(a)(2).

With the parties disagreeing about the proper form of dismissal,
an opinion and order was issued in June 2016 granting dismissal
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), and inviting
defendants to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants did so in July 2016, and plaintiff opposed, the motion
on the grounds that an award of fees was not appropriate under
Rule 41(a)(2) and she did not seek reconsideration of the court's
June 2016 Opinion. In October 2016, plaintiff was given the choice
to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice and pay Quest $32,342.90
and CSNY and Banez $675.00 in fees, or to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the October 2016 order,
arguing that she never formally moved to voluntarily dismiss under
Rule 41(a)(2). Plaintiff's motion failed to meet the standard for
reconsideration, and the motion was denied in January 2017. In
January 2017, plaintiff filed a letter stating that she would not
pay defendants' fees.

Judge Schofield vacates its prior orders to grant plaintiff
voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and award fees sua
sponte. Reconsideration is warranted here where plaintiff stated
that she never made a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary
dismissal. The court construes plaintiff's claim that she never
made a motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2) as a request to withdraw her motion.
Accordingly, the action returns to litigation. Before the court is
a fully briefed motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Schofield held that plaintiff has not alleged facts
sufficient to establish Article III standing. Plaintiff makes no
factual allegations of injury. Plaintiff's only statements of harm
are conclusory not factual statements, which are insufficient to
constitute a concrete, real, and not abstract injury. As the
complaint fails to allege any harm to plaintiff that is concrete,
actual or imminent, or fairly traceable to Quest, plaintiff's
claims against Quest are dismissed for lack of Article III
standing.

Judge Schofield vacated the orders dated June 29, 2016 and October
3, 2016, and granted Quest's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Schofield's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 23, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/uJWsQt from
Leagle.com.

Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Michael Norton --
JNorton@nfllp.com -- at Newman Ferrara LLP

Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eamon Paul
Joyce -- ejoyce@sidley.com -- Daniel C. Craig -- dcraig@sidley.com
-- David H. Hoffman -- david.hoffman@sidley.com -- Geeta Malhotra
-- gmalhotra@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP

Counseling Services of New York, LLC and Dr. Ferdinand B. Banez,
Defendants, represented by:

     Amy S. Weissman, Esq.
     Jeffrey Alan Marshall, Esq.
     Lauren Rachel Turkel, Esq.
     MARSHALL, CONWAY, & WRIGHT, P.C.
     45 Broadway, Suite 740
     New York, NY 10006
     Tel: 212-619-4444
     Fax: 212-962-2647


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Underway in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is defending a securities class action
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 3,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On January 31, 2017, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California ("District Court") against us, our
Chief Executive Officer, Paul C. Grint, and our Chief Operating
Officer, Joseph P. Hagan. The complaint includes claims asserted,
on behalf of certain purchasers of our securities, under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January
21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and the prospects for RG-101,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response."

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on discovering and developing first-in-class drugs that target
microRNAs to treat a broad range of diseases. The Company was
formed in 2007 when Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ionis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. contributed significant intellectual
property, know-how and financial and human capital to pursue the
development of drugs targeting microRNAs pursuant to a license and
collaboration agreement.


REVLON INC: Second Consolidated Amended Class Complaint Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs challenging the Elizabeth Arden Merger have filed a
second consolidated amended class action complaint, according to
Revlon, Inc.'s March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of
plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein, on July 25, 2016,
a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-
16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the
board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products
Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson complaint
alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's
shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other things,
approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an
inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products Corporation
and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board. The plaintiff
seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the
Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or
other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds
for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel
advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which
superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was
ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for
relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits
arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger
may be filed in the future.

The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal
proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, prospects,
results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.
However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal
proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter
could be material to the Company's operating results for a
particular period depending on, among other things, the size of
the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of
the Company's income for that particular period.

Revlon, Inc., conducts its business exclusively through its direct
wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products
Corporation and its subsidiaries. Revlon is an indirect majority-
owned subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated, a
corporation wholly-owned by Ronald O. Perelman.  The Company was
founded over 85 years ago by Charles Revson, who revolutionized
the cosmetics industry by introducing nail enamels matched to
lipsticks in fashion colors.


RICHARD CATENA: Faces Class Action Over Fake Warranties
-------------------------------------------------------
Sara Jerde, writing for NJ.com, reports that a prominent used car
dealership tricked its customers into paying thousands of dollars
for fake warranties, a class action lawsuit filed earlier this
month alleges.

Richard Catena Auto Wholesalers Inc. employees allegedly duped
customers into buying warranties that did not exist and kept the
money, according to the complaint filed by Susan Chana Lask, the
attorney representing the clients who brought the suit.

The suit alleges that the insurance for the warranties was not
properly funded and that the dealership didn't respond to
customers who were unable to get their cars fixed under the
invalid warranties.

The warranties were sold since 2010, the suit alleges.

In 2015, Gregg Frankel, of Lebanon, bought a 2011 Mercedes-Benz
for more than $70,000 from the dealership, along with a $3,000
"Platinum Plan" from Applied Protection Systems, LLC., the suit
alleges.

His contract stated that he would be covered for four years or
50,000 miles, depending on which came first, it says.

But when Mr. Frankel's car needed fixing about a year later,
technicians discovered his warranty under Applied Protection
Systems didn't have a phone number, website or email address.

William Bruner, who lives in Weston, Connecticut, claimed a
similar experience in the suit.  In 2014, he purchased a Mercedes
S65 AMG for more than $85,000 and a "Platinum Plan" warranty for
$4,000.

The contract was for four years or 48,000 miles, he alleged.

More than two years into the warranty, Bruner says he realized the
warranty didn't exist and he began trying to get into contact with
the dealership. His requests were ignored, the suit alleges.

Applied Protection Systems, LLC, which offered invalid warranties,
was not backed by an insurance company and did not have the funds
to offer protection, the suit alleges.

Richard Catena Auto Wholesalers Inc. is based out of Teterboro and
sells and leases a variety of luxury cars, including vehicles from
BMW, Lexus and Audi.

A request for comment from the dealer was not returned.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court and seeks more than $5
million.


SAKS FIFTH: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Payton" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Payton, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Case No. BC653923
(Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2017), seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's practice of sending text messages to the Class using
an automatic dialing system to any telephone number assigned to a
cellular phone service.

Headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Saks Fifth Avenue LLC
operates a luxury department store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hansen" Suit Over Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHLEEN HANSEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-352 (E.D.
Wis., March 9, 2017), seeks relief in the form of: (1) an
injunction against Defendants from any further sales of the
recalled washing machines (model number WA456DRHDWR/AA) and to
take such other remedial action as may otherwise be requested
herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably
compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have,
through no fault of their own, purchased defective and dangerous
Samsung washing machines.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     Denise L. Morris, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Phone: (414) 482-8000
     Fax: (414) 482-8001
     E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com
             dmorris@ademilaw.com

        - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Fax: (405) 239-2112
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "West" Class Suit v. Unit Underway in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., is defending a subsidiary against a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson
in Oklahoma, according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their complaint,
plaintiffs assert various tort claims seeking relief for damages
allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
injury to property and for the purchase of insurance policies
allegedly needed by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of
wastewater disposal wells.

The Company says an estimate of reasonably probable losses
associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The
Company had not established any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent and Rockies regions of the United States.  The
Company's principal executive offices are located in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.


SANOFI: 1,019 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, around 1,019
lawsuits, involving approximately 5,366 claimants (but 4,393
ingesting plaintiffs) have been filed against affiliates of Sanofi
and Bristol-Myers Squibb seeking recovery under U.S. state law for
personal injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use
of Plavix(R). The actions are held in several jurisdictions,
including the federal and/or state courts of New Jersey, New York,
California, and Delaware.

The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess
reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial
impact on the Company.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: 791 Taxotere(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, around 791
lawsuits, involving approximately 944 claimants (but 868 ingesting
plaintiffs) have been filed against affiliates of Sanofi under
U.S. state law for personal injuries allegedly sustained in
connection with the use of Taxotere(R). The actions are held in
several jurisdictions, including the federal and/or state courts
of Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, California, and Delaware.

The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess
reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial
impact on the Company.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Faces 2 Suits in New Jersey Alleging RICO Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is facing two putative class action lawsuits in New Jersey
alleging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Company said in its Form 20-F filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In February 2017, two actions were filed against Sanofi US in
Federal Court in New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of
diabetes patients alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman Act and various state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes in connection with the
pricing of Lantus(R)

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Faces Claims and Suit in France Over Use of Depakine(R)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is facing claims and a potential class action lawsuit in
France over use of Depakine(R) product, according to the Company's
March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

As of January 25, 2017, 29 individual claims and a potential class
action have been filed against a French affiliate of Sanofi
seeking indemnification under French law for personal injuries
allegedly sustained by children in connection with the use of
Depakine(R), a sodium valproate antiepileptic treatment, by the
mothers during pregnancy. These actions are held in several
jurisdictions in France. An investigation is ongoing in relation
to a criminal complaint against person unknown filed in May 2015.

The French government has, through the 2017 Finance law adopted on
December 29, 2016, set up a public fund which is meant to
compensate loss or injury actually suffered in relation to the
prescription of sodium valproate and its derivatives.

The Company says it is not possible, at this stage, to assess
reliably the outcome of these cases or the potential financial
impact on the Company.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Faces Two Antitrust Class Action Suits in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is facing two putative class action lawsuits in
Massachusetts alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to
the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In December 2016 and January 2017, two putative class actions were
filed against Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH in Federal Court in
Massachusetts on behalf of direct-purchasers of Lantus(R) alleging
certain antitrust violations.

In January 2017, the Minnesota State Attorney General's office
issued a civil investigative demand calling for the production of
documents and information relating to pricing and trade practices
for Lantus(R) and Toujeo(R), from January 1, 2008 through present.
Sanofi US is cooperating with this investigation.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Settles Menactra(R) Antitrust Class Suit for $61.5 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi has settled for of $61.5 million the antitrust lawsuit
initiated by direct purchasers of Menactra(R), according to the
Company's March 3, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

In December 2011, a class action was filed in the New Jersey
Federal District Court alleging that Sanofi Pasteur Inc. violated
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing and
restraining trade in the meningococcal market and seeking treble
damages and other remedies for alleged anticompetitive
overcharges. On August 6, 2012, the Court denied Sanofi Pasteur's
motion to dismiss. In September 2015, the Court certified a class,
which (subject to certain exclusions), consists of all persons or
entities in the United States that purchased Menactra(R) directly
from Sanofi Pasteur or its affiliates after March 1, 2010.

In December 2016, the case was settled for an amount of $61.5
million.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Says NY Shareholder Securities Class Action Now Over
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the litigation of the consolidated
shareholder securities lawsuit in New York is now over.

In December 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Sanofi American Depositary Shares. The
complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants and asserted claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleged that Sanofi's public
disclosures failed to disclose that Sanofi (i) was making improper
payments to healthcare professionals in violation of federal law
and (ii) lacked internal controls over financial reporting, which
allegedly inflated the price of its securities. In February 2015,
a related putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern
District of New York, alleging the same misconduct, but asserting
claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In March 2015, the cases
were consolidated, and in May 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming Sanofi and its former CEO
as defendants and asserting claims under the Exchange Act.

In August 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, and in January 2016, the Court granted that
motion. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's January 2016 dismissal order and
for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint. On June 24,
2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and
for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint.

On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of (i) the District
Court's January 2016 decision granting defendants' motion to
dismiss and (ii) the District Court's June 2016 decision denying
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and leave to amend.

On November 4, 2016, plaintiffs moved for a voluntary dismissal of
the appeal with prejudice. On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit granted plaintiffs' motion. The
case is over.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: CVR Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. Now Over
--------------------------------------------------------
The litigation in the U.S. CVR Securities Class Action is now
over, Sanofi said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In December 2013, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of holders of contingent value rights ("CVRs") issued in
connection with Sanofi's acquisition of Genzyme in 2011. The
complaints, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as
defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act, alleged
that Sanofi's public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the
efficacy and safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the
design of two Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS
II. Such alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints,
caused an artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs. In March
2014, the cases were consolidated.

Also in March 2014, an additional group of 32 purported CVR
holders filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York
against Sanofi, Genzyme and certain of their officers (the "AG
Funds Action"), asserting claims under the Exchange Act, the
Securities Act and California, Massachusetts and Minnesota state
law, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
regarding Lemtrada(R), its development and likelihood of success
before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In April 2014, the plaintiff in the consolidated putative class
action (the "Consolidated Action") filed an amended shareholder
class action complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its
officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act.
In June 2014, the defendants in the Consolidated and AG Funds
Actions filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, and on January
28, 2015, the Court granted that motion.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 4, 2016, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the
District Court in both actions. The case is over.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs
and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of therapeutic solutions.


SANTA ROSA, CA: Faces "Aboudara" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Aboudara, Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Rosa,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01661 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2017),
seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime and other
compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages costs of suit
and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are employed as firefighters by the City of Santa Rosa.

According to the complaint, Defendant failed to include all
requisite forms of compensation in the regular rate of pay used to
calculate overtime compensation, and failed to compensate
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals at one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours as required
by the FLSA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David E. Mastagni, Esq.
   Isaac S. Steven, Esq.
   Ace T. Tate, Esq.
   Mastagni Holstedt, APC
   1912 I Street
   Sacramento, CA 95811
   Tel: (916) 446-4692
   Fax: (916) 447-4614


SHENZEN SUNSHINE: Faces Class Suit over Defective Hobby Drones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Debenedectis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a camera-equipped hobby drone called the Onagofly F115 is so
poorly made it's "nothing more than a spruced-up paperweight,"
buyers claim in a federal class action in Los Angeles alleging
fraud and false advertising.

Allan Black and three other named plaintiffs say Shenzen Sunshine
Technology Development, of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, and Acumen
Robot Intelligence of Brea, California "have perpetrated a scam
upon the fast-growing drone-buying community by duping consumers
into purchasing Onagofly F115s" because the little quadcopters
"lack various specifications as advertised."

The final defendant is Sam Tsu, of Beverly Hills, dba Onagofly.

The market for drones is expanding quickly. PricewaterhouseCoopers
reported in May 2016 that the market for commercial drones could
reach $127 billion by 2020, up from just $2 billion.

The market for much smaller hobby drones is also growing, and
growing crowded -- but not without some failures. The British
company that makes the palm-sized Zano drone lost œ2 million and
went into voluntary liquidation in November.

Based on allegations in the new class action, Onagofly could be
next.

Black claims that the Onagofly drone is unstable in the air and
"fails to orient itself or follow the user as promised" in
advertising because its GPS application is flawed.

The battery and the camera are significantly underpowered compared
to the company's advertising claims, "and the propellers are of
poor quality and break easily," according to the 32-page
complaint.

Nor is the camera on the drone a 15 megapixel Sony, as advertised,
Black says. "Instead, the camera in the drone is of a
significantly lower resolution than promised. In fact, the video
that Onagofly touts on its website http://www.onagofly.comas
having been shot with an Onagofly drone was in fact not filmed by
an Onagofly drone, and instead was filmed by a different drone
equipped with a higher resolution camera than the Onagofly drone,"
according to the complaint.

Nor does the company respond to customer complaints: "In fact,
defendants' customer service department is nonexistent, such that
it is completely unresponsive to the hundreds if not thousands of
customer complaints regarding the Onagofly drone," the complaint
states.

The lawsuit claims that Acumen and Onagofly are Tsu's alter egos.

"Mr. Tsu personally directed and participated in the fraudulent
activity described in this complaint, knowingly using a set of
revolving corporations (of which he was the principal shareholder)
to carry out his willful and deliberate fraudulent activity with
one purpose in mind: avoiding personal liability," the complaint
states.

The public information office of Onagofly did not respond to an
email inquiry. A person who answered the phone at Onagofly's Brea
headquarters said he was not authorized to talk.

The plaintiffs, from California, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota,
are represented by Kenneth Grunfeld with Golomb & Honik in
Philadelphia and Kirk Wolden with Carter Wolden Curtis in
Sacramento.

Wolden referred questions to Grunfeld, who could not be reached on
March 28.

Onagofly makes "micro" or "nano" drones, about 5 inches square,
that are controlled by a user's smartphone, turning and rolling as
the user moves the phone.  The company appears to have put out a
number of versions of its drones over the past few years. The F115
is no longer listed on the company website nor on the crowdfunding
site Indiegogo, where it markets its products.

All four named plaintiffs paid for their drones "by making a
'contribution' payment through the www.indiegogo.com website, but
the purchase was made from the defendants for the plaintiff to
receive an Onagofly F115 drone as promised by the defendants," the
lawsuit states. Two paid $199 and two paid $259.

Onagofly had raised $3.5 million through crowdfunding as of
February 2016, according to its Indiegogo page.

Named plaintiffs Robert Matos Rivera and Roger Watts say they
never received the drones they ordered, despite waiting, and
complaining, for months.

Black and Christopher Jones say they did receive their F115s., but
Jones's drone "was unable to perform the basic function of flying
at consistent speeds," and "the video capabilities of the drone
were grossly misrepresented."

Black says his drone lacked the promised GPS lock and obstacle-
avoidance feature, so that "the drone frequently flies away and
crashes."  They seek class certification, restitution and punitive
damages for breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition,
misrepresentation and violations of California, Illinois, Michigan
and Minnesota laws.


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: New York Judge Dismisss Shareholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned RAYMOND THOMAS and WILLIAM PORTER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHILOH
INDUSTRIES, INC., RAMZI HERMIZ, and THOMAS M. DUGAN, Defendants,
No. 15-cv-7449 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Shiloh Industries Inc, incorporated in Delaware with its
principal offices located in Ohio, is a supplier of lightweighting
equipment to various automotive and commercial vehicle industries.
Shiloh also provides noise, vibration, and harshness solutions to
manufacturers.  Shiloh maintains twenty-one manufacturing
facilities, and is headquartered in Valley City, Ohio. Shiloh's
securities are actively traded on the NASDAQ Global Market.

Lead plaintiff Raymond Thomas and plaintiff William Porter brought
a putative class action against Shiloh Industries and two of its
individual directors, Ramzi Hermiz and Thomas M. Dugan. Hermiz has
been President and CEO of Shiloh since 2012, while Dugan was Vice
President of Finance and Treasurer at all relevant times.

Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs allege that defendants perpetrated an accounting
fraud at Shiloh's manufacturing facility in Wellington, Ohio.
Plaintiffs contend that as a result, the fraudulent accounting
artificially inflated Shiloh's net income. They claim that
defendants effected the alleged fraud by allowing misallocated
steel surcharges on the balance sheet to remain uncorrected, which
had the effect of understating the cost of goods sold and
inflating inventory. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants
touted their financial success to investors for the first and
second quarters of 2015, but that on September 9, 2015, Shiloh
revealed that it was conducting an internal investigation into the
accounting at its Wellington facility.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages for the injuries sustained as a result of
Defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

Defendants moved to dismiss the corrected amended complaint under
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Judge Wood granted defendants' motion to dismiss as plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently plead an underlying violation under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Judge Wood dismisses the plaintiffs' claim
for liability under Section 20(a).

A copy of Judge Wood's opinion and order dated March 23, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/mCsYI0 from Leagle.com.

Raymond Thomas, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.; Robert Vincent
Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Charles H. Linehan --
clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; Sara
Esther Fuks -- at Milberg LLP

William Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -
- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Charles H. Linehan --
clinehan@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Defendants, represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts --
gjritts@jonesday.com -- Robert C. Micheletto --
rmicheletto@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day


SPARK ENERGY: April 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in "Melville"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melville V. Spark Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-08706 (D.N.J.), the Defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint And/Or Motion to
Strike on March 15, 2017.  A hearing on the request is set for
April 17 before Judge Robert B. Kugler.

Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on March 10 entered an
order granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiffs'
request for nationwide class discovery.

Judge Schneider's ruling provides that, "this Order is entered
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to request additional
"nationwide" discovery after Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
decided.  ORDERED that Defendant's request for Plaintiff's Social
Security and Driver's License is DENIED. ORDERED that Defendant's
request for Plaintiff's fee agreement is DENIED without prejudice.
ORDERED that the 5/16/2017 Status and Discovery Conference will
proceed, and Discovery dispute letters shall be served by
5/12/2017."

According to Spark Energy, Inc.'s March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016, John Melville et al. v. Spark Energy
Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed
on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i)
sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark
Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its
contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class,
injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of
revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc.
filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff
filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016,
Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in
support of their Motion to Dismiss. On November 15, 2016, the
Court entered an Order Granting Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark
Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Dismiss in Part and dismissed
Plaintiff's breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing
claim as well as Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint to try
to expand the class to a nation-wide class. The response to this
Amended Complaint for Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
was due on March 15, 2017.  Initial discovery has begun.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case.

Spark Energy, Inc., is a growing independent retail energy
services company first founded in 1999 that provides residential
and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United
States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and
electricity.  The Company purchases its natural gas and
electricity supply from a variety of wholesale providers and bill
its customers monthly for the delivery of natural gas and
electricity based on their consumption at either a fixed or
variable price.


SPARK ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Veilleux" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Veilleux et al v. Electricity Maine LLC
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00571 (D. Maine), ask the Court to
schedule oral argument on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant Spark Holdco LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim on Feb. 6.  Spark Holdco filed the Motion for
Oral Argument on March 13.  Responses to the Motion for Oral
Argument are due April 3.

On Feb. 27, Plaintiffs Jennifer Chon and Katherine Veilleux filed
a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  On March 26,
they filed a Joinder to the Motion for Oral Argument.

The case is before Judge Nancy Torresen and referred by John H
Rich III.

Spark Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Katherine Veilleux and
Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark
Holdco, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class
action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States
District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an
entity acquired by Spark Holdco, LLC in 2016, enrolled customers
through fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions.
Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants:
violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of
RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the
purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees. Defendants'
initial responsive pleading was filed on February 6, 2017.

In early February, Spark HoldCo filed a motion to dismiss the
claims for which a hearing is expected in the second quarter.
Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter but the Company
anticipates it will commence soon.

The Company said: "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences
of this case. Under the terms of the acquisition, we are
indemnified for losses and expenses in connection with this action
subject to certain limits."

Spark Energy, Inc., is a growing independent retail energy
services company first founded in 1999 that provides residential
and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United
States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and
electricity.  The Company purchases its natural gas and
electricity supply from a variety of wholesale providers and bill
its customers monthly for the delivery of natural gas and
electricity based on their consumption at either a fixed or
variable price.


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in N.D. Indiana Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Indiana, according to
the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, Mark Weber (the Company's Chief Executive
Officer) and Matthew W. Long (the Company's Chief Financial
Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016
regarding projected backlog.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
unspecified damages.

On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case
to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of
the plaintiff and the defendants.

Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case
is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management
believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously
defending the matter.

Supreme Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the
nation's leading manufacturers of specialized commercial vehicles
including truck bodies and specialty vehicles.  The Company was
originally incorporated in 1979.  In January 1984, Supreme
Corporation, the Company's wholly-owned operating subsidiary, was
formed to acquire a company engaged in the business of
manufacturing, selling, and repairing specialized truck bodies and
related equipment.


TAILORED BRANDS: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Makhlouf"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, granted Strathclyde Pension
Fund's motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, as lead counsel and Edison McDowell &
Hetherington LLP as local counsel in the case styled PETER
MAKHLOUF, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TAILORED BRANDS, INC. and DOUGLAS S.
EWERT, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-16-0838, (S.D. Tex.).

Tailored Brands, Inc. (TLRD) made a contentious acquisition on
one-time rival Joseph A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (JOS) and
optimistic, but allegedly made a misleading statements made during
it. Ultimately TLRD purchased JOS, which was subsequently
determined to be a deeply troubled company, at an excessive price,
with the integration not proceeding as materially misrepresented
to TLRD shareholders and with adverse facts not disclosed to them
between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015. TLRD's stock became
artificially inflated, class members purchased it at highly
inflated prices, and they suffered economic loss when revelations
of its actual financial situation reached the market.

Before the court are the motion of Jacksonville Police and Fire
Pension Fund (Jacksonville) and Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System's (OPPRS', collectively, the Funds') motion for
appointment of the Funds to serve as lead plaintiffs and for
approval of Bernstein Liebhard, LLP as lead counsel, and of The
Bilek Law Firm, LLP to serve as Liaison or local counsel, pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Strathclyde Pension Fund's (the
Pension Fund's) motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP as lead counsel and Edison McDowell &
Hetherington LLP as local counsel and The Pension Fund's motion to
strike the sur-reply entitled Supplemental Submission, or, in the
alternative, for leave to respond to the sur-reply.

Judge Harmon concurs with the Pension Fund that it should be
appointed lead plaintiff and its chosen attorneys, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP be appointed as lead counsel and Edison
McDowell & Hetherington LLP as liaison counsel. It is clear that
individually the Pension Fund has the largest financial interest
in the outcome of the litigation. Lead plaintiff has submitted
evidence and case law showing that it is not subject to unique
defenses that make it incapable of representing the class and that
the Funds lack a pre-litigation relationship based on more than
the losing investments at issue.

Judge Harmon also agrees with the Pension Fund that the Funds
Supplemental Submission is in the nature of a sur-reply. Because
the Pension Fund has introduced new evidence in its Reply, because
full briefing is fair and useful to the adjudication of the case,
the court denies the Pension Fund's motion to strike, grants its
alternative request for retroactive leave to file sur-reply, and
considers the arguments it puts forth in its Supplemental
Submission.

Judge Harmon denied the Pension Fund's motion to strike the sur-
reply but its alternative motion for leave to respond the sur-
reply is granted. The Funds' motion for the appointment of the
Funds to serve as Lead Plaintiffs and approval of their selected
attorneys as lead counsel and liaison counsel is denied.

The Pension Fund's motion for appointment of the Pension Fund as
lead plaintiff and approval of the Pension Fund's selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP as lead counsel and Edison
McDowell & Hetherington LLP as local counsel is granted.

A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated March 23, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/WDzoZI from Leagle.com.

Peter Makhlouf, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at
The Bilek Law Firm LLP

Defendants, represented by Anthony J. O'Malley --
ajomalley@vorys.com -- Monica Fitzgerald Oathout --
moathout@vorys.com -- Rajeev K. Adlakha -- rkadlakha@vorys.com --
at Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP

The Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, Movant, represented by Jeffrey W. Chambers -- at Ware
Jackson Lee & Chambers LLP

Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Benefit Assoc., Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek
-- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP

Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein
Liebhard; Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP

Strathclyde Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Andrew J. Brown -
- andrewb@rgrdlaw.com -- Helen J. Hodges -- helenh@rgrdlaw.com --
Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick J. Coughlin --
patc@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Andrew M.
Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Doshi & Garbowski Merging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., awaits ruling on motion to
consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski Actions, according to the
Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

On September 29, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company, Jodie Pope Morrison, Lee H.
Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A.
Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the
Company's IPO, entitled Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11963 ("Garbowski
Action"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants and the
Company's registration statement for its IPO made false and
misleading statements and omissions about its clinical trials for
galeterone, in violation of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its
IPO as well as a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 17, 2014, and July 25, 2016. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiff in the Doshi Action has filed a motion to
consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski Actions for all purposes. A
prospective lead plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate the
Doshi and Garbowski Actions for all purposes. A lead plaintiff has
yet to be appointed.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases.  The Company
has focused substantially all of its research and development
efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule,
including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of
patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or
mCRPC.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Wu" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., awaits ruling on Plaintiff's motion
to remand the Wu Action to the Massachusetts State Court, the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court
Department of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts
("Massachusetts State Court") against the Company, Jodie P.
Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich,
David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of
the Company's IPO, entitled Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., 16-3725 BLS ("Wu Action"). The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's IPO registration statement made false and misleading
statements and omissions about the Company's clinical trials for
galeterone, in violation of the Securities Act. The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it was
captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550,
and assigned to the same judge presiding over the Doshi and
Garbowski Actions. On December 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion
to consolidate the Wu Action with the Doshi and Garbowski Actions.

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu
Action to Massachusetts State Court.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases.  The Company
has focused substantially all of its research and development
efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule,
including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of
patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or
mCRPC.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Class Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Doshi v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., remains pending in New York,
according to the Company's March 3, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison, and
Lee H. Kalowski, entitled Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-06106 ("Doshi Action"). The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities
between June 24, 2015, and July 25, 2016, and alleges that, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions about the Company's clinical
trials for its drug candidate, galeterone. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees. On October 3, 2016, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

A lead plaintiff has yet to be appointed.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases.  The Company
has focused substantially all of its research and development
efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule,
including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of
patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or
mCRPC.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Bid to Stay Jackie888 Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco granted the Defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit
commenced by Jackie888, Inc., Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco, against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison,
Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A.
Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), entitled Jackie888,
Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796.
The lawsuit alleges that, in violation of the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), the Company's registration statement for
its IPO made false and misleading statements and omissions about
its clinical trials for galeterone. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in
and/or traceable to its IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to
dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and
certain individual defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's
summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally driven diseases.  The Company
has focused substantially all of its research and development
efforts on the development of galeterone, an oral small molecule,
including clinical trials of galeterone for the treatment of
patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or
mCRPC.


TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Spurlock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Spurlock, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Total Homecare Solutions, LLC, THS Healthcare
Services, Inc., THS Homechoice, LLC, Adam D. Shoemaker, and
Nicholas D. Alexander, Case No. 1:17-cv-00168-TSB (March 14,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants offer home health care services in Southwest
Ohio for individuals with developmental disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Eric Kmetz, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Telephone: (513) 651-3700
      Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
              akimble@msdlegal.com
              ekmetz@msdlegal.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit over "Winter Warmup" Promo Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
amid weeks of tumult at Uber, the ride-hailing technology company
appears to have settled a case with a class of drivers in San
Francisco, Calif. who said the company didn't follow through on a
promotional promise.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James signed a stipulated order
dismissing the case, typically an indication the matter has been
settled out of court.

The case dates back to last year, when lead plaintiff Kimberly
Berger accused the company of breach of contract, unfair
competition and breach of good faith, claiming the company did not
live up to the promises it made during a promotion.  Specifically,
Uber guaranteed its drivers rates of $26 during peak hours and $20
during regular hours, and the only requirements were that they
accept 90 percent of trips, average at least one trip per hour and
be online for 50 minutes of every hour worked, Berger said in the
complaint.

The promotion, called "Winter Warmup," took place in January 2015.
Berger said Uber did not pay its drivers as promised, nor did it
provide a clear expectation of how the guarantee worked.  Based on
the promotional email, she said, drivers were led to believe that
as long as they followed the requirements, they would be
guaranteed the advertised rates.

But "Uber did not disclose that the hourly guarantee would be
calculated based on a weekly, or per pay period, gross average all
hours worked by Uber drivers, and not on an hourly basis as
promised in the Uber 'Winter Warmup' guarantee promotion," Berger
said in the complaint.

Since the hourly guarantee reflected an average gross hourly rate
before Uber fees were subtracted, she said, drivers were paid
hourly rates up to 40 percent less than advertised.

Berger's attorney Amy Wooton declined to comment.

Uber did not return an email seeking comment by press time.

The case is captioned, KIMBERLY BERGER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,, Defendants.
Case 3:16-cv-00041-MEJ(N.D. Cal. March 20, 2017).

Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA,
LLC:

     Robert G. Hulteng, Esq.
     Andrew M. Spurchise, Esq.
     Gilbert A. Castro, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: 415.433.1940
     Facsimile: 415.399.8490
     E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com
             aspurchise@littler.com
             gcastro@littler.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "McElrath" Suit Stayed Pending SCOTUS Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal magistrate in San Francisco on March 23, denied a
request by Uber to force its employee to arbitrate individual
claims that it cheated workers out of valuable stock options, but
stayed the class action until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a
similar case.

"If it looks like we're going to get any certainty (from the
Supreme Court's decision), maybe I'll lift the stay at some
point," U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said at the
Thursday hearing.

Lead plaintiff Lenza McElrath, a senior software engineer from
Washington state, sued Uber in federal court in December 2016.
According to the class action, Uber lured prospective employees by
promising them higher-value stock options than it actually gave
them.

McElrath says he relocated to the Bay Area to work for Uber over a
competing tech firm based on its offer to give him incentive stock
options, or ISOs, which are more valuable than nonqualified stock
options because they aren't taxed as earnings when they're
exercised.

He says Uber deprives its employees of the promised ISOs shortly
after they sign on in order to get a "large" payroll-tax
deduction.

At issue on March 22, was a 2014 arbitration agreement McElrath
signed when he was hired, which contains a severable class action
waiver requiring him to arbitrate on an individual basis any
claims arising out of his employment with Uber.

Uber contends that compelling arbitration of McElrath's individual
claims conforms with an August 2016 decision by the Ninth Circuit
in Morris v. Ernst & Young because the class waiver is severable
from the arbitration agreement.

In Morris, the appellate court ruled an employer can't require
workers to sign an arbitration agreement that prohibits them from
suing on behalf of a class over the terms of their employment.

However, the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have disagreed with
that finding, holding instead that class waivers like the one
McElrath signed are legal.

The Supreme Court plans to review the case sometime this year to
resolve the circuit split between the Seventh and Ninth Circuits
on the one side, and the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits on the
other.

Corley focused her on March 22 ruling squarely on Morris,
concluding that McElrath's case should be stayed until the Supreme
Court issues its decision.

"There's no guarantee that we'll get anything definitive out of
the decision," she said. Nevertheless, "we should stay the case,
and in this case I don't see any prejudice to the class because
it's a written contract case. It says what it says."

But she allowed McElrath to serve discovery on Uber while the case
is stayed so that Uber is "on notice explicitly that everything
needs to be preserved."

The ruling came after McElrath's attorney Scott Erlewine protested
the stay in order to conduct discovery.

Erlewine told the judge his client had stayed a Private Attorneys
General Act case against Uber in San Francisco Superior Court last
month so that he could pursue discovery in the federal case.

After the state court sustained parts of Uber's demurrer in
December 2016, McElrath filed the federal class action asserting
claims for breach of contract and violations of state labor and
unfair competition laws, among other grievances.

Corely was unsympathetic.

"The reason you're here is Morris," she told Erlewine. "There is a
conflict in the circuits and no one can tell me with any certainty
what the outcome will be."

She continued: "Go back to state court and do that there. The
issue is, we have an arbitration agreement, we have the [Federal
Arbitration Act], we have Morris; it's a unique situation. I will
permit you to serve discovery or you can go back to state court
and do that as well."

Erlewine is with Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin in San
Francisco. Uber is represented by Patrick Gibbs with Cooley LLP in
Palo Alto, California.


UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Court Dismisses Ex-Rowers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mara Rose Williams, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that
a District Court in Douglas County ruled in favor of the
University of Kansas and dismissed the class action lawsuit filed
by the parents of two former KU rowers who have said they were
sexually assaulted by a former Jayhawk football player in a campus
dorm.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2016 by James and Amanda Tackett
claimed that when recruiting their daughter to attend and row for
KU, the school falsely advertized safe residence halls and
violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.  The suit claimed the
university knew there had been a number of sexual assaults in
their campus dorms.

That lawsuit was later joined by James McClure and his daughter
Sarah McClure, who said she was sexually assaulted in August 2015
in Jayhawker Towers by the same football player who fellow rower
Daisy Tackett said had also sexually assaulted her a year earlier.

The Tacketts' and McClures' lawsuit asked the court for an
injunction to stop KU from representing in the future KU campus
housing as safe and asked for the return of all tuition, housing,
and other money the university had received in connection with
their daughters' attendance.

KU officials have called the class action suit "baseless."

District Judge B. Kay Hoff ruled on March 17 to dismiss the
parents' portion of the lawsuit because "in this case students,
not parents signed the housing contract with KU," according to
court documents. "Even if parents paid money to KU, they are not
parties to the contract.  The source of the funds has no bearing
on who is a consumer . . ."

Also, according to court documents, Judge Hoff dismissed the
student portion of the suit staying in the ruling that both
students have since left KU and neither are currently in danger or
facing future danger or injury at the university.

"The Court finds that student-plaintiffs allege past harm and fail
to show within the petition a continuing injury or that they face
a real and immediate threat of being injured in the future," the
court document says.

Dan Curry, attorney for the Tackett and the McClure families said
on March 21 that he "respects the judge's decision but we are
going to appeal the decision."

University officials said they were happy with the court's ruling.
"The safety and well-being of our students is of the utmost
importance," said Erinn Barcomb-Peterson, a university
spokeswoman.

"As we've said from the beginning, the lawsuit is baseless, and we
are pleased the court agreed and dismissed the suit.

But KU still faces two other lawsuits connected to the class
action that was dismissed on March 17.  Both former KU rowers --
Tackett and McClure -- have filed separate lawsuits against the
university claiming the school violated Title IX when it failed to
protect them and did not stop retaliation against them after the
women reported they had been sexually assaulted.

The university has said the former rowers lawsuits are baseless
and asked the court to dismiss them.  Earlier this year federal
district court said it would allow the rowers' to sue the school
on the bases that it was indifferent and retaliated after sexual
assaults were filed.

The football player was not named in any of the original court
documents but was instead referred to as John Doe G.  The Star
later learned that Jordan Goldenberg Jr., a former KU long
snapper, is John Doe G.

A university investigation which uses preponderance of evidence as
a standard of proof rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt as
is used in criminal cases, concluded last March that
Mr. Goldenberg had "nonconsensual sex," with Tackett and harassed
McClure.

Mr. Goldenberg was not charged with a crime. He agreed to be
expelled from the university.


VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the case titled, IN RE: VALE S.A.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 1:15-cv-9539-GHW (S.D.N.Y.).

The Fundao Dam was owned and operated by Samarco Mineracao S.A., a
mining company owned in equal parts by Brazilian mining company
Vale S.A. and Australian mining company BHP Tilliton. In November
2015, the Fundao Dam, a repository of iron ore tailings located in
the city of Mariana in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais,
collapsed, releasing a deluge of muddy waste onto the village of
Bento Rodrigues below. The dam's failure caused nineteen people to
lose their lives, destroyed hundreds of homes, and caused
ecological damage so severe that this incident has often been
described as the worst environmental disaster in Brazil's history.

Lead plaintiffs, the Alameda County Employees' Retirement
Association and Orange County Employees Retirement System, brought
a lawsuit under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of purchasers of the common or
preferred stock American Depository Receipts of Vale, between
November 7, 2013 and November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 29, 2016, which names as defendants
Vale, Vale's Chief Executive Officer Murilo Pinto de Oliveira
Ferreira, Vale's Chief Financial Officer Luciano Siani Pires, and
Vale's Executive Director, Ferrous Minerals, Gerd Peter Poppinga.
Plaintiffs allege that various statements made by Vale and certain
of its senior executives, both before and after the dam collapse,
were false and misleading within the meaning of the American
federal securities laws.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and assert a number of bases
for dismissal of the complaint. In particular, they argue that the
various categories of alleged misstatements are not actionable,
that the complaint must be dismissed because it also fails to
allege a strong inference of scienter, and that the claims based
upon the challenged post-accident statements fail to adequately
plead loss causation or materiality.

Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs have pleaded a claim under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against defendants
Poppinga and Pires, and against Vale, based upon the pre-accident
statements about Vale's risk mitigation plans, policies, and
procedures in Vale's 2013 and 2014 Sustainability Reports, and
defendant Pires' post-accident statements about Vale's
responsibility for the Fundao Dam collapse during the November 16,
2015 conference call. In all other respects, Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted.

A copy of Judge Woods's memorandum opinion and order dated March
23, 2017, is available at https:/ g/ oo.gl/UddqZQ from Leagle.com.

Alameda County Employees Retirement Association and Orange County
Employees Retirement System, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Blair
Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jenny E. Barbosa -- Jenny.Barbosa@blbglaw.com
-- Richard David Gluck -- Rich.Gluck@blbglaw.com -- Robert Steven
Trisotto -- robert.trisotto@blbglaw.com -- Timothy Alan DeLange --
timothyd@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman,
LLP

Ming Hom, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Norfolk Pension Fund, Movant, Pro se

Walter De Schutter, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP

Cristiano Laux, Movant, represented by Albert Yong Chang --
achang@bottinilaw.com -- at Johnson Bottini, LLP; Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP

Sharon Jamie, Constantin Tranulis, Vicky Shen, and Scott Shen,
Movants, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Farhad Babazadeh, Anders Evju, Ana Piumbini, and Robert Carlen,
Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP

TCAP Real Estate Inc., Movant, represented by Jason Allen Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Alameda County Employees Retirement Association, Movant,
represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

Defendants, represented by Randy M. Mastro --
rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Michael Joralemon --
cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com -- Mark Adam Kirsch --
mkirsch@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Peter Poppinga, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Randy M.
Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Michael Joralemon
-- cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com -- Mark Adam Kirsch --
mkirsch@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP


WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until May 15, 2017 to file lead plaintiff
applications in securities class action lawsuits against Walter
Investment Management Corporation (NYSE:WAC), if they purchased
the Company's securities between February 29, 2016 and March 13,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  These actions are pending
in the United States District Courts for the Middle and Southern
Districts of Florida.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Walter Investment and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 15, 2017.

About the Lawsuit

Walter Investment and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On March 14, 2017, Walter Investment disclosed that "[a]s of
December 31, 2016, we identified a material weakness in internal
controls over operational processes within the transaction level
processing of" its subsidiary "Ditech Financial['s] default
servicing activities."

On this news, the price of Walter Investment's shares plummeted by
over 38%.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


WELLS FINANCIAL: Class Suit Challenges $40MM Citizens Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders claim in a
class action in Blue Earth, Minn. that Wells Federal Bank's
proposed $40 million sale to Citizens Community Bancorp
undervalues Wells shares and is the product of a flawed process.

The case is captioned, Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs Wells Financial
Corp.; James D. Moll; Randel I. Bichler; Gerald D. Bastian; David
Buesing; Richard A. Mueller; and Citizens Community Bancorp Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-17-179, State of Minnesota, County of
Faribault, District Court, Fifth Judicial District, March 22,
2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
     Adam M. Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & IZEK
     901 North Third Street, Suite 140
     Minneapolis, MN 55401S
     Tel: (612) 335-3700
     Fax: (612) 335-3701

          - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel: (484) 324-6800


WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
LUBRAINE TESSIE, JEAN H. SAINT-AIME, ELIUS REMY, TOUSSAINT
CHARLEMOND, VILET MESADIEU, JUNIAS SAINT-FLEUR, and FRANCIS
NICOLAS, on their own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and WINSTON WHITE, individually, Defendants Case 9:17-cv-
80300-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees were not paid time and one-half
of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week during one or more work weeks in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, is a construction business.
Plaintiffs performed non-exempt work as a laborer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
     LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
     2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Phone: 561-853-2212
     Fax: 561-853-2213
     Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


XPO LOGISTICS: "Quinlan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brice Quinlan & Laura Willis, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. XPO Logistics, Inc. & XPO Logistics
of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00186-FJG (W.D. Miss., March
14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including straight time
and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide transportation and logistics solutions to
companies in every major industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Joni E. Bodnar,  Esq.
      MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Telephone: (816) 781-0002
      Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
      E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
              jbodnar@mcclellandlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
      Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
      OSMAN & SMAY LLP
      8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
      Overland Park, KA 66210
      Telephone: (913) 667-9243
      Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
      E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
              krickley@workerwagerights.com


YAHOO INC: UFCW Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Pension Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling
in its lawsuit styled UFCW LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. MARISSA MAYER; DAVID
FILO; SUE JAMES; THOMAS J. MCINERNEY; CHARLES R. SCHWAB; H. LEE
SCOTT, Jr.; KENNETH A. GOLDMAN; RONALD S. BELL; HENRIQUE DE
CASTRO; MAX R. LEVCHIN; JANE E. SHAW; MAYNARD WEBB, Jr.; YAHOO!
INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00478-RS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, UFCW
commenced its lawsuit on January 27, 2016, alleging that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Yahoo! Inc. describes itself as a global Internet new media
company that offers a branded network of media, commerce, and
communication services.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

The appellate case is captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1500 PENSION FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MARISSA
MAYER; DAVID FILO; SUE JAMES; THOMAS J. MCINERNEY; CHARLES R.
SCHWAB; H. LEE SCOTT, Jr.; KENNETH A. GOLDMAN; RONALD S. BELL;
HENRIQUE DE CASTRO; MAX R. LEVCHIN; JANE E. SHAW; MAYNARD WEBB,
Jr.; YAHOO! INC., Case No. 17-15435, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on June 19, 2017;

   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on July 18, 2017;

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule
      Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.
      See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.[BN]


* Arkansas House Approves Bill to Curb Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
John Lyon, writing for Times Record, reports that the House on
March 21 approved a bill to prohibit people other than the
attorney general from bringing most class-action lawsuits alleging
deceptive trade practices.

In a 53-31 vote, the chamber narrowly approved House Bill 1742 by
Rep. Michelle Gray, R-Melbourne, after rejecting it twice
previously.  The bill goes to the Senate.

Gray told House members the bill has been amended to address some
legislators' concerns that it might allow payday lenders to return
to Arkansas.  In its current form, the bill makes an exception for
class-action suits alleging violations of Arkansas' constitutional
amendment capping interest rates on consumer loans at 17 percent.

The bill would allow a person to file an individual lawsuit
alleging deceptive trade practices.  It would limit damage awards
to "actual financial loss," defined as the difference between the
amount paid by a person for goods or services and the actual
market value of the goods or services provided to a person.

Ms. Gray said the bill would eliminate many frivolous suits that
are filed with the intention of forcing a business to settle. She
said it would not allow businesses to deceive consumers without
consequences.
"All we are saying is with deceptive trade, the AG will bring
those suits," she said.

Speaking against the bill, Rep. Mark Lowery, R-Maumelle, said it
would prohibit a jury from awarding punitive damages that would
punish a company for deceiving consumers.

"When you're talking about deceptive practices, that's what you
want," he said.

Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock, said that if his auto warranty
guarantees him free oil changes and the dealer refuses to provide
them, it is not financially worthwhile for him to file a suit as
an individual, but a class-action suit might be worthwhile.

Mr. Walker also said it would be "a woeful waste of judicial time"
for 1o,000 customers to file 10,000 separate lawsuits against the
same business alleging the same deceptive practice.

"We do not want to take from our people the right to use this
vehicle to assert claims that otherwise would not be asserted," he
said.

Speaking in support of the bill, Rep. Charlie Collins, R-
Fayetteville, said many class-action suits are not legitimate.

"Oftentimes, what somebody is doing is trying to find a way to get
a lawsuit settlement that's not going to benefit individual
consumers," he said.


* Justice Murphy Applauds Australia's Current Class Action Regime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that concerns that there are too many class actions against
companies are ill founded, according to Federal Court judge
Bernard Murphy.

Justice Murphy applauded Australia's current class action regime
on the 25th anniversary of the regime in Australia.

"Provided the actions are about serious wrongs and provided they
are about serious losses, as a society shouldn't we be more
worried about corporate wrongdoings rather than the number of
class actions?" Justice Murphy told the 2017 Corporate Conduct and
Class Action Symposium in Melbourne on March 22.

Justice Murphy's comments stand in opposition to those by some
quarters from the business community that have decried the
"outbreak" of class actions, particularly class actions brought on
behalf of investors.

But Justice Murphy said the regime gave improved access to justice
for many Australians who couldn't afford to launch their own
action against a big company or state or federal government.

"It is important to remember that before the class action regime
was introduced, it was either impossible, or at least exceedingly
rare for consumers, cartel victims, shareholders, investors and
the victims of catastrophe to recover compensation, even when
misconduct was plain," Justice Murphy said.

"Since 1992 the regime has permitted claimants to recover more
than $3.5 billion in compensation for serious civil wrongs they
suffered," he said.

Queen Mary University of London professor Rachael Mulheron also
applauded the Australian class action system, contrasting it to
Britain's system that was introduced only two years ago.

"In the UK we have had some stops and starts where the political
winds have turned cold [towards class actions] and then were
revived," Professor Mulheron said.

She said Britain had borrowed heavily from the Australian regime
specifically because it was different to the US regime, which has
allowed for a large number of entrepreneurial claims.

"If there was a political statement that summed it up it is this -
- in cultures that are quite different to the US it is important
that it is not seen as a US style legislation," Professor Mulheron
said.

She said a key difference was that in Britain class action
claimants could not launch an action against the government.  In
Australia, several claims have been launched against state
governments and bodies as well as the Commonwealth.

"The Australian regime covers the full gamut [of potential
actions].  You take that for granted but this is a very
politically sensitive topic in the UK," she said.

She said that in Britain the regime would be implemented sector by
sector but all claims against the government were disallowed.

"I totally disagree with this political decision," she said,
adding: "The political will collide with law reform and that's the
way it is."

Maurice Blackburn class action principal Andrew Watson said the
class action system in Australia had also reduced the impact of
separate claims on the court.

"Experience shows that absent a functioning representative
procedure, multi-plaintiff litigation is cumbersome and expensive
and that the obligations which must be undertaken by plaintiffs
act as a severe deterrent on the pursuit of legal rights.  In
short you end up with something which provides both less access to
justice, is more expensive and involves more judicial
involvement," Mr Watson said.


* Judge Says No Americanisation of Australian Class Action System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
respected Federal Court judge Jonathan Beach has dismissed
concerns about the "Americanisation" of Australia's class action
system but says challenges remain for the sector.

Justice Beach told Fairfax Media ahead of the Maurice Blackburn
class action symposium in Melbourne on March 22 that both
plaintiff and defendant law firms saw advantages in the current
class action regime.

Before joining the bench, Justice Beach had acted in scores of
major cases, including representing a defendant in the Kilmore
East bushfire class action, Singapore's SPI Electricity, a
subsidiary of SP Ausnet.

The judge has since presided over a number of major cases.  He is
currently hearing the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission's highly complex bank bill swap rate actions against
Westpac, National Australia Bank, and ANZ.

"People have said if Australia does something similar to the
United States there will be unmeritorious claims; that we will
open the floodgates to spurious claims," Justice Beach said.

"The fact of the matter is the Australian model has not produced
all of those vices and there have frankly been very few spurious
or unmeritorious claims that have been instituted in Australia.


"The other interesting thing is to look at the statistics.  If you
look at the US, you're 15 times more likely to have a class action
per listed company than you are in Australia."

Justice Beach said a key difference was that in the US, the losing
party did not have to pay costs.

"But under the Australian system, costs follow the event. So
there's a real discipline on applicants and their lawyers to make
sure they've got a viable case, otherwise they will have to pay an
adverse costs order," he said.

Justice Beach said unlike the US system, contingency fees for law
firms were currently not allowed in the Australia class action
regime. Contingency fee arrangements allow clients to pay lawyers
a percentage of the settlement of a dispute rather than hourly
rates.

The US system also had civil juries, which had a lot of scope for
awarding punitive damages, he said.

However, Justice Beach said the Australian system was still facing
some challenges.

"There probably needs to be increasing scope for judicial scrutiny
of settlements, particularly the allocation mechanisms,
distributing funds, the administration of settlement scheme," he
said, pointing to the judicial oversight of the bushfires class
action settlements.

Justice Beach said other challenges were the need for greater
scrutiny of the way class actions were funded, and issues around
competing class actions.

"[The latter is] going to be a problem now as it has been in the
past," Justice Beach said.

"Today, as a result of the common fund orders, you might have more
open classes but you'll still have the problem, albeit reduced, of
competing class actions and that needs to be looked at."

A Full Court decision last year in a class action brought against
insurer QBE supported orders that in effect allowed for litigation
funders' fees to be worn by all class members who stood to benefit
from the proceeding, whether or not they are signed up to a
funding arrangement.

Another burgeoning issue was the entrance of new applicant law
firms.

"Some of them are less resourced and less experienced and that
obviously needs to be a matter that needs to be looked at
carefully over time."


* Neil Gorsuch Says He's Not Biased Against Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
on the second day of his confirmation hearings, U.S. Supreme Court
nominee Neil Gorsuch insisted he wasn't biased against class
actions, countered claims he usually ruled against the "little
guy," and declined to state his thoughts on abortion and torture.

Democratic senators questioned Gorsuch on broad themes that
involved separation of powers, national security and his judicial
independence, and they also homed in on particular labor and
employment cases that he and the Supreme Court have decided.

Republicans pushed back against Democratic statements that
questioned Gorsuch's ability to be independent of President Trump,
who made campaign promises to appoint justices who would overrule
Roe v. Wade and protect Second Amendment gun rights. They also led
the nominee through his defense of decisions singled out by their
Democratic colleagues, such as his dissent in what has become
known as the case of the Frozen Trucker.

Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, set the tone for
Republicans with his first question: "What does judicial
independence mean to you and would you have any trouble ruling
against the president who appointed you?"

Gorsuch replied: "That's a softball, Mr. Chairman."

Here are some highlights from Gorsuch's second day on Capitol
Hill.  His confirmation hearing was set to resume on March 22.

Class action enemy? Mr. Gorsuch says no

Gorsuch has criticized plaintiffs lawyers for bringing "meritless"
securities class actions of little benefit to investors.  On March
21, he parried charges he was pro-defense.

"I represented class actions and people fighting class actions,"
he said.  "I ruled for and against class actions.  It depends on
facts presented to me.  My most recent class action case involved
residents who lived near the Rocky Flats weapons plant; they filed
a class action for damage to their property.  It took 25 years up
and down the system.  I issued a decision saying, 'Stop, enough,
they win.'  I believe it has been finished and they have been
paid, and although it has been so long, that it has been their
children getting the money."

The 'little guy' in the spotlight

Painting Gorsuch as always for the "big guy" didn't work out so
well for Democratic senators.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, noted several 5-4 high court
decisions that, in her view, made it harder for workers to hold
employers accountable for job discrimination.  The late Justice
Antonin Scalia, she said, was in the majority in those cases, and
President Trump has said "that you are the next Scalia."  She
asked if Gorsuch disagreed with any of those majority opinions. He
declined to answer.

Feinstein then asked how the public can have confidence that he
will be for the "little guy."

Gorsuch urged Feinstein to look at his whole record -- 2,700
opinions in 10 and a half years.  "There are plenty of cases where
I have ruled in favor of the little guy," he said. At her request,
he listed some of them.

Another 'open mind' about cameras

Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as nominees, spoke favorably
about having cameras in the courtroom of the Supreme Court, and
then changed their minds once on the high court, noted Sen. Amy
Klobuchar, D-Minn. She asked Gorsuch if he supported cameras in
that court.

"I come to it with an open mind," he said.  "It's not a question
I've given a great deal of thought to.  I would treat it like I
would treat any other case or controversy."
Questions about 'Chevron'

Gorsuch's distaste for "agency deference" is well known, and it
didn't take long for the nominee to address the role of the courts
in reviewing agency decision-making.

Gorsuch's concurring opinion -- to his majority opinion -- in the
immigration case Gutierrez-Bruzuela v. Lynch tackled so-called
Chevron deference.  Gorsuch said it may be time to face the
"behemoth in the room."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said the opinion sounded as if
Gorsuch was ready to overturn a major precedent. Would he overturn
it, she asked, and had he considered the significant consequences
of doing so?

"I don't prejudge it," he said of Chevron deference to agency
interpretations of their ambiguous statutes.  "There was deference
before.  I don't know what all the consequences would be. I was
identifying the consequences [of a particular case] for my
bosses."


* Perpetual Sr. Lawyer Balks at "Excessive" Class Action Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Canberra Times, reports that the
lawyer charged with deciding whether one of Australia's largest
institution investors Perpetual signs up to class actions has
called fees charged by class action lawyers and funders
"excessive".

Perpetual senior lawyer Jessie Moodley told the Corporate Conduct
and Class Action symposium in Melbourne she had ongoing concerns
about the fees associated with class actions.

"The costs are too often excessive and are not aligned with the
risks to the funder or to the law firm running the case," Ms
Moodley said.

"There's a need for funders and for lawyers to put downward
pressure on fees.

"There's more competition between funders and law firms in the
market but there's been very limited downward pressure on fees."

Ms Moodley said part of the concern was that there was often a
lack of transparency around the fee structures for lawyers running
the claim and the total amount paid to the funder of the
litigation.

"We currently don't have much scope to be able to negotiate them
upfront," Ms Moodley said.

"The message that I want to send out is that the interest of class
action claimants should be higher than the interests of funders
and lawyers.  Shareholders should rank over them," she added.

Harbour Litigation Funding's Stephen O'Dowd said there was a
common misperception that funders charged excessive fees.

"Despite what you think I am not going home to sleep on a bed made
out of money," Mr O'Dowd said.

"I look at what we charge and I don't think it is excessive," he
added.

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ken Adams told the conference that
while the system was generally working well there were still
issues for defendants.

"It seems to me that after running securities class actions for
more than 15 years something is fundamentally wrong -- none of
them have gone to judgment which is in its own right a shame,"
Mr Adams said.

"There is also something fundamentally wrong that we haven't heard
from institutional investors -- those who make up 80 to 90 per
cent of value on the claims," he said, referring to the eagerness
of institutional investors to participate in class actions but to
leave retail investors to be the lead plaintiff.

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warehouse Owner Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2007, Gene Cornell Smith purchased a warehouse
property located in a residential community in northern
Philadelphia.  Smith hired his co-defendant, Clarence Cole, to
renovate the property in preparation for storing cars and creating
office space for a vehicle wholesale business.  In October 2007,
Cole contacted a trained asbestos removal professional to inquire
about contracting his services to remove asbestos on the property.
After receiving a quote from the contractor, Smith opted not to
hire him but instead to leave it to Cole to oversee all
renovations of the property.  Cole in turn hired a crew of
laborers who, unaware of the presence of asbestos, used
sledgehammers to break apart asbestos-coated pipes, piled
contaminated materials in an outdoor dumpster, and threw the
dismembered pipes from a hole in the wall on the second floor onto
a driveway shared between the warehouse and a neighboring church -
- all without proper safety equipment.  As the renovation project
progressed, bags of friable asbestos material were strewn about
the yard; debris blanketed the property; and loose asbestos and
contaminated pieces of metal were swept against the side of the
building and left exposed to the elements.

Acting on a tip, the Philadelphia Health Department investigated
and informed Smith that his property was out of compliance with
federal work practice standards and that he would have to hire a
trained professional to remove or contain the asbestos. Work
practice standards are procedures published by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) that dictate the steps one must follow to
comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et
seq., when dealing with certain hazardous substances, such as
asbestos. 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(h). Under the CAA, it is a
criminal offense for an owner or operator of a demolition or
renovation activity in a facility like Smith's warehouse to commit
a knowing violation of asbestos work practice standards. 42 U.S.C.
Section 7413(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. Section 61.145. Despite multiple
warnings from city officials, however, Smith failed to hire a
trained professional to remove the asbestos material and failed to
follow other asbestos-related work practice standards. See 40
C.F.R. Sections 61.145, 61.150. Instead, the renovation continued
in a haphazard and dangerous manner under Cole's direction. After
months of hazardous conditions and unfulfilled promises by Smith
to hire a qualified contractor to bring the property up to
standards, the federal government intervened by cleaning up the
site using Superfund money.

Smith was indicted and convicted by a jury of his peers of five
counts of violating the CAA by illegally removing asbestos, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(1), and, along with Cole,
one count of conspiracy to illegally remove asbestos materials, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. In addition to ordering Smith
to pay $451,936.80 in restitution and $600.00 in a special
assessment, the District Court imposed a six-level sentencing
enhancement for the ongoing, continuous, or repetitive discharge,
release, or emission of a hazardous or toxic substance or
pesticide into the environment, U.S.S.G. Section 2Q1.2(b)(1)(A),
and a two-level enhancement for Smith's role as the organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity involving
fewer than five participants, id. Section 3B1.1(c), for a sentence
totaling forty-two months' imprisonment.

Defendant's pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 raises four
grounds for relief, all based on the alleged ineffectiveness of
his trial counsel: (1) counsel failed to research and raise lack
of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) counsel failed to investigate
five witnesses that would have provided exculpatory evidence; (3)
counsel failed to move to suppress evidence taken from Defendant's
property without a warrant, to object to evidence, and to "create
a reasonable probability that, but for the errors and omissions
[t]he [outcome] would have been different"; and (4) counsel failed
to object during proceedings. Defendant has also moved to dismiss
this case for lack of jurisdiction under the CAA and the
Administrative Procedures Act.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255.  Also pending is
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania finds that the motions lack
merit, and will deny them without an evidentiary hearing.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
23, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/9lbVML from Leagle.com.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by ELIZABETH F. ABRAMS, U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & THOMAS MOSHANG, III, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Moore"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in the case
captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-
cv-00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), granted the parties' joint motions to
dismiss, without prejudice, the case against Defendant Ericsson,
Inc., and Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Phelps Dodge dated
March 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/n1Ezg9 from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Ericsson dated March
24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/nygaY6 from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A.

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black,
Ward Black, P.A.

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Court Narrows Inmate's Pro Se Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In RODNEY DOUGLAS EAVES, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BILL ELDERS, ROB KING, ZACHARY MARGURITE,
CANYON PARCELL, MICHAEL KIMBERLAIN, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, JOHN
DOES 1-6, and JANE DOE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-01065-
KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff, an inmate at the Bent County
Correctional Facility in Las Animas, Colorado, filed a prisoner
complaint asserting four claims.

With respect to the objective component, the Plaintiff alleges
that he was exposed for five months to either friable asbestos, or
some other insulation-like substance falling from the ceiling that
constantly irritated his eyes and affected his ability to breathe.

Defendants El Paso County Board of Country Commissioners, Bill
Elders, Rob King, Zachary Margurite, Canyon Parcell, and Michael
Kimberlain, filed a motion to dismiss.

Determining whether Plaintiff's conditions of confinement violated
the Eighth Amendment requires that the Court "assess whether
society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so
grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose
anyone unwillingly to such a risk."  Taking Plaintiff's
allegations as true, Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado finds that he
has sufficiently pled this element.

"The health risk posed by friable asbestos has been acknowledged
by various courts, which have held that inmates' unwilling
exposure to an unreasonably high concentration of air-borne
asbestos particles constitutes a cognizable claim under the Eighth
Amendment."  Even if the material is not asbestos, but rather some
other exposed insulation that causes breathing problems and eye
irritation, Plaintiff has still sufficiently alleged conditions
that violate contemporary standards of decency, the magistrate
judge held. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that he was
exposed for a period of several months.  Therefore, the duration
and intensity of the exposure sufficiently alleges a substantial
risk of serious harm, the magistrate judge further held.  Thus,
the Court considers the second component, and denied in part the
Defendants' motion with respect to the second component.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 24, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/YwtQxY from Leagle.com.

Rodney Douglas Eaves, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

El Paso Board of County Commisioners, Defendant, represented by
Diana Kay May, El Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard
Hodges , El Paso County Attorney's Office.

Bill Elders, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May , El Paso
County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges , El Paso County
Attorney's Office.

Rob King, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso County
Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County
Attorney's Office.

Zachary Margurite, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El
Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso
County Attorney's Office.

Canyon Parcell, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El Paso
County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso County
Attorney's Office.

Michael Kimberlain, Defendant, represented by Diana Kay May, El
Paso County Attorney's Office & Kenneth Richard Hodges, El Paso
County Attorney's Office.

Correct Care Solutions, Defendant, represented by Andrew David
Ringel, Hall & Evans, LLC & Jacob D. Massee, Hall & Evans, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Not Proper Venue for Suits vs. Law Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, in two separate decisions penned by two
different judges, ruled that the District is not the proper venue
for the lawsuits filed by John Crane Inc. against certain law
firms alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., and common law
claims for conspiracy and fraud.

JCI, an Illinois-based asbestos manufacturer, alleges that the law
firms Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, APC, its principals,
Jeffrey B. Simon and David C. Greenstone, and Shein Law Center
Ltd. and its principal, Benjamin P. Shein, concealed information
during discovery in multiple asbestos exposure lawsuits so they
could extract larger recoveries from JCI and other asbestos
manufacturers.

The Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, who penned the decision with
respect to JCI's lawsuit against Simon Greenstone, granted the
Defendants' motion, holding that "Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that venue in this district is proper.  Assuming Plaintiff's
allegations as true, a substantial portion of the activities
giving rise to Plaintiff's claim did not occur in this district.
The only activities giving rise to the claim that occurred in this
district were Plaintiff's receipt of discovery responses and
communications with Defendants about the litigation. All the other
activities giving rise to Plaintiff's claim -- the drafting of
Defendants' discovery responses, Defendants' clients' depositions,
Defendants' clients' in-court testimony, Defendants' interactions
with and counseling of their clients, Defendants' filing of
lawsuits, trials resulting in verdicts against Plaintiff,
Defendants' in-court false assertions, Defendants' alleged
collaboration with other law firms -- occurred in other districts.
Here, even though there were some activities giving rise to this
claim that occurred in this district, those activities were "more
tangential than substantial," and are in insignificant when
compared to the consistent and substantial activities that
occurred in other districts.  Circle Grp. Internet, Inc. v. Atlas,
Pearlman, Trop & Borkson, P.A., No. 01 C 7338, 2002 WL 1559637, at
*3 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2002) (finding venue improper in this
District because the meetings and telephone, fax, mail and email
communications between the Illinois plaintiff and the defendants
were "more tangential than substantial and are thus insufficient
to establish venue here"). As such, venue in this District is not
proper."

U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., who penned the decision
with respect to JCI's lawsuit against Shein granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
holding that "[t]he Shein defendants are located in Pennsylvania,
and have only had contact with Illinois in the sense that they
sued JCI in Pennsylvania state court.  Because "[d]ue process
requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State
based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the
random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts he makes by interacting
with other persons affiliated with the State," Walden v. Fiore,
134 S.Ct. 1115, 1123 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted),
the contacts the defendants have had with this Illinois plaintiff
during those asbestos lawsuits are insufficient to confer personal
jurisdiction over them in Illinois. Accordingly, this case may not
go forward in this Court and is dismissed for want of personal
jurisdiction."

The cases are JOHN CRANE INC. v. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER
BARTLETT, APC, Case No. 16-CV-05918 (N.D. Ill.), and JOHN CRANE
INC., Plaintiff, v. SHEIN LAW CENTER, LTD. and BENJAMIN P. SHEIN,
Defendants, No. 16-CV-05913 (N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 23,
2017, with respect to Simon Greenstone is available at
https://is.gd/TCPlr2 from Leagle.com and is penned by Judge Amy
St. Eve.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order dated March 23,
2017, with respect to Shein is available at https://is.gd/Ca25jx
from Leagle.com and is penned by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

John Crane Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Katharine A. Roin, Esq.
-- kate.roin@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott Llp.

John Crane Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Katherine G. Minarik,
Esq. -- katherine.minarik@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott LLP, Mark Edward Ferguson, Esq. --
mark.ferguson@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott LLP & Matthew Raymond Ford, Esq. --
matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott Llp.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Defendant, represented by
Avery B. Pardee, Jones Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham,
Jones, Walker et al, Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro
hac vice, David M. Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R.
Marconi, Johnson & Bell, Ltd..

Jeffrey B. Simon, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee, Jones
Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones, Walker etal,
Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro hac vice, David M.
Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R. Marconi, Johnson & Bell,
Ltd..

David C. Greenstone, Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee,
Jones Walker, pro hac vice, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones, Walker
etal, Michael W. Magner, Sr., Jones Walker LLP, pro hac vice,
David M. Macksey, Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Joseph R. Marconi,
Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

Shein Law Center, LTD., Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier,
Myers, Brier & Kelly, Llp, Christopher S. Wunder, Kaplan Papadakis
& Gournis, P.C., Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Eric
D. Kaplan, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP.

Benjamin P. Shein, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier,
Myers, Brier & Kelly, Llp, Christopher S. Wunder, Kaplan Papadakis
& Gournis, P.C., Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Eric
D. Kaplan, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Babbidge Library
---------------------------------------------------
Emma Degrandi, writing for The Daily Campus, reported that
asbestos was found on the basement level of the University of
Connecticut's Homer D. Babbidge Library, blocking off a section of
the second floor as students returned from Spring Break.

A naturally occurring mineral, asbestos was once utilized often
and commended highly due to several factors.  The mineral's fiber
strength and heat resistance made it useful in building materials,
such as floor tiles, according to the Mesothelioma Center.

The carpets on Level B were removed by the UConn Facilities
Operations department due to flooding last winter.  They found
that the adhesive holding the carpet to the old vinyl tiles
contained asbestos, University Spokesperson Stephanie Reitz said.

According to the Division of Environmental Health and Safety
(EH&S), the exposure to asbestos has been found to have negative
health effects.  However, the asbestos found in the library does
not seem to be a hazard for students and staff.

"The asbestos didn't pose a threat to the library's users or
employees because its location -- in the adhesive under the tiles,
which were then under the carpet -- meant there was no pathway to
human exposure," Reitz said.

The affected area was contained and contractors followed the
asbestos management plan outlined on the EH&S's website.  The
procedure included removing the asbestos, monitoring the air and
blocking off the area, Reitz said.

The area remains closed and will reopen once testing proves that
the air is clear of asbestos fibers, Reitz said.

According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration,
floor tiles are presumed to contain asbestos if installed before
1981.

All floor tiles are presumed to contain asbestos if tests have not
been run. UConn has run extensive tests on floor tiles, according
to the EH&S.

The area is expected to be re-carpeted on Wednesday, UConn Library
Head of Communications and Engagement Jean Nelson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Undergoes Asbestos and Mold Inspection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Wenger, writing for Muscatine Journal, reported that pending
the results of testing for asbestos and mold, the cottage near the
Old Barn at Discovery Park will either be moved to another
location or demolished.

During Monday's meeting, the Muscatine County Board of Supervisors
laid groundwork for next steps for both buildings.

The board has said it does not think the cottage has a role in the
future of the Old Barn, but will decide its future in the upcoming
week.

A letter written by Supervisor Scott Sauer outlining the board's
unofficial position was read by Supervisor and Chairman Jeff
Sorensen at Monday's meeting.

The Old Barn will become part of Discovery Park as part of the
board's strategic planning, the letter stated, and the cottage
would not be beneficial to the park or for use as a restroom.

"The cottage's current location, condition and limited use
potential is inconsistent with the future park plans, nor is it
deemed adequate restroom facility," Sorensen read.

Because the Friends of the Old Barn plan to hold events at the
barn, restrooms have been a key reason the group hoped to keep the
cottage. Sauer's letter proposed the use of portable toilets
instead.

"In order to contribute to the historic importance of the barn,
and to support continued use of Discovery Park, the restroom would
be funded by the county," Sorensen read.

If the cottage passes the asbestos and mold inspection, the board
agreed the Friends group would be free to move the building to
another location.

"I greatly appreciate the consideration of moving the cottage
rather than just demolish it," said Shelly Maharry, executive
director of Friends of the Old Barn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Test Conducted at Former Days Inn Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Mbowe, writing for WCTI12, reported that while clean-up has
begun at the former Days Inn Hotel in New Bern, demolition is
still on hold.

A fourth asbestos test is being conducted. Results of that test
will need to be received before demolition can go forward.  We
spoke with someone from the company doing the test. That person
said the testing has been completed and a report should be sent in
sometime soon.

Once the asbestos issued is corrected it will take between 30-45
days to demolish the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Auto Parts Building Treated for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Garmes, writing for The Beverly Review, reported that a
building in Beverly that was once occupied by an auto parts store
is being treated for asbestos by a company that has been fined in
recent years for multiple violations regarding the deadly mineral
fiber, according to 19th Ward Ald. Matt O'Shea.

The building is located at 9255 S. Western Ave., and in a mass
email, O'Shea said ASAP Environmental Inc., of Cicero, is handling
the asbestos removal.

O'Shea said that a March 17 inspection found no violations or
problems were present, but ASAP has experienced problems before.

According to a U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) release, in late 2014, ASAP was among
six companies fined after workers renovating Chute Middle School's
cafeteria in Evanston were exposed to asbestos.

The OHSA said ASAP faced two violations for "failure to ensure a
competent person conducted exposure monitoring and supervised
asbestos removal" and was fined $4,000. Another company involved
faced a fine of $47,500.

OHSA described asbestos as "a naturally occurring mineral fiber
that was used in some building materials before its dangerous
health effects were discovered.  Fibers are released into the air
during activities, such as cutting pipes, which disturb asbestos-
containing materials.  Asbestos fibers cannot be seen and can be
inhaled into the lungs unknowingly. If swallowed, the fibers can
embed in the digestive tract."

According to Merriam-Webster, the fibers that are part of asbestos
were once used as insulation to prevent fires but "have been
implicated as causes of certain cancers."

In the release, Angeline Loftus, OSHA area director at the Chicago
North Area Office in Des Plaines, warned of the dangers of
asbestos.

"Exposure to asbestos is a dangerous workplace issue that can
cause loss of lung function and cancer, among other serious health
effects, and workers must be trained in procedures that minimize
exposure," Loftus said.  "Workers should never be put at risk
because a company failed to protect them from a known, dangerous
substance."

Attempts to reach ASAP were unsuccessful.  A sign at the building
said the auto parts store moved to 3305 W. 115th St., in
Merrionette Park, effective March 1.

In his email, O'Shea said he has notified the Chicago Department
of Public Health (CDPH) of the local situation and has requested
"strict monitoring" of the building.

He called handling asbestos and other hazardous materials "a
serious public safety concern."

"Moving forward," O'Shea said, "I will continue to work with CDPH
to ensure all appropriate safety precautions are in place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medicare Liens Slow Asbestos Settlement Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynnette Hintze, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reported that
Medicare liens placed on the state of Montana's $25 million
settlement with Libby asbestos victims has slowed the process of
paying victims, but the money for most people involved in the
settlement should be forthcoming yet this month.

"Hundreds of checks should go out this week," Kalispell attorney
Roger Sullivan said Monday.

Sullivan is one of the attorneys with the law firm McGarvey,
Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey that represented 826 claimants in the
state settlement.  The Great Falls law firm of Lewis, Slovak,
Kovacich and Snipes represented another 200 claimants.

Under the federal Medicare Secondary Payer Act, government
agencies such as Medicare that pay for medical-related asbestos
treatment place a lien on any settlement a victim receives,
Sullivan explained.

"Medicare has a lien on recovery by Libby asbestos victims for the
asbestos-related medical expenses that Medicare has already paid
for," he said.  That has been the case with all settlements
related to the asbestos exposure from the W.R. Grace & Co.
vermiculite mine near Libby.

"Fortunately we've been able to reach agreement with Medicare and
liens have been paid for a majority of people," Sullivan said.
"If the cases don't fit within the large majority of those in the
bell curve, if there are unusual circumstances, then those cases
are individually adjusted.  We're well into the process for those
as well."

Money from the state settlement is held by a trustee.  It's the
trustee that issues the checks to asbestos victims.

Under the special Libby provisions in the Affordable Care Act,
people of any age who have been diagnosed with asbestos-related
disease qualify for Medicare.

"Virtually all of our Libby clients are Medicare-qualified,"
Sullivan said.  "But the corollary is when they (the victims)
recover additional moneys, whether it's from the state or other
entities, Medicare has their hand out."

Earlier this year the state agreed to the $25 million settlement
with more than 1,000 victims of asbestos disease over claims that
state health officials did not warn Libby residents about the
toxic exposure created by the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine.

Asbestos exposure from the now-defunct mine sickened and killed
not only mine workers and their family members but also residents
of the Libby area who were exposed by simply living in the
community.

In 2011 the state negotiated a $43 million settlement with
asbestos victims. In exchange for releasing the state and various
state agencies from future claims, more than 1,100 claimants with
asbestos disease got a portion of that settlement.

The recent settlement included victims who were diagnosed after
the 2011 settlement through June 4, 2016. Anyone diagnosed since
then potentially could have a claim against the state.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos 'Double-Dipping' Reform Bill Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knoll, writing for Legal NewsLine, reported that an
attempt by the Idaho House of Representatives to vet the claims of
asbestos victims against the availability of trust funds set up
two decades ago has been shot down.

On March 7, the House Judiciary Committee, after four hours of
discussion, rejected the newly proposed Chapter 31, Title 6 to the
state's law codes with a recorded voice vote.

The amendment, referred to as the Bankruptcy Trust Claims
Transparency Act, would have required any claimant to submit all
asbestos claims they are making or intend to ever make to the
appropriate court within 45 days after the motion to file.  These
claims would also have had to include statements or reports from
the claimant or counsel revealing if such claims could be eligible
for reparations through any of the roughly 60 trusts set up in the
last 20 years.

In addition, the law would have required that all parties to the
matter have access to the trust research materials "including all
trust claims materials from all law firms connected to claimant"
which would net not only the names of the petitioning law firm,
but any referring law firm or any additional firm that has filed
an asbestos trust claim on behalf of the claimant.

Once this was done within the allotted time, the case would be
heard no sooner than 180 days from filing of the claim.

Alex LaBeau, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and
Industry (IACI), one of the main sponsors of the bill, told Legal
Newsline that the amendment would have been a disclosure bill
designed to ensure double dipping of trusts was not occurring.
Proponents of the proposed amendment, like the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the IACI, have stated that
without such a law, the trusts would be rapidly depleted through
double-dipping, in which a claimant files with multiple trusts.

"The problem that we are running into is not that these claims are
illegitimate, but that these claims will have one set of facts
that are presented to the bankruptcy trust and [the claimant will]
go into a state court with another set of facts," said LaBeau.

"What we're saying is you need to go to the bankruptcy trust, that
is appropriate, and then you need to take that same information
and present that to the state courts."

The federal Government Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that
asbestos claims have resulted in the bankruptcy of more than 100
businesses, in which "eighty-five corporation filed for bankruptcy
because of asbestos liabilities and several insurance companies
have either failed or are in financial distress," according to the
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in report filed in
March 2017.

NBER soberly notes that "[l]egal claims for injuries from asbestos
involve more plaintiffs, more defendants, and higher costs than
any other type of personal injury litigation in U.S. history."  As
of 2011, $54 billion has already been paid out in asbestos claims,
with lawyers capturing a stunning $34 billion, or 63 percent, of
the monetary awards.  It is estimated that eventual claims will
total "$200 billion to $265 billion," leaving attorneys (if the
formula remains constant) pocketing $126 to $166 billion in fees.

Linda Reinstein, president/CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (ADAO), praised the elimination of the amendment and
told Legal Newsline that "[t]he Idaho State House Judiciary, Rules
and Administration Committee recognized this was just another
industry ploy to delay and deny asbestos victims justice."

Reinstein went on to say that Idaho lawmakers should focus more on
"preventing asbestos exposure in homes, schools, workplaces, and
communities" and less on searching for industry bailouts.

"Each year, an estimated 15,000 Americans die from preventable
asbestos-caused diseases," Reinstein reported.  "Asbestos kills. I
know, I buried my husband."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah AG Sues 4 Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reported that the Attorney
General of Utah has sued four of the largest asbestos bankruptcy
trusts to try and force them to comply with civil investigative
demands more than a dozen states have sent to the trusts, seeking
information on whether they are squandering money and failing to
reimburse states for Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.

Attorneys general from 13 Republican-leaning states including
Utah, Michigan, Wisconsin and Kansas sent demand letters to the
Armstrong World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, DII and Owens
Corning/Fibreboard bankruptcy trusts on Dec. 12. So far none have
responded, Utah says in the complaint filed March 7 in state court
in Salt Lake City.

Utah said they believe "abuse of asbestos trusts is occurring" by
plaintiff lawyers who largely oversee the court-approved funds set
up to compensate people who claim injury from asbestos. More than
60 manufacturers of asbestos or asbestos-containing products have
filed for bankruptcy under the weight of plaintiff lawsuits,
paying out $17 billion since 2008, Utah said in its complaint.

The AGs cite the Medicare Secondary Payer law, a little used
federal statute that carries stiff penalties for insurers and
others who arrange for lawsuit settlements to be paid directly to
claimants without making sure they first settle outstanding bills
for Medicare coverage. Penalties can include double damages and
even plaintiff attorneys can be liable, said Frank Qesada, an
attorney with MSP Recovery, a Miami law firm that has filed
numerous national class actions on behalf of private Medicare
providers.

"The federal law is explicitly clear: When there's a settlement,
Medicare must be reimbursed," said Quesada. "It's a sledgehammer."

The Trust Advisory Committees that govern the funds are dominated
by plaintiff lawyers from a few prominent firms including New
York's Weitz & Luxenberg and Baron & Budd in Dallas. Because they
represent claimants seeking money from the trusts while also
collecting tens of millions and dollars in contingency fees from
settlements paid by those trusts, Utah said, the governance
structure creates "problematic incentives" that result in "lax
requirements for claims." A representative of Weitz & Luxenberg
didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit represents an interesting gambit by conservative state
AGs, who are borrowing a tactic most often used by more liberal
states to recover money from pharmaceutical manufacturers they
accuse of running up Medicare and Medicaid bills. In a typical
example, Massachusetts last year announced it had settled with
Wyeth for $68 million as part of multistate litigation over
Medicaid rebates that generated $785 million in settlements
nationwide.

No one from the Utah AG's office would comment. In its case, Utah
says lax claims requirements allow the trusts to pay out too much
to current asbestos claimants, leaving the trusts depleted and
unable to pay for future medical expenses, which then fall upon
the states.

Courts have forced insurance companies to reimburse Medicare for
medical expenses when they pay accident settlements directly to
plaintiffs and can't collect the money directly from the
recipients, said Thomas Baker, a professor at the University of
Pennsylvania Law School and expert on insurance law.

"Given this an area of law where courts have created equitable
rules that protect first-party carriers, it's perfect reasonable
to try and expand the doctrine," Baker said.

The states cite the case of Garlock Sealing Technologies, a North
Carolina company that convinced a judge to probe into the
practices of asbestos attorneys after uncovering evidence they
engineered claims to recover money from trusts before filing
lawsuits against solvent companies, often claiming work histories
that conflicted with documents they filed with the trusts. The AGs
cite the cases of several named individual claimants, suggesting
they have been combing through the Garlock files.

The revelations in the Garlock case also inspired companies
including General Motors, Ford and Honeywell to make their own
demands for trust records on payouts to workers who might have
already received benefits from employer insurance or workers'
comp. Humana also last year sued several prominent asbestos law
firms, including Brent Coon & Assoc., Reaud Morgan & Quinn and the
Bogdan Law Firm to recover $19.5 million they say asbestos trusts
paid to their clients.

Quesada of MSP Recovery said most personal injury attorneys check
the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database
for outstanding liens before cutting checks to their clients, but
CMS only tracks patients with Medicare as their primary insurer.
Employee, union and private plans don't show up on the database,
leaving billions of dollars in medical bills that could be
recovered by lawsuits like the ones the states and private
companies are now bringing.

The U.S. House of Representatives folded a law requiring broader
disclosures of asbestos trust claims into its Furthering Class
Action Fairness Litigation bill, which passed the House and is now
before the Senate. That law would require the trusts to make
public some claims information so companies could determine if
plaintiffs had made conflicting claims about their exposures
before suing them. President Trump has said he supports the bill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanly Conroy Renews $100,000 Pledge for ADAO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the nation's largest mass torts
firms, announced that the firm has renewed its annual $100,000
sponsorship of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO),
also supporting the ADAO's 13th Annual International Asbestos
Awareness and Prevention Conference. The firm is the longest
consecutive sponsor of the conference and has been a platinum
sponsor for the past six years.

"Simmons Hanly Conroy is proud to support the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization's important, ongoing work to help prevent
asbestos exposure and protect the rights of individuals and their
families who are impacted by mesothelioma and other asbestos-
related cancers," said Chairman John Simmons.

ADAO Co-founder, President and CEO Linda Reinstein said, "Simmons
Hanly Conroy continues to be a generous and principal supporter of
the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and its annual
conference. We are grateful for the firm's dedication to helping
to spread awareness of the dangers of asbestos and to our goal of
a global ban on asbestos."

Founded in 2004, the ADAO is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
preventing asbestos exposure, eliminating asbestos-related
diseases, and protecting asbestos victims' civil rights through
education, advocacy and community initiatives. The ADAO's 2017
conference will take place April 7-9 at the Renaissance Arlington
Capital View Hotel in Arlington, Va.

Titled "Where Knowledge and Action Unite," the 2017 conference is
expected to draw more than 40 speakers including experts, victims,
union representatives and lawmakers from six countries to discuss
joint efforts in education, advocacy and awareness. The ADAO is
the only U.S. nonprofit that organizes annual conferences
dedicated to preventing and eliminating asbestos-caused diseases.

This year's conference will feature the following discussion
sessions on April 8:

Session I: Progress and Challenges from the Frontline
Session II: Medical Advancements: Diagnosing and Treating
Mesothelioma and Other Asbestos-Related Diseases
Session III: Prevention: What Is It? Where Is It? What Do I Do?
Session IV: Advocacy: Global Ban Asbestos Action
For additional information about the ADAO's 13th Annual
International Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference, click
here.

Simmons Hanly Conroy is a leading voice for victims of
mesothelioma and asbestos exposure and has a long-standing
commitment to supporting those impacted by asbestos-related
diseases. Since 1999, the firm has donated more than $20 million
to cancer research, including millions of dollars to mesothelioma
research institutions. The firm's support for the cause also
includes its annual Alton Miles for Meso 5K Race & 3K Fun Run/Walk
and other Miles for Meso races that have raised approximately half
a million dollars nationwide since 2009.

              About Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC

Simmons Hanly Conroy is one of the nation's largest mass tort law
firms. Primary areas of litigation include asbestos and
mesothelioma, pharmaceutical, consumer protection, environmental
and personal injury. The firm's attorneys have been appointed to
leadership in numerous national multidistrict litigations,
including Vioxx, Yaz, Toyota Unintended Acceleration and DePuy
Pinnacle. The firm also represents small and mid-size
corporations, inventors and entrepreneurs in matters involving
business litigation. Offices are located in New York City,
Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Alton, Ill.
Read more at www.simmonsfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure A Major Issue in Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the use of asbestos-containing materials has been
dramatically reduced over the last several decades, its past use
is still causing exposure concerns in homes, schools and
businesses.

In early March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) released a new report about an increase in the number of
deaths associated with malignant mesothelioma. The rise in deaths
was detailed in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
It showed the number of annual deaths due to the condition
actually increased from 2,479 in 1999 to 2,597 in 2015.

People diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma have often worked or
lived in places where they inhaled or swallowed asbestos. An
unsettling fact about the disease is it can takes years to decades
to appear after exposure.

Even though the use of asbestos-containing materials has been
dramatically reduced over the last several decades, its past use
is still causing exposure concerns in homes, schools and
businesses. This is because it was once used in thousands of
products and common building materials, many of which are still in
present in homes and buildings. As these materials age and become
friable, or if they are disturbed during demolition, remodeling
and renovation activities, they can easily become aerosolized.

"Malignant mesothelioma is a disease where cancer cells are found
in the thin layer of tissue that lines the chest cavity and covers
the lungs or the thin layer of tissue that lines the abdomen and
most of the organs in the abdomen," said Harry Pena, President of
Zimmetry Environmental. "One's chance of developing the disease
increases with the amount and type of asbestos fibers inhaled."

Zimmetry's asbestos and indoor air quality (IAQ) experts provide
comprehensive testing and consulting services to identify asbestos
and other exposure hazards in Puerto Rico and across the
Caribbean. These services protect the public, workers and help to
keep companies in regulatory compliance.

To learn more about Zimmetry Environmental and asbestos, indoor
air quality, environmental, or compliance testing and consulting
services, please visit www.zimmetry.com, call (787) 995.0005, or
email info@zimmetry.com

               About Zimmetry Environmental

Since 2002, Zimmetry Environmental has been providing
environmental consulting services to building owners and managers,
architects, engineers, EHS professionals, and Fortune 500
companies.  The company is based in Puerto Rico and provides
services across the Caribbean and Central America.  The
professionals at Zimmetry offer environmental compliance, indoor
air quality (IAQ), asbestos, lead-based paint, Phase I ESAs, and
general environmental consulting services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains Major Health Hazard for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Times Leader Online reported that only a few decades ago,
asbestos was thought of as a "miracle mineral." The fiber's heat
and fire resistant properties, paired with substantial durability,
made it a very favorable choice for building materials. Asbestos
was widely used prior to the 1970s; however, it was soon realized
that asbestos exposure was causing an array of health issues,
particularly in those who have worked with the material.

In 1973, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first ban
on an asbestos product. Throughout the next 20 years the EPA
continued to ban certain uses of the material and set
restrictions, the biggest being in 1989 when the EPA issued a
final rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The rule banned the use of most products containing asbestos, but
was vacated and remanded by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals two
years later. By backtracking on the EPA's rule, a majority of the
restrictions in play were lifted.

Due to this, thousands of people in the United States and around
the globe have been exposed to asbestos, which is known to cause
health complications. Shipbuilding and construction are the most
common occupations to be exposed to asbestos, with more than 96
percent of exposure happening in one of these two professions.
Firefighters, ironworkers, plumbers, industrial plant workers and
veterans also face increased exposure to asbestos because of their
professions.

These occupations are subjected to a higher risk of developing
diseases such as mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer and a chronic
condition called asbestosis. Mesothelioma, specifically, is a very
rare and extremely aggressive cancer resulting from breathing in
airborne asbestos fibers. The fibers stick to the mesothelium, a
membrane located in the lungs, abdomen or heart, and can remain
there for 20 to 40 years before presenting symptoms.

Due to the long latency period, mesothelioma often is caught in
the later stages and typically comes along with a poor prognosis.
Those diagnosed are given, on average, 12-21 months to live, and
only about 9 percent of mesothelioma patients live beyond five
years. A recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention noted that malignant mesothelioma deaths have
increased by 5 percent each year between 1999 and 2015. This
coincides with previous studies that have predicted the rate of
mesothelioma deaths will increase through at least 2020.

Efforts are increasing to have a full asbestos ban put in place.
An asbestos ban is currently in place in more than 60 countries
around the world at least partially, and hopes are that increased
awareness will lead to a full ban in the United States to protect
our workers and their futures.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranbury School Seek State Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Schultz, writing for The Hour, reported that public school
officials are looking to the state to help cover the $300,000
price tag for an asbestos abatement project at Cranbury Elementary
School.

The widespread remediation would start this summer and would
remove asbestos -- a naturally occurring mineral once used in a
variety of building materials but now known to cause cancer --
from floor tiles in over 13,500 square feet in 21 locations
throughout the school, including classrooms, the kitchen and
library.

"Cranbury Elementary School is outfitted with vinyl asbestos floor
tile in all classrooms, offices, library and store rooms,"
educational specification documents for the project state. "Our
Asbestos Management Plan has confirmed that this material tested
positive for asbestos-containing material and highly recommends a
removal and replacement due to increased health concerns."

Though plans are already in the works to conduct other renovations
at Cranbury Elementary School, over the next five years as a part
of the school district's overarching facilities master plan,
school officials said those renovations will not be ready to
proceed by this summer and that existing flooring "presents a
health concern" so abatement "must proceed immediately and cannot
wait."

A total of $300,000 in funds to cover the cost of the project was
approved in the 2016-17 capital budget, but officials are looking
to the Board of Education for permission to continue on in the
process to obtain partial grant reimbursement from the state, said
Thomas Hamilton, chief financial officer for Norwalk Public
Schools, in a memo to school district leaders.

To do so, school officials must file the project as a "non-
priority, code violation project" with the State Office of School
Construction Grants and Review, Hamilton said. That requires
approval of educational specifications from the Board of
Education. The Common Council must also approve aspects of the
project.

If approved by the state, the project would be eligible for
approximately 32 percent grant reimbursement, Hamilton said.

The Board of Education is expected to vote to approve the plans at
a meeting.

Due to the large magnitude of the project, officials noted that
the abatement will likely spill over to the summer of 2018, with
the work being completed only during summer breaks.

A total of $4.36 million would be spent in renovations at Cranbury
Elementary School over the next half-decade as a part of the Board
of Education's revised capital budget plan, which was fully
supported by Mayor Harry Rilling in his overall city five-year
capital budget recommendation.

As a part of that plan, all priority one through four issues at
Cranbury would be addressed, including an assessment and upgrade
to the school's outdated electrical system.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TLR Releases Paper on Texas Asbestos Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texans for Lawsuit Reform Foundation has released its latest
paper, "The Story of Asbestos Litigation in Texas and Its National
Consequences," a comprehensive look at Texas' involvement with
asbestos litigation -- the longest running mass-tort in America.
In its 40-year history, asbestos litigation has resulted in
billions of dollars of payments to claimants and untold amounts
paid in attorney fees and other litigation-related costs.

"As with many forms of lawsuit abuse, the asbestos lawsuit scheme
in Texas and nationwide was perpetrated by a handful of lawyers,
many of whom practice in Texas," TLR Foundation President Hugh
Rice Kelly said. "These lawyers' activities were carried out at
the expense of the judicial system, thousands of plaintiffs who
were pawns in the litigation game, and hundreds of defendants who
paid settlements to uninjured plaintiffs."

While asbestos was an exceptionally harmful product that caused
real harm to many persons, the report details how the abusive
mass-tort asbestos litigation was driven by lawyers who actively
solicited unimpaired clients, bundled them into groups and filed
lawsuits in bulk, in part, to overwhelm the judicial system and
the defendants. Additionally, one of the most notable asbestos
plaintiff law firms developed a method for secretly coaching their
clients to target specific defendants. This mass-litigation
machine was designed to enrich lawyers, rather than achieve
justice for injured people.

Texas has taken the lead in dealing with asbestos litigation since
2005. The passage and application of Senate Bill 15 (2005) and
House Bill 1325 (2013) to the asbestos cases pending in Texas
showed evidence that thousands of lawsuits had been filed in Texas
courts on behalf tens of thousands of plaintiffs who did not have
an injury for which to seek compensation. Additionally, in 2015,
the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1492, requiring asbestos
plaintiffs to reveal claims they submitted to the trusts set up by
bankrupt companies to pay asbestos claimants in order to address
the issue of inconsistent claiming of exposure history.  The paper
also discusses recent efforts to pass federal legislation
addressing asbestos-related mass-tort issues.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform Foundation conducts and supports
academically sound, impartial and non-partisan research, study,
analysis and writing related to the justice system in Texas.
Research is conducted by lawyers, scholars, analysts and
professionals with experience and expertise in the areas being
researched and reported. The TLR Foundation's published research
and reports are posted on its website and are available to the
public. The purpose of the TLR Foundation's activities is public
education on matters concerning the Texas justice system,
including its statutory and common law, its regulations and
administrative agencies, and the organization and operation of its
courts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Containing Dust Forces Closure of Lab
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Yun, writing for The Varsity, reported that U of T is warning
of potential exposure to asbestos in the Medical Sciences Building
after "unusual dust" was reported during renovations in the
building.

Trevor Young, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, sent out a notice
to all Physiology graduate students and postdocs via email. In
addition, the University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union
(UTGSU) disseminated information about asbestos.

The university has been undertaking the $189.9 million Lab
Innovation for Toronto (LIFT) project, which aims to make various
improvements to laboratory infrastructure on campus.

In November 2016, the university began "asbestos abatement and
demolition on five separate sites" within the building.

According to Young, there were reports of "unusual dust" in early
February in the sixth-floor lab located at room 6360, which was
across from the construction site.

"Immediately upon notification, U of T's Hazardous Construction
Materials Group and [U of T Environmental Health & Safety (EHS)]
were advised, attended, took samples and closed the lab," Young
wrote. "Test results February 1 confirmed asbestos in the dust;
the lab and its contents were then cleaned, and the labs were
cleared for re-occupancy within days."

EHS also cleaned and cleared two other labs for re-occupancy
located at rooms 7366 and 7368. These labs were connected to room
6360 and it was found that they also had asbestos-containing dust.

On February 24, "unusual dust" was also reported at lab 6334,
which was located in an area "completely unconnected to the first
incident." Asbestos was also present in the February 24 dust
samples.

After the university cleaned and cleared the lab for reoccupancy,
dust reappeared there and "it and two lab support rooms were
closed on March 7 while further testing was conducted."

Young states that a third-party contractor continues to sample the
air quality, working on one floor per day.

"One lab remains closed; once we are notified by EHS that the
space has been inspected and cleared for occupancy, we will let
you know," wrote Young.


                         *********


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  * * *