CAR_Public/170418.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 77



                            Headlines

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Leads to Agreement in Principle
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: "Castillo" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Appeal Underway in 9th Circuit
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ALLY FINANCIAL: May 31 Hearing on Bid to Remand Bucks County Suit

ALLY FINANCIAL: National Shopmen Seeks to Remand Class Suit
AMEREN CORPORATION: Municipal Taxes Class Suit Pending
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callan" Suit in E.D. New York
BURTON CORPORATION: Faces "McCoy" Suit in C.D. California
BALBOA CAPITAL: Faces "Patel" Suit in Northern District Texas

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
BANK OF HAWAII: 2 Customer Class Suits Underway
CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Desmond" Suit in E.D. New York
CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Accord Reached in Three Merger Class Suits
CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Has $1.5MM Deal to Settle Suit v. GreenBank

CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District New York
CHEMED CORPORATION: Still Faces "Seper" Class Suit
CHEMED CORPORATION: "Chhina" Class Suit Remains Pending
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Popper" Suit in E.D. Pa.
CVS HEALTH: "Palmer" Suit over Flushable Wipes Goes to Maryland

DTS INC: "Garfield" Class Suit in California Now Concluded
DTS INC: Attorneys' Fees Application in "Parshall" Pending
EQUIDATA INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Central District California
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa.
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Castillo" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.

FROST RESTAURANT: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D. New York
GEO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Pending in Florida
GLOBE LIFE: Class Certification Motion in "Proctor" Suit Pending
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Working with Class Admin. to Notify Members
GOGO INC: Appeal in "Salameno" Litigation Withdrawn

GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in Canada Case Paid into Trust
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Motion in Cobalt Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Adeptus Health Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces TerraForm & SunEdison Securities Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Suit in New Jersey Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal Bid in Interest Rate Swap Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Underway

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in ISDAFIX Suit Paid into Escrow
HALYARD HEALTH: Hit with $454 Million Fraud Verdict
HALYARD HEALTH: Initial Conference in "Jackson" Moved to October
HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Underway

HORIZON PHARMA: "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" Suits Dismissed
ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Ill.
INSULET CORP: Feb. 2018 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in ATRS Suit
JASPER CONTRACTORS: Faces "Walker" Suit in M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Class Cert. Hearing on "Field" Claim

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss Talc Powder Suit Underway
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO(R) Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending
KYNES CORNER: Faces "Massi" Suit in S.D. New York
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Suit in California

LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Confab in Sandusky Moved to September
LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit Still Pending in Florida
LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Class Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORP: MOU in Sequenom Suit Terminated
MDL 1869: Class Certification Motion Underway

MDL 2081: Johnson & Johnson Retains OCD Liability in Reagent Suit
MDL 2777: EcoDiesel Product Liability Case Moved to N.D. Cal.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Motion to Reconsider Order Remains Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Sought
MORGAN STANLEY: Demurrer Denied in Calif. Attorney General's Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Finalizing Settlement of Forex Antitrust Suit
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Concluded
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Held on Class Certification Bid
NRG ENERGY: June Hearings on Class Cert. Bid in TCPA Actions

NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer Due June 15
NRG ENERGY: June 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Laidlaw" Class Suit Dismissed
ORANGE COUNTY: Faces "Agrella" Suit in C.D. California
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Lane" Suit in District of Delaware
SEMPRA ENERGY: 250 Lawsuits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak
SMART ENERGY: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. California
SOLIMA PEOPLE: Faces "Van Buskirk" Suit in W.D. Florida
SQUARE INC: Fails to Reach Settlement of Caviar Lawsuits

STEEL DYNAMICS: Accord with Indirect Purchasers Await Final OK
TC PIPELINES: Plaintiffs' Appeal Dismissed
TENET HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Securities Litigation Underway
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Maderazo" Class Suit
TEREX CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending

TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway
TIME INC: Must Defend Against "Perlin" Suit
UMA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Cuellar" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in Securities Litigation Begins
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in "Youngers" Action Begins

WYNDHAM VACATION: "Boy" Suit Moved from Super. Court to C.D. Cal.
XPO LOGISTICS: Accrued Full Amount of "Mendoza" Case Settlement
XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims in Early Stages

XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motions Pending in Symbol Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Payment Released from Escrow
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D.N.Y.


                            *********


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Leads to Agreement in Principle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit had a mediation and agreed in principle to
settle the action.

The Company said, "In March 2015, following our announcement of
the update to the timing of our planned NDA submission to the FDA
for NUPLAZID for the treatment of PD Psychosis and the subsequent
decline of the price of our common stock, two putative securities
class action complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB, and Wright v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
or the Court, against us and certain of our current and former
officers. The complaints generally alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the timing of our planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common
stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead
counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed
separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed
lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order
consolidating the two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and
assigning lead counsel.

"On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accuses
the defendants of making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated timing of our planned NDA
submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID.

"On January 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2016, the Court issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
December 6, 2016, the parties had a mediation and agreed in
principle to settle the action."

Acadia us a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet
medical needs in central nervous system, or CNS, disorders.


ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: "Castillo" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC, BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN,
INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PLIVA, INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., UDL LABORATORIES, INC., and PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL. INC., the Defendants, and UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Intervenor, Case No. 17-CV-78, was transferred on April
12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-CMR to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe.

Actavis Elizabeth develops and distributes generic pharmaceutical
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC
          1211 Avenue of The Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438 9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chul Pak, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
          Michael S. Sommer, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
          1301 Ave. of Americas 40th Fl
          New York, NY 10019-6022
          Telephone: (212) 999 5800
          E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com
                  jbank@wsgr.com
                  msommer@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Hector Torres, Esq.
          Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq.
          Seth B. Davis, Esq.
          Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Sheron Korpus, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506 1700
          E-mail: htorres@kasowitz.com
                  mekcourtnotices@kasowitz.com
                  sdavis@kasowitz.com
                  smoskowitz@kasowitz.com
                  skorpus@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Kenneth I. Schacter, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 752 5378

               - and -

          R. Brendan Fee, Esq.
          Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 5136
          E-mail: bfee@morganlewis.com
                  stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434 5901
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com

               - and -

          Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq.
          Sarah F. Teich, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth St NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (773) 895 5477
          E-mail: steich@wc.com

Attorneys for Intervenor, United States Of America

          Ellen R. Clarke, Esq.
          Joseph C. Folio, Iii, Esq.
          U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE
          450-5th Street NW Suite 11300
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 598 2662
          E-mail: ellen.clarke@usdoj.gov
                  joseph.folio@usdoj.gov


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Appeal Underway in 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a securities class action lawsuit against Align
Technology, Inc. remains pending, Align said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action")."

"On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On
August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without
leave to amend.

"On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing for the appeal was
completed in May 2015 and the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in
October 2016. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine
the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if
any."

Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a system
of clear aligner therapy, intraoral scanners and CAD/CAM
(computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) digital
services used in dentistry, orthodontics, and dental records
storage.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is captioned as Gwendolyn Moskowitz, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as United Recovery
Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01958 (E.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 5, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: May 31 Hearing on Bid to Remand Bucks County Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
Ally Financial Inc. et al., a hearing on the Motion to Remand has
been reset to May 31, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. before District Judge
Judith E. Levy.

Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in October 2016, a
purported class action -- Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund
v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court
for Wayne County in the State of Michigan. This matter was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016, and is currently pending there as Case No.
2:16-CV-14104. The complaint alleges material misstatements and
omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering in
April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the
severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates,
deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of
subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low-
income borrowers. The request for relief includes an indeterminate
amount of damages, fees, and costs and other remedies.


ALLY FINANCIAL: National Shopmen Seeks to Remand Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally
Financial Inc. et al., Plaintiff has urged the federal court to
remand the case to state court.  Defendants have responded to the
Motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply.

The Court has yet to rule on the request.

Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in January 2017, a
purported class action -- National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally
Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for
Oakland County in the State of Michigan. This matter was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
January 30, 2017, and is currently pending there as Case No. 2:17-
CV-10289. The allegations and requested relief in the complaint
are substantially similar to those included in the complaint filed
by Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these actions," the
Company said.

Ally Financial Inc. is a digital financial services company with
$163.7 billion in assets as of December 31, 2016, offering
diversified financial products for consumers, businesses,
automotive dealers and corporate clients.


AMEREN CORPORATION: Municipal Taxes Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Missouri continues to defend a class action lawsuit over
municipal taxes, Ameren Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of
themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service
area, filed a class action lawsuit in November 2011 against Ameren
Missouri in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The
lawsuit alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to collect and pay
gross receipts taxes or license fees on certain revenues,
including revenues from wholesale power and interchange sales.

Ameren and Ameren Missouri recorded immaterial liabilities on
their respective balance sheets as of December 31, 2016, and
December 31, 2015, representing their estimate of the probable
loss due as a result of this lawsuit. Ameren and Ameren Missouri
believe there is a remote possibility that a liability relating to
this lawsuit could be material to Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's
results of operations, financial position, and liquidity. Ameren
Missouri believes its defenses are meritorious and is defending
itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurances that Ameren
Missouri will be successful in its efforts.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005. Ameren was formed in 1997.
Ameren's primary assets are its equity interests in its
subsidiaries, including Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, and
ATXI. Ameren's subsidiaries are separate, independent legal
entities with separate businesses, assets, and liabilities.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callan" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Annamaria Callan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02205 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017).

ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It
caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


BURTON CORPORATION: Faces "McCoy" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Burton
Corporation. The case is styled as Neiman McCoy, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Burton Corporation, a Vermont corporation, and Does 1 - 10
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02773 (C.D. Cal., Apr.
11, 2017).

Burton manufacturers snowboards. The company is founded by Jake
Burton Carpenter in 1977.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BALBOA CAPITAL: Faces "Patel" Suit in Northern District Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balboa Capital
Corporation.  The case is styled as Dr. Jaideep Patel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Scott Postle, Cliff McKenzie, and Balboa Capital
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00963-D (N.D. Tex.,
Apr. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sidney A
Fitzwater.

Balboa Capital is a privately held independent financing company
based in Costa Mesa, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua J Bennett, Esq.
          E Leon Carter, Esq.
          CARTER SCHOLER PLLC
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 550 2112
          Facsimile: (214) 550 8185
          E-mail: jbennett@carterscholer.com
                  lcarter@carterscholer.com

               - and -

          Donald C Massey, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq.
          Robert Couhig, Jr., Esq.
          COUHIG PARTNERS LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 599 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 588 9750
          E-mail: dmassey@couhigpartners.com
                  lemannjp@couhigpartners.com
                  couhigre@couhigpartners.com

               - and -

          Paul Crouch, Esq.
          Bailey Galyen, Esq.
          2220 S Cooper St
          Arlington, TX 76013
          Telephone: (817) 276 6020
          Facsimile: (817) 276 6011
          E-mail: pcrouch@galyen.com


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend against a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of the Company's common stock.

On July 31, 2014, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint was subsequently amended to add the
former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning
the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two
merger transactions within a specified time period and the
Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money
laundering requirements.

On July 10, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims
concerning the Company's expectations about the closing of the
mergers.

Class certification was granted by the District Court on April 21,
2016, and a petition for immediate appeal of the class
certification was filed and was granted.  Class certification was
vacated by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case
was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.  The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the
District Court may deem just and proper.

At this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company as it is
uncertain whether the lead Plaintiff will be successful in
certifying a class on its second attempt and the exact amount of
damages (should the District Court grant class certification
again) is uncertain.  Although it is not possible to predict the
ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to the
litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations.

BancorpSouth, Inc. is a financial holding company incorporated in
1982.  Through its principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank,
originally chartered in 1876, the Company conducts commercial
banking and financial services operations in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and
Illinois.


BANK OF HAWAII: 2 Customer Class Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation is defending two class action lawsuits
by bank customers over bank practices, Bank of Hawaii said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
by a Bank customer alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of
determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based
on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that
have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not
properly applied or disclosed to  customers.

Additionally, on January 20, 2017, another purported class action
lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer alleging Bank of Hawaii's
practice of assessing a continuous negative balance overdraft fee
on accounts remaining in a negative balance for extended periods
of time beyond the date of the initial overdraft constituted a
usurious interest charge and a breach of contract with the
customer.

The Company said, "These lawsuits are similar to lawsuits filed
against other financial institutions pertaining to available
balance overdraft fee disclosures and continuing negative balance
overdraft fees. Because of the many questions of fact and law that
may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings
are uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us
at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential
loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our
potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and,
if so, the composition and size of any such class, the applicable
time period at issue, as well as an assessment of the appropriate
measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we
have not recognized any liability associated with these actions.
Management disputes any wrongdoing and the cases are being
vigorously defended."

Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.


CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Desmond" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp.
The case is titled as Sean Desmond, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAC Financial
Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02207 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11,
2017).

CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Accord Reached in Three Merger Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Financial Bank has agreed to settle three class action
lawsuits related to the merger agreement with CommunityOne,
Capital Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 22, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with CommunityOne, pursuant to which CommunityOne
will merge with and into CBF on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the CommunityOne Merger Agreement.

On January 16, 2016, a case captioned Robert Garfield v. Capital
Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No. 2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla.
Cir. Ct.) (the "Garfield Action"), was filed on behalf of a
putative class of Capital Bank Financial shareholders against
Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and CommunityOne in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade
County, Florida in connection with the merger. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank Financial
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such breaches, and
that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and CommunityOne failed
to disclose material information in connection with the merger.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages,
interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses.

On February 29, 2016, a case captioned Curtis R. Pendleton v.
Robert L. Reid, et al., Case 5:16-cv-00037 (W.D.N.C.) (the
"Pendleton Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of
CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and
Capital Bank Financial in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in connection with the merger.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that,
plaintiff alleges, is materially incomplete and misleading.

On March 14, 2016, a case captioned Floyd Scrogham v. Robert L.
Reid, et al., No. 5:16-cv-00045 (the "Scrogham Action") was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne
shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank
Financial. The complaint in the Scrogham Action, like the
complaint in the Pendleton Action, alleges, among other things,
that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint
Proxy Statement that, plaintiffs allege, is materially incomplete
and misleading.

The Pendleton and Scrogham Actions seek, among other things, an
order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief
and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys'
fees) and expenses. On March 31, 2016, the Pendleton and Scrogham
Actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re
CommunityOne Bancorp Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, No.
5:16-cv-00037 (the "Consolidated WDNC Action").

On April 1, 2016, the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action
filed with the Court a memorandum of understanding in which the
parties agreed on the terms of a settlement of those lawsuits. In
connection with the settlement, CommunityOne made certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016.
Following the completion of confirmatory discovery, the parties to
the Consolidated WDNC Action entered into a stipulation of
settlement dated January 31, 2017. The stipulation of settlement
in the Consolidated WDNC Action was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval on February 17, 2017.

On April 4, 2016, the parties to the Garfield Action reached an
agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the Garfield
Action and entered into a stipulation of settlement. In connection
with the settlement, Capital Bank Financial made certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016.
Following the completion of confirmatory discovery, the
stipulation of settlement in the Garfield Action was submitted to
the court for preliminary approval on February 3, 2017.

The defendants agreed to the settlement of these lawsuits to avoid
the uncertainty, costs, distraction and disruption inherent in
litigation and without admitting that further supplemental
disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. Settlement hearings will be scheduled to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlements following notice to the Capital Bank
Financial and CommunityOne stockholders. If each of the proposed
settlements is finally approved by the respective courts
considering such settlements, the settlements will resolve and
release all claims in the Garfield Action and the Consolidated
WDNC Action that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement by the respective courts. In addition, in connection
with the proposed settlements, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will seek awards of attorneys' fees and
expenses from each respective court. Capital Bank Financial,
CommunityOne or their successors will pay or cause to be paid
those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the respective
courts. There can be no assurance that the courts will approve the
settlements.


CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Has $1.5MM Deal to Settle Suit v. GreenBank
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Financial Bank has agreed to settle litigation related to
GreenBank, Capital Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 16, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to settle a purported class action litigation regarding
the alleged improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees
(the "Settlement Agreement"). The litigation was filed in the
Chancery Court for Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, on February
1, 2011 against GreenBank ("GreenBank") regarding activity that
occurred between February 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. The Company
completed the acquisition of GreenBank on September 8, 2011.

The Company agreed to the Settlement Agreement solely by way of
compromise and settlement and to avoid further litigation expense.
The Company's agreement is not in any way an admission of
liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company or by GreenBank.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company
will pay $1.5 million to settle the litigation which will be
payable within 14 days after preliminary court approval of the
settlement. In addition, the Company agreed not to use debit re-
sequencing, weekend and holiday high-to-low posting or weekend and
holiday batch processing for a period of at least 36 months
following final court approval of the settlement. The Company does
not currently engage in such re-sequencing or batching process
described.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is titled as Aharon Stern, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Central Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01959 (E.D.N.Y.).

Central Credit Services is a collection agency that has been in
business since 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CHEMED CORPORATION: Still Faces "Seper" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Jordan Seper remains pending, Chemed
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Jordan Seper, ("Seper") a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire
program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in
San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  She alleged
VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period;
(4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for
necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time
of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.
Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-
exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four
years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  She seeks court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit,  Jordan A. Seper on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS
Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857
on October 13, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles.  The
Los Angeles Superior Court accepted transfer of the case on
December 6, 2016.  On December 16, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer
and served written discovery on Seper.

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

Chemed Corporation (the Company or Chemed) was incorporated in
Delaware in 1970 as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded
to the business of W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of
April 30, 1971 and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. until
March 10, 1982.  Chemed purchases, operates and divests
subsidiaries engaged in diverse business activities for the
purposes of maximizing shareholder value.


CHEMED CORPORATION: "Chhina" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Jiwan Chhina remains pending, Chemed
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Jiwan Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program.  On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at
the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure
to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement
expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  Chhina seeks to pursue
these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current
and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California
within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  He
seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a
class action for the entire California class and subclasses,
designation as class representative, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or
overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for
missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all
applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwann Chhina v. VITAS
Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a
Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare, Inc.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-
00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, VITAS filed its Answer and served written
discovery on Plaintiff.

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

Chemed Corporation (the Company or Chemed) was incorporated in
Delaware in 1970 as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded
to the business of W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of
April 30, 1971 and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. until
March 10, 1982.  Chemed purchases, operates and divests
subsidiaries engaged in diverse business activities for the
purposes of maximizing shareholder value.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Popper" Suit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING, INC. The case is captioned as RICHARD POPPER, AN
INDIVIDUAL FOR HIMSELF AND FOR A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
INDIVIDUALS, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01627-JCJ (E.D. Pa., Apr. 10, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. J. Curtis Joyner.

Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael D. Larosa, Esq.
LAROSA & NASTASI
959 WEST CHESTER PIKE
HAVERTOWN, PA 19083
Telephone: (610) 924 0999
E-mail: ml.larosalaw@verizon.net


CVS HEALTH: "Palmer" Suit over Flushable Wipes Goes to Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Steven and Ellen Palmer,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., the
Defendants, and Anthony Belfiore, The Procter & Gamble Company,
Eugene and Victoria Richard, Costco Wholesale Corporation, D.
Joseph Kurtz, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02928, was transferred on
April, 10, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-00938-CCB to the proceeding. The case assigned to Hon.
Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2015, Steven
and Ellen Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-02928 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), is a class action
brought in connection with the purchase of CVS Brand Flushable
Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendants
as safe to be flushed.  The wipes at issue are not flushable but
rather do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog
in sewer or septic systems.

CVS Health is an American retail pharmacy and health care company
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Sean T. Masson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Karalis, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              smasson@rgrdlaw.com
              lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


DTS INC: "Garfield" Class Suit in California Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
Garfield v. DTS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. TN6317 (Superior
Court of California, Ventura County), is now concluded, Xperi
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, an alleged stockholder of DTS, Robert
Garfield, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California, Ventura County, against DTS, Inc. ("DTS"),
members of DTS's board of directors, DTS's financial advisor in
connection with the DTS acquisition, and the Company.  The
complaint purported to allege claims for breach of fiduciary
duties of care, good faith, and loyalty against the DTS directors;
breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure against DTS and the DTS
directors; and aiding and abetting the purported breaches of
fiduciary duties against the Company and DTS's financial advisor.
The complaint sought, inter alia, certification as a class action;
an order enjoining the merger or, if it is consummated, an order
rescinding it; a reduction in the termination fee payable by DTS
to the Company; damages; and attorneys' fees.  On October 31,
2016, Garfield filed an application for a temporary restraining
order seeking to enjoin the merger and for expedited discovery in
aid of a preliminary injunction motion. The defendants opposed the
TRO application. The defendants also filed motions to dismiss or
stay the case, which motions were scheduled to be heard in January
2017. On November 30, 2016, the Court denied the TRO application.
On December 26, 2016, Garfield filed a request to dismiss his case
without prejudice and on December 28, 2016, the Court entered an
order dismissing the case. This matter is now concluded.

Xperi is a publicly-traded technology company based in Silicon
Valley with operations around the world. Along with its operating
subsidiaries, Xperi creates, develops and licenses innovative
audio, computational imaging, computer vision and semiconductor
packaging and interconnect technologies.


DTS INC: Attorneys' Fees Application in "Parshall" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The application for attorneys' fees by counsel in the case,
Parshall v. DTS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12870 (Court of
Chancery, State of Delaware), remains pending, Xperi Corporation
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On November 2, 2016, an alleged stockholder of DTS, Inc. ("DTS"),
Paul Parshall, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the State
of Delaware Court of Chancery against DTS, members of DTS's board
of directors, the Company, and certain subsidiaries. The complaint
purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
members of DTS's Board of Directors, and aiding and abetting
against DTS and the Company. The complaint seeks, inter alia,
certification as a class action; an order enjoining the merger or,
if it is consummated, an order rescinding it; damages; and
attorneys' fees. On November 7, 2016, after the proxy statement at
issue was amended, Parshall's counsel filed a letter with the
Court acknowledging the supplemental disclosures and withdrawing
Parshall's motion to expedite. On December 22, 2016, the Court
granted the parties' stipulation and order dismissing the action
as moot and setting a briefing schedule for Parshall's counsel's
application for attorneys' fees.

Xperi is a publicly-traded technology company based in Silicon
Valley with operations around the world. Along with its operating
subsidiaries, Xperi creates, develops and licenses innovative
audio, computational imaging, computer vision and semiconductor
packaging and interconnect technologies.


EQUIDATA INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Central District California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equidata, Inc. The
case is captioned as JONATHAN HENSLEY, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equidata,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02606 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 5,
2017).

Equidata provides credit reporting services. The company offers
credit bureau, mortgage reporting, accounts receivable management,
and credit resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC., NOVARTIS AG, AKORN,
INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, TARO
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
WOCKHARDT LTD., and MORTON GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No.
16-CV-9897, was transferred on April 12, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01662-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Cynthia M. Rufe.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures, distributes, and
sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases
to dermatologists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          VANEK VICKERS & MASINI PC
          55 West Monroe St Ste 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224 1500
          Facsimile: (312) 224 1510
          E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jvanek@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Nalven, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          One Main Street 4th Fl
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482 3700
          E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
          JEFFREY PHILIP CAMPISI
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          E-mail: hnam@kaplanfox.com

              - and -

          Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
          Robert N Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Ave., 14th Fl
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          E-mail: rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura S. Shores, Esq.
          Margaret A. Rogers, Esq.
          Saul P Morgenstern, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          600 Massachusetts Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942 5000
          E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com
                  margaret.rogers@apks.com
                  saul.morgenstern@apks.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          Katherine A. Rocco, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          601 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446 4970
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  joseph.serino@kirkland.com
                  katherine.rocco@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Damon W. Suden, Esq.
          William A. Escobar, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          101 Park Ave 27th Fl
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com
                  wescobar@kelleydrye.com


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Castillo" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NOVARTIS AG, SANDOZ, INC., TARO
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 16-01668, was
transferred on April 12, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01668-CMR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures, distributes, and
sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases
to dermatologists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438 9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com


FROST RESTAURANT: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost Restaurant
Inc. The case is entitled as Claudio Cabrera, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frost
Restaurant Inc., Jointly and Severally; Rocco DePaola, Jointly and
Severally; Giovanni DePaola, Jointly and Severally; and Giuseppe
Morena, Jointly and Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02221 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 12, 2017).

Frost is an Italian restaurant serving traditional dishes,
including seafood, since 1959.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GEO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. is defending against a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit in Florida, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George
C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R.
Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the
Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that it is brought by
John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged
class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August
17, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley
and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such
other relief as the court may deem proper.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans. The Company has not
recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a
loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this
preliminary stage of the lawsuit.


GLOBE LIFE: Class Certification Motion in "Proctor" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that The Court has not yet
ruled on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned, Proctor v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company.

Litigation was filed on February 10, 2015 against Torchmark
subsidiary, Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma District Court (Proctor v. Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-2015-838) asserting claims
for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing
and for false representation, deceit and conversion in connection
with Globe's denial of plaintiff's claim on a life insurance
policy for non-payment of premium. Plaintiff, who had alleged that
Globe had improperly retained 12 monthly premium payments on a
policy that was treated as lapsed or not returned to in-force
status, seeks actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest,
attorney fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff subsequently
amended his complaint to add allegations of conversion and civil
theft on behalf of a purported class of Globe's U.S. policyholders
who had paid premiums retained by Globe when their policies were
lapsed and not reinstated at the time of the premium payments.
Globe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Case No. 15-CV-0070-M) on July 10, 2015 and
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2015. The Court denied
plaintiff's Motion to Remand back to state court on October 26,
2015, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert a
putative class action in federal court.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on September 23,
2016. Globe filed a Response in Opposition on November 4, 2016.
The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff's Motion.

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

Torchmark Corporation (Torchmark) is an insurance holding company
incorporated in Delaware in 1979. Its primary subsidiaries are
American Income Life Insurance Company (American Income), Liberty
National Life Insurance Company (Liberty National), Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Company (Globe), United American Insurance
Company (United American), and Family Heritage Life Insurance
Company of America (Family Heritage).


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Working with Class Admin. to Notify Members
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are working with a class administrator to notify
the class members.

Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data
Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments) and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary
of Global Payments) were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Heartland. The
suit was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin
Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland
stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate
consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the
merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing
a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. In addition, the complaint alleges that
Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms
and conditions for settlement of the suit.  The court has approved
the settlement and the parties are working with a class
administrator to notify the class members.

The settlement releases all claims that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the merger with Heartland or the
merger agreement related thereto. The terms of the settlement will
be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of the proposed
settlement. The settlement is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, results of
operations or cash flows.

Global payments is a worldwide provider of payment technology
services delivering innovative solutions to customers globally.


GOGO INC: Appeal in "Salameno" Litigation Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the "Salameno" litigation have withdrawn their
appeal with prejudice, Gogo, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2016, Charles Salameno, Maria-
Angela Sanzone and John Jensen filed suit against us in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on
behalf of a putative class of national purchasers and a subclass
of New York purchasers of our connectivity service, alleging that
we violated New York and other consumer protection laws, as well
as unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract arising from
alleged false statements in our marketing materials and alleged
data security issues arising from our network design and certain
network practices. The suit sought unspecified damages."

"On May 23, 2016, we filed motions to compel arbitration and
dismiss the suit, moving in the alternative to transfer venue
and/or dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. The Court
held a hearing on June 30, 2016 where we argued the motions to
dismiss and on July 7, 2016 the Court issued its opinion granting
our motion to compel arbitration.

"On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court
to reconsider its decision to compel arbitration. On September 15,
2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

"On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs' withdrew
their appeal with prejudice on November 4, 2016, concluding the
Salameno class action. Plaintiffs' have the right to pursue their
claims individually in arbitration."

Gogo is a global provider of in-flight broadband connectivity and
connectivity-enabled services to commercial and business aviation.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants'
motion to dismiss currencies-related litigation remains pending.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on September
26, 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments. The complaint generally alleges that
defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an
alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange
markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws
and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 23,
2017.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in Canada Case Paid into Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement
of a class action lawsuit in Canada related to trading in foreign
exchange markets pending final settlement approval, The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada
Inc. are among the defendants named in putative class actions
related to trading in foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in
September 2015 in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada
and the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments traded in
Canada. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate
the foreign currency exchange markets and assert claims under
Canada's Competition Act and common law. The Ontario and Quebec
complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages in the
amounts of 1 billion Canadian dollars and 100 million Canadian
dollars, respectively, as well as restitution and 50 million
Canadian dollars in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages. In
December 2016, the courts preliminarily approved a settlement of
the claims against the Goldman Sachs defendants. The firm has paid
the full amount of the proposed settlement into trust pending
final settlement approval.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Motion in Cobalt Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the Cobalt International Energy
Securities Litigation remains pending.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and the underwriters
(including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of
Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class
action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts
claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and
rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material
misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a
$1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a
$1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common
stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock,
and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with
respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint
also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an
underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690
million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately
$508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February
2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the
underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by
plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013,
but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. On
November 3, 2016, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Adeptus Health Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is defending against Adeptus Health
Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), its sponsor, and
certain of directors and officers of Adeptus.

As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege
misstatements and omissions in connection with the $124 million
June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015
secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary
equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity
offering. The complaints assert claims under the federal
securities laws and seek, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in
the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of
common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares
of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million, and all
the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing
an aggregate offering price of approximately $175 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces TerraForm & SunEdison Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend securities
litigation related to the public offerings of TerraForm Global and
SunEdison, Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters, placement
agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in several
putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in
October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015 initial public
offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm
Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of
SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock, the June
2015 private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D
units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million
principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes.

SunEdison is TerraForm Global's controlling shareholder and
sponsor.

Beginning in October 2016, the pending cases were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
on January 16, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint relating to TerraForm Global's initial public
offering.

The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and
certain of their directors and officers. The complaints generally
allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the
offerings, assert claims under federal securities laws and, in
certain actions, state laws, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as rescission or rescissory damages.

TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the
individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares
of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering,
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139
million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock
in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser,
sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm
Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April 21, 2016,
SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Securities Litigation in Canada,
Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in
the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the
underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain
directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint generally alleges
misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering
materials for the June 2013 public offering of $2.3 billion of
common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of $3.2 billion
principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A
offering of $900 million principal amount of senior notes. The
complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the
Civil Code of Quebec and seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Suit in New Jersey Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Securities Litigation in New Jersey.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the initial purchasers
named as defendants in a putative class action filed on June 24,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In
addition to the initial purchasers for Valeant's Rule 144A debt
offerings, the defendants include Valeant, certain directors and
officers of Valeant, Valeant's auditor and the underwriters for a
common stock offering in which GS&Co. did not participate. As to
GS&Co., the complaint generally alleges misstatements and
omissions in connection with the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule
144A offerings described, asserts claims under the federal
securities laws, and seeks rescission and compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on September
13, 2016.

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

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 27,058,824 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $2.3 billion and, as
initial purchasers, sold approximately $1.3 billion and $293
million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and
November 2013 Rule 144A offerings, respectively.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal Bid in Interest Rate Swap Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants'
motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in the
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending.

Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs
International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative
antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9, 2016
generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least
January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate
swaps. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved
to dismiss on January 20, 2017.

Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs
International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in antitrust
actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
beginning in April 2016 by two operators of swap execution
facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have
been consolidated with the class action described for pretrial
proceedings.

The second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9,
2016 generally asserts claims under federal and state antitrust
laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy
among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on
the plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20,
2017.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint in the Commodities-Related
Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on July 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, the
defendants moved to dismiss.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of intervenors in an employment-
related class action remains pending.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that recommendation and
granted the plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female
individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September
2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm
subsequent to the magistrate judge's decision.

On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate
judge's decision on intervention. On September 28, 2015, and by a
supplemental motion filed July 11, 2016 (after the second
intervenor ceased to be an employee), the defendants moved to
dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and
mootness.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) remains a defendant in the case,
U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Litigation, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the Commodity
Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury
securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an
unspecified amount and restitution.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in ISDAFIX Suit Paid into Escrow
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has paid the full amount of the
proposed settlement in the case, ISDAFIX-Related Litigation, into
an escrow fund, Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Group Inc. is among the defendants named in several putative class
actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed
beginning in September 2014 and most recently amended on February
12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal antitrust
laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy
to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmarks and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount. On December 19, 2016, the court preliminarily approved a
settlement of the claims against Group Inc. The firm has paid the
full amount of the proposed settlement into an escrow fund.


HALYARD HEALTH: Hit with $454 Million Fraud Verdict
---------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles jury on the night of April 7 hit Kimberly-Clark
Corporation (NYSE: KMB) and Halyard Health Inc. (NYSE: HYH) with a
stunning $454 Million fraud verdict due to the sale by the
companies of defective medical devices to doctors, hospitals and
trauma centers throughout California for years. The unanimous
verdict, rendered by an eight-person Federal Court jury after
hearing extensive evidence in the two-week trial, is likely one of
the largest verdicts in U.S. history against a medical device
maker. Pursuant to an indemnification agreement entered into
between the two defendants, Halyard Health is obligated to pay the
entirety of the $454 Million awarded by the jury.

"The trial was a search for the truth and the jury found it."

The class action lawsuit, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp et al, Case No. CV 14-8390-DMG, was filed in Los
Angeles in United States District Court in October 2014, alleging
that the defendants had committed fraud in the marketing and sale
of certain of their medical gowns used in critical surgeries. In
particular, the suit claimed that the companies had falsely
represented to the FDA, health care workers and the general public
that the company's "Microcool Breathable High Performance Surgical
Gowns" (the "Surgical Gowns") were impermeable and provided
protection against serious diseases, including Ebola and HIV,
despite the fact that the companies had known since 2012 that the
gowns were defective, failed industry tests, and did not meet
relevant standards, thus placing healthcare professionals and
patients at considerable risk for infection, serious bodily harm
and death.

The jury sided with the Plaintiffs and found that the companies
had concealed material information from healthcare professionals
throughout California and had carried out their scheme with
malice, oppression and/or fraud. "This fraud verdict should send a
clear message to corporations throughout the United States that
concealment and cover-up are not part of doing business," said
lead attorney Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti, LLP, on behalf
of the Plaintiffs. "The trial was a search for the truth and the
jury found it."

The evidence presented at trial showed that Kimberly-Clark and
Halyard knowingly misled the medical community, regulators and the
general public about the safety of the Surgical Gowns and even
after learning of multiple test failures, failed to alert the FDA,
healthcare professionals and patients. Internal e-mails and
documents from the companies showed employees describing the
manufacturing process as "crap" and admitting that they were
knowingly using defective and substandard equipment to make the
gowns in Honduras. Instead of recalling the gowns and disclosing
the truth, the companies concealed what they knew, fired employees
who knew too much and continued promoting, marketing and selling
the gowns by stating they were impermeable, even going so far as
to recommend that the gowns be used when treating patients with
serious infectious diseases, including Ebola and HIV.

                           *     *     *

Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reported that an attorney for
the class, Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti LLP, told jurors
during closing arguments earlier in the day [April 7] that it was
widely known within the companies that their MicroCool surgical
gowns were not compliant with safety standards and posed a risk to
users.

The verdict was announced after about five hours of deliberations
on Friday, following a nine-day trial.

"We are incredibly grateful for the jury's verdict although we
cannot say that we are surprised," Avenatti told Law360. "It has
been nearly three years of hard-fought litigation together with
our clients. We feel incredibly vindicated."

The jury ordered Kimberly-Clark to pay $3,889,327 in compensatory
damages and $350 million in punitive damages, according to
Avenatti. In addition, jurors ordered Halyard Health to pay
$261,445 in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive
damages.

Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that, "We have an
Indemnification Obligation for, and have assumed the defense of,
the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH
(C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case,
the plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting claims for
common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical
gowns."

"On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved for class certification of a
California-only damages class and a California-only injunctive
relief class. Although the plaintiff did not also move for
certification of a nationwide class to determine liability,
damages, or injunctive relief, it did move for certification of a
nationwide "issue" class purporting to resolve certain issues
allegedly "common" to members of that class.

"On July 8, 2016, we moved for summary judgment. On November 8,
2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's
motion for class certification. The court certified a California-
only class for damages and injunctive relief arising from fraud by
omission, but it rejected certification of a California-only class
arising from affirmative fraud, and it also rejected certification
of a nationwide "issue" class. The court also rejected the
plaintiff's request for "full restitution" damages, meaning the
full value of the gowns. Instead, the court found any damages
would be based on the difference between the purchase price of the
gowns and what the purchase price would have been for gowns with
no AAMI rating.

"On November 15, 2016, the court denied our motion for summary
judgment. The parties remain engaged in discovery. The trial [wa]s
scheduled to begin on March 28, 2017. We intend to continue our
vigorous defense of the matter."

The Plaintiffs were represented at trial by Michael Avenatti,
Ahmed Ibrahim and Filippo Marchino of California-based Eagan
Avenatti, LLP, together with William C. Hearon of William C.
Hearon, PA, based in Miami, Florida.

Contacts:

Eagan Avenatti, LLP
Suzy Quinn, Director of Media Relations
Cell: 310.465.9893
E-mail: squinn@eaganavenatti.com

Headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, Halyard Health, Inc. is a
medical technology company focused on eliminating pain, speeding
recovery and preventing infection for healthcare providers and
patients in more than 100 countries.


HALYARD HEALTH: Initial Conference in "Jackson" Moved to October
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the case captioned, Jackson v. Halyard
Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al.,
remains pending, Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter
styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy,
Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative
class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information
about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and
thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during
the respective class periods. The alleged class period for
purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received
Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21,
2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard
Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016."

"On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. We intend to
continue our vigorous defense of this matter," the Company said.

On March 2, 2017, Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an Order
granting a Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference.  The initial
conference is adjourned to October 27, 2017, at 10:00 AM as
control date, and the related deadlines are suspended pending
further Court order.

Headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, Halyard Health, Inc. is a
medical technology company focused on eliminating pain, speeding
recovery and preventing infection for healthcare providers and
patients in more than 100 countries.


HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties await the
Court's ruling on th emotion to dismiss the "Schaffer"
consolidated class action lawsuit.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action
lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the
"Officer Defendants").

On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions under
Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al. On June 3, 2016, the court
appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel.

On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiff
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidated
complaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016,
including additional current and former officers, the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwriters
involved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the
"Underwriter Defendants") as defendants. The plaintiffs allege
that certain of the Company and the Officer Defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about,
among other things: (a) the Company's financial performance, (b)
the Company's business prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c)
the Company's sales and promotional practices, and (d) the
Company's design, implementation, performance, and risks
associated with the Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. The
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the Director
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the
"Securities Act") in connection with the Company's April 2015
public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award
of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the putative
class, including a reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys'
fees.

On November 14, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition
to the motion to dismiss on December 21, 2016. Briefing on the
Motion to Dismiss was completed on January 27, 2017 and the
parties await the Court's ruling.


HORIZON PHARMA: "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed the "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" class action
lawsuits.

Between October 5 and October 7, 2016, two complaints (captioned
Lavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-
00901, and Jordan v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No.
16-cv-00913) were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. Both actions were filed against Raptor
and each member of Raptor's board of directors. The Company and
Misneach Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
were named as defendants in the Lavrenov action, but not the
Jordan action. The actions were brought by purported stockholders
of Raptor, on their own behalf and as a putative class of Raptor
stockholders, and assert causes of action under Sections 14 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Lavrenov
action also asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting claims under Delaware law. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the process leading up to the Raptor
acquisition was inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by
Raptor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
omits certain material information, which allegedly renders the
information disclosed materially misleading. The complaints seek,
among other things, to enjoin the Raptor acquisition, or in the
event the Raptor acquisition is consummated, to recover money
damages.

On October 17, 2016, Raptor filed an amended Schedule 14D-9 with
the SEC. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to preliminarily enjoin
the Raptor acquisition, which was completed on October 25, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, named plaintiffs dismissed both suits with
prejudice as to named plaintiffs, and without prejudice to any
other potential party. The Court has retained jurisdiction solely
for the purpose of ruling upon plaintiffs' motion for attorney
fees, in the event such a motion is filed.


ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois
Correctional Industry. The case is titled as Corey Trainor, for
himself and for a class and subclass of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. Illinois Correctional Industry; John
Baldwin, Director, IDOC; Gladyse Taylor, Former Director IDOC;
Michael P. Randle, Former Director of IDOC; Donald Snyder, Former
Director of IDOC; and Unknown Party, John/Jane Doe are wardens,
dietary managers, and Illinois Correctional Industry
Superintendents, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00369-DRH (S.D.
Ill., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge David R.
Herndon.

Illinois Correctional provides inmates with the skills and
training necessary to be successful upon release from prison.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


INSULET CORP: Feb. 2018 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in ATRS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, Insulet said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 31, 2017, a Notice was entered Setting Hearing on Class
Certification Motion for February 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 10 before Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Due in part
to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company currently
cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of loss, in
connection with this matter.

Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and
sale of proprietary Omnipod(R) Insulin Management System (the
"Omnipod System"), an innovative, discreet and easy-to-use
continuous insulin delivery system for people with insulin-
dependent diabetes.


JASPER CONTRACTORS: Faces "Walker" Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jasper Contractors,
Inc. The case is entitled as John Walker, JR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Jasper Contractors, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00644-
GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presnell.

Jasper Contractors is a national roofing contractor company
headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David M. Marco, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, PC
55 W Monroe St Ste 1200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 546 6539
Facsimile: (888) 418 1277
E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Class Cert. Hearing on "Field" Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2017, that there is currently no date
set for hearing on the class certification motion related to the
Civil Claim filed by Nick Field.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the
defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by
selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or
did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The
class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was
adjourned, and there is currently no date set for that hearing.

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

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have
approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company,
which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in
virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus
is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson &
Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss Talc Powder Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc. to dismiss one class action lawsuit over
alleged health risks associated with talc powder remains pending,
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2017.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
(J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson
& Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI), alleging violations of state
consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health
risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder
and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by
JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages;
neither includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation. In December 2016,
J&J and JJCI filed a motion to dismiss one of the cases.

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

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have
approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company,
which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in
virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus
is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson &
Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit by contact lens
patients, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix
the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that
the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain
distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some
contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June
2015. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action complaint
in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and other defendants
filed motions to dismiss. In June 2016, the Court denied the
motions to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.

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

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have
approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company,
which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in
virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus
is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson &
Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO(R) Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by third-party payors over XARELTO(R)
remains pending, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC,
Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as
certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly
marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than
less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully
disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

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

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have
approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company,
which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in
virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus
is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson &
Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887.


KYNES CORNER: Faces "Massi" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kynes Corner, LLC.
The case is entitled as CARR MASSI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. George
Papadopoulos and Kynes Corner, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02617 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783 9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June
2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The
Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Motion for Class
Certification on January 20, 2017. The Company will vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology-
enabled solutions.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Confab in Sandusky Moved to September
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the parties in the case, Sandusky Wellness
Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., Case No.
0:12-cv-02066 (D. Minn.), the settlement conference scheduled for
April 28, 2017 has been rescheduled.  The conference will now be
held on Sept. 15, 2017 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6B (STP) before
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that on August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative
class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges
that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the
U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending
unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other
recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or
permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the
sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the
TCPA, and injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision
and order reversing the District Court's denial of class
certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further
proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the
Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Company
will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology-
enabled solutions.


LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit Still Pending in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the
class action lawsuit by Patty Davis remains pending.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits
under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. On December 28,
2016, the Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology-
enabled solutions.


LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et
al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
The complaint alleges that Covance, Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing
to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for
all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and
Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance, Inc. in
California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority in Support of Motion to Remand the Case to State Court.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology-
enabled solutions.


LABORATORY CORP: MOU in Sequenom Suit Terminated
------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case captioned, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., have agree that their memorandum of
understanding has been terminated and are awaiting further
direction from the Court as to how the litigation will proceed,
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, between August 15,
2016 and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned
Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, Gupta
v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v.
Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101-WQH-KSC, Asiatrade
Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-
JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and
Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints
asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of
Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named
the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged
that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain
allegedly material information.

In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger.

On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. In
connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders.

On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for
all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above
under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead
Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from
the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated
action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On January 12, 2017 the Court entered an order declaring Mr.
Reilly the presumptive lead plaintiff, but denying Mr. Reilly's
request for immediate approval as lead plaintiff. The Company is
awaiting the Court's appointment of a permanent lead plaintiff.

The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated and are
awaiting further direction from the Court as to how the litigation
will proceed.

The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology-
enabled solutions.


MDL 1869: Class Certification Motion Underway
---------------------------------------------
Parties in the case, In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869, await the court's ruling on the motion
for class certification, BNSF Railway Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were
consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District
Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class
action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other
Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the District
Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway
and the other three Class I railroads appealed the class
certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On August 9,
2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class
certification decision and remanded the case to permit the
District Court to reconsider its decision in light of the United
States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. In
September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class, but no order has been issued.

The Company continues to believe that these claims are without
merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.
The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

BNSF Railway operates one of the largest railroad systems in North
America.


MDL 2081: Johnson & Johnson Retains OCD Liability in Reagent Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson has retained any liability that may result from
the case, In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation, Johnson &
Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended January 1, 2017.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2081.

In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by the
plaintiffs for class certification.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October
2015, the District Court again granted the motion by the
plaintiffs for class certification.

In July 2016, OCD filed a motion for summary judgment. OCD was
divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that
may result from these cases.

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

In 2012, Immucor settled the lawsuit and paid $22,000,000 for the
benefit of a class of purchasers of Traditional Blood Reagents.
The Court entered final approval of the Immucor settlement and
dismissed Immucor as Defendant.

The lawsuit continues against the non-settling Defendant, Ortho,
on behalf of a class, or group of people. The continuing lawsuit
affects persons and entities in the United States who purchased
Traditional Blood Reagents directly from either Defendant between
November 4, 2000 and October 19, 2015 (the "Litigation Class").

Additional information on the case is available at:

         http://www.bloodreagentsantitrustlitigation.com/

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have
approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research
and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products
in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company,
which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in
virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus
is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson &
Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887.


MDL 2777: EcoDiesel Product Liability Case Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel
Marketing, Sales practices and products Liability Litigation, was
transferred to from Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation to
the Northern District of California creating MDL No. 3:17-md-2777
(N.D. Cal., Apr. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Edward M.
Chen.

FCA US LLC, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jose Chavez, Benjamin Greenberg, Andrew
Loescher, Miguel Fragoso, Mathue Fasching Thomas McGann, Jr.,
Joseph Neupert, Bryan Muckenfuss, Satyanam Singh, John Radziewicz
Binh Quoc Tran, Christopher Walker, Luke Kitchel, Gregory
Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green
Harold Blake, Travis Morgan, Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Elmer
Brinkman, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan, Craig McCully
Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby Reichert,
Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Marius Bihorean, GN Systems,
Inc., Leslie Ghrist, Jason Gaines, Nathan Friedenfels, Steven
Elowitz, Jeffrey W. Griggs, Michael Johnson, Jeffrey Weaver
Karl Calhoun, Josh Clafin, Joseph L. Weber, Auburn Carpenter,
Gregory Giauque, Tom Gillespe, Lawrence Diener, Matt Ortman,
Graham Bolkema, Kyle Heidlebaugh, George Milner, Joseph Bernardo
Jesse Sandifer, Victor Feldman, Jose Licea, Heather Deerenberg,
Sing Sun, Warren Carmichael, Dennis Overstreet, Casey Wheelock,
Finlay Drake, Austin Hawthorn, Marco Silio, Russell Bloom, Samuel
Price, Tad Leroy, Louis Barrie, James Deberry, and Michah
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated:

          Jessica Thompson, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: jessicat@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652 2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
          OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994 1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345 8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345 8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
          125 University Ave., Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868 2626
          Facsimile: (510) 868 2627
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon S Almonrode, Esq.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Derek William Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  lpetak@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342 1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER
          HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 250 3937
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Joe P Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 445 4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445 4020
          E-mail: Lweaver@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 788 7210
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0706
          E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com

               - and -

          David Brian Fernandes, Esq.
          Mark P Pifko, Esq.
          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839 2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986 9698
          E-mail: dfernandes@baronbudd.com
                  MPifko@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          David S Stellings, Esq.
          Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
          Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Esq.
          Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          E-mail: DSTELLINGS@lchb.com
                  kbudner@lchb.com
                  pgnguyen@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750 3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISLEBERG GILBERT
          2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 384 7270
          Facsimile: (954) 525 4300
          E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433 6382
          E-mail: kmoody@bermandevalerio.com

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Robert Bosch
GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; Robert
Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. are represented by:

          Kyle Allen Niemi, Esq.
          Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq.
          Robert J. Giuffra , Jr., Esq.
          Sharon L Nelles, Esq.
          William B. Monahan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          1870 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 461 5600
          E-mail: niemik@sullcrom.com
                  cafassod@sullcrom.com
                  giuffrar@sullcrom.com
                  nelless@sullcrom.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Motion to Reconsider Order Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that one motion for
reconsideration remains pending in an appeal in the Polyurethane
Foam Litigation.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company was named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases, as well as in two
consolidated amended class action complaints on behalf of a class
of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products and on
behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. In these actions, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,
sought damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at trial
would have been subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws.

On March 23 and April 30, 2015, the Company entered into
agreements to settle all claims brought by the class of direct and
indirect purchasers, and the trial court entered orders granting
approval of the settlements on November 19, 2015 and January 27,
2016. Certain individual members of the indirect purchaser class
sought to overturn the approval through an appeal to the Sixth
Circuit of Appeals. As of June 21, 2016, all of these appeals have
been dismissed, provided that one request to reconsider remains
pending. The Company has also entered into settlement agreements
resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the
consolidated individual lawsuits.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world.


MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Sought
----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America
Corporation et al., have filed a second consolidated amended
complaint.

On April 10, 2017, Non-Settling Defedants filed a Joint Motion to
Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims.  The Motion was
filed by BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., ICAP Capital Markets,
LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International,
Inc., UBS AG, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

On October 20, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Firm and other defendants styled Genesee County
Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al.
in the SDNY. The action was later consolidated with four similar
actions in SDNY under the lead case styled Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 2, 2015
asserting claims for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with
contract. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants engaged in antitrust violations with
regards to the process of setting ISDAfix, a financial benchmark
and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
other relief.

On March 28, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On February 7, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Demurrer Denied in Calif. Attorney General's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has denied the
Firm's demurrer with respect to the amended complaint in the case,
California v. Morgan Stanley, et al.

On April 1, 2016, the California Attorney General's Office filed
an action against the Firm in California state court styled
California v. Morgan Stanley, et al., on behalf of California
investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement
System and the California Teachers' Retirement System. The
complaint alleges that the Firm made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding residential mortgage-backed securities and
notes issued by the Cheyne SIV, and asserts violations of the
California False Claims Act and other state laws and seeks treble
damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted the Firm's demurrer, with
leave to replead. On October 21, 2016, the California Attorney
General filed an amended complaint. On January 25, 2017, the court
denied the Firm's demurrer with respect to the amended complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Finalizing Settlement of Forex Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that parties in the case, In
Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, are
finalizing a settlement.

The Firm, as well as other foreign exchange dealers, are
defendants in In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint generally alleging that defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to fix, maintain or make artificial prices for key
benchmark rates, to manipulate bid/ask spreads, and, by their
behavior in the over-the-counter market, to thereby cause
corresponding manipulation in the foreign exchange futures market.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. On December 16, 2016, the Firm and plaintiffs
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation with
respect to the Firm. After it is finalized by the parties, the
settlement will be subject to court approval.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that briefing on a class
action appeal has concluded, and no hearing date has been set.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Nabors Red Lion
Limited ("Red Lion"), along with C&J Energy and its board of
directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of
Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J
Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided
and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin
the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and
the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and,
to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was
granted, to have the Merger rescinded."

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court").

"On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. Nabors and the
C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was granted
by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling that C&J
Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to support the
temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal on September 22, 2016. A briefing was concluded, and no
hearing date has been set.

"On March 24, 2015, we completed the Merger of our Completion &
Production Services business with C&J Energy."

Nabors Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: NBR) was formed as a Bermuda
exempted company on December 11, 2001.  Nabors owns and operates
the world's largest land-based drilling rig fleet and is a leading
provider of offshore platform drilling rigs in the United States
and multiple international markets.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Josef Kalmenson, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01954
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2017),

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Held on Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada has heard oral argument on several
motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class certification, in
the Natural Gas Litigation.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar
laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of
energy companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the
District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the
lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the
Supreme Court granted the petition.

On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's
holding that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field-
preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause
of the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Court left open whether the
claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The
Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to
class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24,
2016. On January 26, 2017, the court heard oral argument on
several motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class
certification.

In May 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in one of the
Kansas cases. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. GenOn has agreed to
indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five
lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the
strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive
electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity
platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by
producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products
and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a
manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The
Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation;
engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related
products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation
services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative,
sustainable products and services to retail customers under the
names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.
NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992.


NRG ENERGY: June Hearings on Class Cert. Bid in TCPA Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that class certification
hearings are scheduled on June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the
New Jersey and California Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Purported Class Actions.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by
the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the
defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited
calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs
seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual
damages and equitable relief.

On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of
NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on
August 16, 2016. Class certification hearings are scheduled on
June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the New Jersey and California
cases respectively.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the
strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive
electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity
platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by
producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products
and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a
manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The
Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation;
engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related
products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation
services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative,
sustainable products and services to retail customers under the
names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.
NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992.


NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer Due June 15
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' opposition
to defendants' demurrer is due on June 15, 2017, in the case
captioned, Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of
its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA.  Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
rescission, attorney's fees and costs.

On August 3, 2016, the court approved a stipulation entered into
by the parties. The stipulation provided that the plaintiffs would
file an amended complaint by August 19, 2016, which they did on
August 18, 2016. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion
challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016.

On February 24, 2017, the court approved the parties' stipulation
which provides the plaintiffs' opposition is due on June 15, 2017
and defendants' reply is due on August 14, 2017.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the
strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive
electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity
platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by
producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products
and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a
manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The
Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation;
engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related
products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation
services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative,
sustainable products and services to retail customers under the
names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.
NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992.


NRG ENERGY: June 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument is
scheduled for June 20, 2017, on the motion to dismiss the case
captioned, Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG Yield Board of
Directors.

On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield,
Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective
fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG Yield,
Inc. common stock in 2015. The plaintiffs generally seek economic
damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December 21, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed their objection to the motion to dismiss on
February 15, 2017. Oral argument is scheduled for June 20, 2017.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the
strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive
electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity
platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by
producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products
and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a
manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The
Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation;
engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related
products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation
services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative,
sustainable products and services to retail customers under the
names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.
NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Laidlaw" Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
ON Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiff in
the case captioned, Cody Laidlaw v. Fairchild Semiconductor
International, Inc., et al., has voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit.

On December 16, 2015, a purported stockholder in the Company filed
a complaint challenging the tender offer for Fairchild and the
merger in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Santa Clara. The complaint was captioned Cody Laidlaw v. Fairchild
Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-289120.
The complaint listed as defendants Fairchild, its board of
directors, Goldman Sachs and unnamed representatives of Goldman
Sachs. The complaint alleged that the board of directors of
Fairchild breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the
price to be paid for Fairchild and that Fairchild and the board of
directors of Fairchild failed to provide Fairchild's stockholders
with all material information needed to make an informed decision
whether to tender their shares of Fairchild common stock in the
tender offer. The complaint further alleged that Goldman Sachs and
its unnamed representatives aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duty of Fairchild's board of directors. As
relief, the complaint sought, among other things, an injunction
against the tender offer and the merger of Fairchild with and into
Merger Sub and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Fairchild
filed a motion to dismiss on July 15, 2016, the plaintiff opposed
the motion to dismiss on September 16, 2016, and on December 8,
2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

ON Semiconductor Corporation, which was incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware in 1999, together with its
subsidiaries, is driving innovation in energy efficient
electronics.  Its extensive portfolio of sensors, power
management, connectivity, custom and SoC, analog, logic, timing,
and discrete devices helps customers efficiently solve their
design challenges in advanced electronic systems and products.


ORANGE COUNTY: Faces "Agrella" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange County
Courier. The case is captioned as Christopher Agrella,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. Orange County Courier and Logistics LLLP and
Subcontracting Concepts LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00689 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 11, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Charleston,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02190 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017).

PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          Sanders Law, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Lane" Suit in District of Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Diane Lane, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co.,
Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00371-UNA
(D. Del., Apr. 5, 2017).

Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital
products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3889
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: 250 Lawsuits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak
--------------------------------------------------------
As of February 27, 2017, 250 lawsuits, including over 14,000
plaintiffs, have been filed against Southern California Gas
Company, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, related to
the Aliso Canyon leak, Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In October 2015, Southern California Gas Company discovered a leak
at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso
Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern part
of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon
facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is more
than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It
is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the
storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the
world's leading experts to stop the leak, and in February 2016,
the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas,
and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed.

As of February 27, 2017, 250 lawsuits, including over 14,000
plaintiffs, have been filed against SoCalGas, some of which have
also named Sempra Energy. These various lawsuits assert causes of
action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability,
property damage, fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing
and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent
concealment, unfair business practices and loss of consortium,
among other things. A complaint alleging violations of Proposition
65 was also filed. Many of these complaints seek class action
status, compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring and
attorneys' fees.

In addition to the lawsuits, a federal securities class action
alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed
against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and directors,
and four shareholder derivative actions alleging breach of
fiduciary duties have been filed against certain officers and
directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas. Three complaints have
also been filed by public entities, including the California
Attorney General, the SCAQMD and the County of Los Angeles. These
complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive relief,
abatement of the public nuisance, civil penalties, payment of the
cost of a longitudinal health study, and money damages, as well as
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In February 2017, SoCalGas entered into a settlement agreement
with the SCAQMD under which SoCalGas will pay $8.5 million and
SCAQMD will dismiss its complaint and petition for dismissal of a
stipulated abatement order issued by its Hearing Board.
Separately, in February 2016, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against
SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure
to provide timely notice of the leak and for allegedly violating
certain California Health and Safety Code provisions.

On November 29, 2016, the court approved a settlement between
SoCalGas and the District Attorney's Office whereby SoCalGas
agreed to plead no contest to a misdemeanor for the alleged
failure to provide timely notice of the leak and to spend
approximately $4.3 million on reimbursement of government agency
expenses, operational commitments, and fines and penalties, in
exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts. Certain
individuals residing near Aliso Canyon who objected to the
settlement have filed a notice of appeal of the judgment, as well
as a petition asking the Superior Court to set aside the November
29, 2016 order and grant them restitution.


SMART ENERGY: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart Energy Solar,
Inc. The case is titled as Kevin Lemieux, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smart
Energy Solar, Inc., doing business as Smart Energy USA, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00694-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Apr. 5,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Smart Energy specializes in grid-tied Solar Power electric systems
and installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940 1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238 8095
          E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com


SOLIMA PEOPLE: Faces "Van Buskirk" Suit in W.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solima People, LLC.
The case is captioned as Jennifer Van Buskirk, Artis Dease, and
Autumn Dease, And All Others Similarly Situated Under 29 USC
216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. Solima People, LLC, doing business as:
Eggspectation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00301-XR (W.D.
Tex., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Xavier
Rodriguez.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
777 Main Street, Suite 600
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479 9229
Facsimile: (817) 887 1878
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


SQUARE INC: Fails to Reach Settlement of Caviar Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Square, Inc. failed to reach an agreement with the parties in the
Caviar misclassification suits, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We are involved in a class action lawsuit
concerning independent contractors in connection with our Caviar
business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against our wholly
owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as amended, alleges that
Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other similarly situated
couriers as independent contractors and, in doing so, violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code by requiring them to pay various
business expenses that should have been borne by Caviar."

"The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims
on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
with prejudice on May 2, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a
Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr.
Levin filed his opening appellate brief regarding the order
compelling arbitration of his individual claims on October 7,
2016. We filed our answering brief on December 7, 2016, and Mr.
Levin filed his reply on December 21, 2016. The parties now await
notice of a hearing date from the Ninth Circuit.

"Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The parties
stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA claim
but that it may instead be pursued by a different courier.
Subsequently, couriers Nadezhda Rosen and La'Dell Brewster filed a
new PAGA-only claim in California state court on November 7, 2016.
Plaintiffs claim that Caviar misclassified its couriers as
independent contractors resulting in numerous violations of the
California Labor Code, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek statutory
penalties for those violations.

"The parties have stipulated to extend the time for Caviar to
respond to the complaint until March 17, 2017.  In February 2017,
we participated in a mediation with the parties in these Caviar
misclassification suits to explore resolution of the matters at
hand; however, an agreement on all the material terms has not been
reached."

Square is a cohesive commerce ecosystem that helps sellers start,
run, and grow their businesses.  It combines sophisticated
software with affordable hardware to enable sellers to turn mobile
devices and computing devices into powerful payment and point-of-
sale solutions.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Accord with Indirect Purchasers Await Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, In re Steel Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
08-cv-5214 (N.D. Ill.) (related to the Direct Purchaser Actions),
the Honorable Manish S. Shah entered a final approval of the 2016
Settlement on February 26, 2017.  Subsequently, Claim Forms for
the 2016 Settlement were mailed on March 28, 2017.  The deadline
for submitting Claim Forms for the 2016 Settlement is May 31,
2017.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in connection with the
case captioned, Standard Iron Works v Arcelor Mittal, et al class
action antitrust litigation originally involving two class action
complaints (a so-called "direct purchaser" case and a so-called
"indirect purchaser" case), alleging an antitrust conspiracy to
limit steel output in the United States and pending since 2008 in
federal court in Chicago, settlement agreements have been entered
into in both cases, one of which (the direct case) has received
final court approval, the other of which (the indirect case) is
awaiting final court approval.

The October 2016 direct purchaser settlement involved a November
2016 payment of $4.6 million with only two relatively small class
members opting out of the settlement. The indirect purchaser case
has been settled for $990,000, which has been paid into escrow in
2017, and is pending court approval.  Until final settlement
approval, the settlement remains preliminary.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. is one of the largest domestic steel
producers and metal recyclers in the United States based on
current estimated steelmaking and coating capacity of 11 million
tons and actual metals recycling volumes.  The primary source of
revenues are from the manufacture and sale of steel products,
processing and sale of recycled ferrous and nonferrous metals, and
fabrication and sale of steel joists and deck products.


TC PIPELINES: Plaintiffs' Appeal Dismissed
------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the case, Employees
Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP,
Inc., et al., the Delaware Supreme Court has found in the
Defendant's favor and dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal.

Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC
PipeLines GP, Inc., et al. On October 13, 2015, an alleged
unitholder of the Partnership filed a class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the General
Partner, TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and
TransCanada, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant. The
complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference
in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the
issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and
amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the
issuance of the Class B Units. Plaintiff seeks, among other
things, to enjoin future issuances of Class B Units to TransCanada
or any of its subsidiaries, disgorgement of certain distributions
to the General Partner, TransCanada and any related entities,
return of some or all of the Class B Units to the Partnership,
rescission of the amendments to the Partnership Agreement,
monetary damages and attorney fees. The Partnership has moved to
dismiss the complaint and intends to defend vigorously against the
claims asserted.

In April 2016, the Chancery Court granted the Partnership and
other defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The
plaintiff has appealed the decision to dismiss its claims. The
appeal of this matter was heard by the Delaware Supreme Court in
December, 2016. The court found in the Defendant's favor and
dismissed the Plaintiff's motion. There are no further rights of
appeal.

TC PipeLines was formed by TransCanada Corporation and its
subsidiaries (TransCanada) in 1998 to acquire, own and participate
in the management of energy infrastructure businesses in North
America.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned In re Tenet Healthcare
Corporation Securities Litigation, had until April 11, 2017 to
file an amended and consolidated complaint, Tenet Healthcare
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company's
common stock filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and several
current and former executive officers in a matter captioned
Pennington v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al. The plaintiff
is seeking class certification on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities between February 28, 2012 and
October 3, 2016.

On October 10, 2016, a second purported shareholder filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Dallas Division) against the Company and two current
executive officers in a matter captioned Yamany v. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, et al. The plaintiff in this case is
seeking class certification on behalf of all persons who acquired
the Company's securities between February 26, 2013 and September
30, 2016.

Both complaints allege that false or misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Company's financial performance and
compliance policies, specifically with respect to the Clinica de
la Mama matters described above, caused the price of the Company's
common stock to be artificially inflated.

On February 10, 2017, the judge in the Yamany matter entered an
order consolidating the cases in the Northern District of Texas
(Dallas Division) and appointing four lead plaintiffs. The case is
now captioned In re Tenet Healthcare Corporation Securities
Litigation. Plaintiffs had until April 11, 2017 to file an amended
and consolidated complaint.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company.  Tenet operates regionally focused, integrated healthcare
delivery networks, primarily in large urban and suburban markets
in the United States.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Maderazo" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners,
L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., remains pending, Tenet
Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the
court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery.

"We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations.
It remains impossible at this time to predict the outcome of these
proceedings with any certainty; however, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations,"
the Company said.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company.  Tenet operates regionally focused, integrated healthcare
delivery networks, primarily in large urban and suburban markets
in the United States.


TEREX CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation's motions to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit remains pending, Terex said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits as follows:

     * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

     * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the
stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also
alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of
the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.
The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative
lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold
pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with
the securities lawsuit.

Terex is a global manufacturer of lifting and material processing
products and services that deliver lifecycle solutions to maximize
customer return on investment.


TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The appeal related to a class action lawsuit by Rose Coulter-Owens
remains pending, Time, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages.

On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because
the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury
from the alleged conduct.

On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim
but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed.

On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the
named plaintiff.

On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify
a class consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31,
2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME,
Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any website other than
Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com.

On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
the class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000
consumers.

On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary
judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in
opposition to their adversaries' motions. On February 16, 2016,
the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the case.

On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit
Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's
claims. On May 26, 2016, Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her
claims.

On September 22, 2016, the Motions Part of the Circuit Court
issued an order directing that Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
appeal should be decided by the appellate panel that was assigned
the plaintiff's appeal on the merits.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief and on
December 21, 2016, Time Inc. filed its opposition to Plaintiff's
appeal and a cross-appeal to the District Court's order certifying
the class. Plaintiff filed a reply and opposition to Time Inc.'s
class certification appeal on February 6, 2017 and Time Inc. filed
a sur-reply on February 20, 2017.

Time Inc., is a multi-platform media and content company that
engages over 150 million consumers every month through its
portfolio of premium news and lifestyle brands across a diverse
set of interest areas.  The Company's influential brands include
People, Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, Real Simple,
Southern Living, Entertainment Weekly, Food & Wine, Travel +
Leisure and Essence, as well as approximately 50 diverse titles in
the United Kingdom.


TIME INC: Must Defend Against "Perlin" Suit
-------------------------------------------
Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned, Perlin v. Time
Inc., has been denied, Time said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Rose Coulter-
Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging violations of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy
Act ("VRPA") as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. This
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents who purchased
subscriptions directly from Time Inc.

On May 6, 2016 and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the
Complaint. Perlin filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and
Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 11, 2016. On February 15,
2017, the Court denied Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss.

"We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters
described above," the Company said.

Time Inc., is a multi-platform media and content company that
engages over 150 million consumers every month through its
portfolio of premium news and lifestyle brands across a diverse
set of interest areas.  The Company's influential brands include
People, Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, Real Simple,
Southern Living, Entertainment Weekly, Food & Wine, Travel +
Leisure and Essence, as well as approximately 50 diverse titles in
the United Kingdom.


UMA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Cuellar" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uma Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as William Cuellar, As an Individual and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uma
Enterprises, Inc., A California Corporation, and Does 1 through
100, the Defendant, Case No. BC657146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 10,
2017).

UMA Enterprises engages in the import and wholesale of home decor,
gift, and floral products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Paul K. Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2274 East Maple Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292 2350
Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in Securities Litigation Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral
argument on class certification were scheduled to be held on March
3, 2017, in the case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.
Securities Litigation; formerly Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment
Partners Inc. et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and
certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including
the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiffs and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint,
which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015
(the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse
facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared
Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf
of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing
Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The
remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was
filed on August 5, 2016. The parties are briefing Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, and oral argument on class
certification was scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a
material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to
this claim.

Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services
to individuals and institutions.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in "Youngers" Action Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral
argument on class certification were scheduled to be held on March
3, 2017, in the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners,
Inc. et al.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (the "District Court") by an individual who
alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual
funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the
AlphaSector Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and
certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds
between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff,
and on July 27, 2015, the District Court appointed movants as lead
plaintiff.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus
Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Court
entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District
of New York (the "Court").

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company
and affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016,
the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and
denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed four
causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of action with respect
to a portion of the Class Period. The Court also dismissed all
claims against ten defendants named in the Complaint. The Court
held that the Plaintiffs may pursue certain securities claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The remaining defendants filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint on August 5, 2016. A Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal
of the claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act was filed on
September 15, 2016.

The defendants filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal
of the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on August 26, 2016. The motion was denied on January 6,
2017.

The parties are briefing Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and oral argument on class certification was
scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017.

The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there
is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.

Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services
to individuals and institutions.


WYNDHAM VACATION: "Boy" Suit Moved from Super. Court to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Veronica O Boy, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 30-02017-00907397-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Orange
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00653-JVS-JCG to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

Wyndham Vacation develops and markets flexible, points-based
vacation ownership products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Malte L. Farnaes, Esq.
Mitchell J. Murray, Esq.
FARNAES AND LUCIO APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (760) 942 9430
Facsimile: (888) 849 2465
E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com

     - and -

The Defendant is represented by:

Francisco Lucas Paule, Esq.
Sabrina L Shadi, Esq.
Shareef Swamy Farag, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 820 8800
Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
E-mail: fpaule@bakerlaw.com
        sshadi@bakerlaw.com
        sfarag@bakerlaw.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Accrued Full Amount of "Mendoza" Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has accrued
the full amount of the proposed settlement in the case captioned,
Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.

One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to
a class action lawsuit (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage,
Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina on August 19, 2013 and currently
pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an
employee, rather than an independent contractor, and seeks damages
for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws on
behalf of himself and all owner-operators contracted with this
subsidiary at any time from August 19, 2009 to April 29, 2016.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE
Claims.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation
with the claimant. The Court has approved the settlement
agreement, and it has been accepted by 520 members of the putative
class.

The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed
settlement. The full amount of the settlement has been paid in
2016 and the matter will be dismissed by the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.

                           *     *     *

In September 2016, Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reported
that a California federal judge approved a request to trim more
than $1.5 million from Pacer Cartage Inc.'s $4.25 million
settlement with a class of truckers who claimed they were
misclassified as contractors and cheated on wages, after dozens of
drivers opted out of the deal.  U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns
in a brief order granted a joint request from the two sides to
reduce the settlement to $2.68 million. The judge also granted a
reduction in class counsel's requested attorneys' fees.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
     Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 217-5000
     Fax: (213) 217-5010
     E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
             rlk@kbklawyers.com
             jhh@kbklawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Pacer Cartage, Inc.:

     Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
     E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
     SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & PEARY, LLP
     North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (626) 795-4700
     Fax: (626) 795-4790

          - and -

     James H. Hanson, Esq.
     Angela S. Cash, Esq.
     Ryan W. Wright, Esq.
     SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & PEARY, LLP
     10 West Market Street, Suite 1500
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: (317) 637-1777
     Fax: (317) 687-2414
     E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
             acash@scopelitis.com
             rwright@scopelitis.com

XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its
subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply
chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage
------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the case captioned, M.
Cortez v. Pacer, is in the initial pleading stage.

There are other putative class action litigation matters pending
against the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries in which the
plaintiffs claim they should have been classified as employees,
rather than independent contractors, and seek damages for alleged
violations of various California wage and hour laws. The
particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims
generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses. However, these claims are
all subject to arbitration provisions in the claimants'
independent contractor agreements, and class action certification
is therefore unlikely.

These cases include the following matters filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, Los Angeles District: C.
Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc. filed in August 2015; M. Cortez
v. Pacer filed in June 2016; and the following case filed in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California: I.
Hernandez v. Pacer filed in May 2016.

One of these cases, Cortez, has filed a California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim, which is not subject to
arbitration and therefore is subject to PAGA class action
procedures. However, this matter is in the initial pleading stage
and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the PAGA
claim to proceed.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to these claims. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its
subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply
chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that certain of the Company's
last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative
class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers
who contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract
carriers assert that they should be classified as employees,
rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses. Putative class actions
against the Company's subsidiaries are pending in California
(Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005,
currently in the Federal District Court, Southern District of
California; Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren,
Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in
March 2016 in the Federal District Court, Northern District of
California; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed
in July 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda
County; and Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September
2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda
County); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central
Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the
Federal District Court, New Jersey); Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v.
XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court,
Pennsylvania); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile,
Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal District Court,
Connecticut).

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its
subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply
chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is a party
to a putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics,
Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois)
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a
last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. This
matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet
determined whether to certify the matter as a class action.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to this matter. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of this matter given, among other reasons,
that the Company is vigorously defending the matter and believes
that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses and that it
remains uncertain what evidence of their claims and damages, if
any, plaintiffs will be able to present.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has reached
a deal to settle the case captioned, Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et
al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al.

The Company's LTL subsidiary is a party to several class action
litigations alleging violations of the state of California's wage
and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to provide drivers with
required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v.
Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case").

The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey
County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court
of California, Northern District. The Company has reached an
agreement to settle the Pina case, which has been tentatively
approved by the court, and no interested parties have timely filed
objections to the proposed settlement. The Company has accrued the
full amount of the proposed settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its
subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply
chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motions Pending in Symbol Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that there are
certain discovery motions pending that could, if granted, reopen
fact discovery in the class action lawsuit related to the
acquisition of Symbol Technologies.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions.  A
putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the
New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April
26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel
on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages. The court has certified a class of
investors that includes those that purchased Symbol common stock
between March 12, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The parties have
substantially completed fact and expert discovery.

However, there are certain discovery motions pending that could,
if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance
all other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of
dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial. The current
lead Directors and Officers ("D&O") insurer continues to maintain
its position of not agreeing to reimburse defense costs incurred
by the Company in connection with this matter, and the Company
disputes the position taken by the current D&O insurer.

Zebra is a global leader in the Automatic Identification and Data
Capture ("AIDC") market. The AIDC market consists of mobile
computing, data capture, radio frequency identification devices
("RFID"), barcode printing, and other automation products and
services.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Payment Released from Escrow
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,
the Company considered the case captioned, Reyes v. Zions First
National Bank, et. al., to be closed.

The company said, "Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., a
class action brought against us in 2010 and conditionally settled
in the second quarter of 2016. The settlement was finally approved
by the court and the settlement payment was released from escrow
in December 2016. We had fully reserved for our obligations with
respect to the settlement. A portion of the settlement was covered
by our insurance policies and was funded by our insurers."

Zions Bancorporation is a financial holding company organized
under the laws of the State of Utah in 1955, and registered under
the BHC Act, as amended. The Parent owns and operates a commercial
bank with a total of 436 branches at year-end 2016.


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker &
Associates, P.C. The case is captioned as Aharon Stern, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01964 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2017).

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function
is debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


                         *********


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  * * *