CAR_Public/170510.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Wednesday, May 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 93



                            Headlines

ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Sergeants Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: American Plan Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Cesar Castillo Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local 1500 Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

AKORN INC: A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Reinstates Baggage Fee Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. California
AT&T SERVICES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Wage-and-Hour Suit
AUSTRALIA: Queensland Government Sued Over Palm Island Riots

AUSTRALIA: Creevey Russell Files Shattercane Weed Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Car Parts Class Action
BUFFALO TRACE: Seeks Dismissal of Whiskey False Labeling Suit
C.M.C. DRYWALL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CABLE NEWS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in VPPA Class Action

CAPFUSION LLC: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
EMILY CORP: Camp Drug Store Sues Over TCPA Violation
EXPRESS PAYROLL: "Medellin" Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CATALYST HEDGED: June 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action

EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Extends Initial Briefs Deadline
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimstad" Suit
FCA US: "Johnson" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
FCA US: "Rivero" Class Suit Included in MDL 2777
FCA US: "Rothe" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777

FLINT, MI: Benesch Attorney Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling
FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
FOUGERA PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
FOUGERA PHARMA: St. Paul Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
FOUGERA PHARMA: United Food Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania

LANNETT COMPANY: 1199SEIU Nat'l Fund Suit Transferred to Penn.
FOX NEWS: Reporter Files New Discrimination Suit in New York
FOX NEWS: Reporter's Complaints are Baseless, Says News Firm
FOX NEWS: Pressure Over Abusive Workplace Unlikely to Go Away
FU HING: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers

FYRE MEDIA: Faces $100MM Fraud Class Action Over Fyre Festival
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Newspaper Surcharges
GERON CORP: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GERON CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System Unconstitutional, Court Rules

HERTZ: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action
HOME CITY: May 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
HONDA: Malaysian Family Files Suit in US Over Air Bag Defect
HUAWEI DEVICE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Smartphone
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: "Gorbatchev" Sues for Defective Nexus Phones

IDAHO: Dismissal of "Tucker" Suit Partly Affirmed
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action
IRS PAINTERS: "Chacon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $110.5MM in Talc Powder Case
KENMORE: Settles Consumers' Barbecue Grill Class Action

LANNETT COMPANY: American Fed. Fund Suit Transferred to Penn.
LANNETT COMPANY: Plumbers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
LULAROE: Takes Steps to Rectify Defective Leggings Issue

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MDL 1700: Class Deal in FedEx Employment Practices Suit OK'd
MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Flores" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
MONSANTO: Former EPA Director Taken to Court in Glyphosate Case
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

NUVASIVE INC: Judge Denies Request to Stay Kickback Class Action
ORACLE CORP: Denial of "Matam" Suit Class Certification Affirmed
OUNZE CORPORATE: "Rives" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
POLK FOUNDATION: "Confair" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay
PUERTO RICO: Bondholders File Suits After Litigation Freeze Ends

PURDUE PHARMA: Settles OxyContin Class Action for $20 Million
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Shareholders File Class Action Against Board
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: "Dickon" Suit Seeks Class Certification

SAFEWAY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Pay Class Action
STEAK 'N SHAKE: Must Face ADA Class Action, Judge Rules
SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Gamory" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces GE Ingredients Labeling Class Action

TARO PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
TENNESSEE: DCS Prepares to Exit Court Foster Care Oversight
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Fee Award to Plaintiffs in Medicaid Suit
THIRD AVENUE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TILLIS PEST: Faces "Barbour" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

TREASURY WINE: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Mediation
US CONCRETE: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: August 30 TCPA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

* Congressman Trey Gowdy Supports Class Action Reform Bill
* DOL's Fiduciary Rule Spurs Changes Despite Implementation Delay
* FDA Calories Labeling Rule Carries Legal Risks for Food Chains
* New NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra May Undo Pro-Union Changes
* OSC's Whistleblower Program Faces Criticism

* Use of Pelvic Mesh Subject of Senate Inquiry in Australia




                            *********


ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Sergeants Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated and American Federation Of State, County And
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan v.
Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., PLIVA,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., TEVA Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and UPSHER-Smith
Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-980, was transferred on April
18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01771-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Christina H.C. Sharp, Esq.
      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
      Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California St 14th Fl.
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com
              chc@girardgibbs.com
              dcg@girardgibbs.com
              smg@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway 27th Fl.
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

The Defendant Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is represented by:

      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

The Defendant Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by:

      D. Jarrett Arp, Esq.
      Melanie L. Katsur, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
      WASHINGTON, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 955-8678
      E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com
              mkatsur@gibsondunn.com

         - and -

      Indraneel Sur, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      200 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10166
      Telephone: (212) 351-2474
      E-mail: isur@gibsondunn.com

The Defendant Mylan Inc. is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
      Michael S. Sommer, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 497-7728
      E-mail: jbank@wsgr.com
              msommer@wsgr.com

The Defendant PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. is represented by:

      John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
      Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq.
      Sarah F. Teich, Esq.
      WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
      725 Twelfth St., N.W.
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 434-5901
      E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
              obanuelos@wc.com
              steich@wc.com

The Defendant Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:

      Devora W. Allon, Esq.
      Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      Nathan Edmund Taylor, Esq.
      KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
      601 Lexington Ave
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-5967
      E-mail: devora.allon@kirkland.com
              lefkowitz@kirkland.com
              nate.taylor@kirkland.com


ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: American Plan Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned American Federation of State
County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health &
Security Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., PLIVA, Inc., Mylan
Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., PAR
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Heritage
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-1039, was
transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District
Court Southern District of New York to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01772-CMR to the
proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan Patrick Glackin, Esq.
      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
      Michelle Lamy, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      275 Battery St 29th Fl.
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
              efastiff@lchb.com

         - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
      1904 Third Ave Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
      Sona Ramesh Shah, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
      41 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
              sshah@zsz.com

The Defendant Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is represented by:

      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

The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by:

      Chul Pak, Esq.
      Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
      Michael S. Sommer, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 497-7728
      E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com
              jbank@wsgr.com
              msommer@wsgr.com

The Defendant Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is represented by:

      John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
      Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq.
      Sarah F. Teich, Esq.
      WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
      725 Twelfth St., N.W.
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 434-5901
      E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
              obanuelos@wc.com
              steich@wc.com

The Defendant Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by:

      D. Jarrett Arp, Esq.
      Melanie L. Katsur, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
      WASHINGTON, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 955-8678
      E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com
              mkatsur@gibsondunn.com

         - and -

      Indraneel Sur, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      200 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10166
      Telephone: (212) 351-2474
      E-mail: isur@gibsondunn.com

The Defendant Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:

Devora W. Allon, Esq.
      Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      Nathan Edmund Taylor, Esq.
      KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
      601 Lexington Ave
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-5967
      E-mail: devora.allon@kirkland.com
              lefkowitz@kirkland.com
              nate.taylor@kirkland.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Cesar Castillo Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco
U.S., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Perrigo Company PLC,
Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Case No. 17-00250, was transferred on April 18, 2017,
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01767-CMR to the proceeding.

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

ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local 1500 Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Actavis
Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc.,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 16-09792, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from
the United States District Court for the Southern District New
York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-01765-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      Robin Vandermeulen, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              jhimes@labaton.com
              kgarvey@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com
              rvandermeulen@labaton.com


AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BING LI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETERNA ZENTARIS
INC., DAVID A. DODD, JUERGEN ENGEL, DENNIS TURPIN, JUDE DINGES,
RICHARD SACHSE and PAUL BLAKE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-
07081-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an
order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification of:

      "persons or entities that purchased Aeterna securities on a
      U.S. Exchange or in a U.S. transaction during the period
      from August 30, 2011 through November 6, 2014, both dates
      inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who did not sell such
      securities prior to November 6, 2014 (Class);

   2. appointing Mr. Dinh, Mr. Khodavandi, and Dr. Vizirgianakis
      as Class Representatives, and

   3. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay &
      Murray LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class (Class Counsel)
      and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello as
      Liaison Counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k4X92GEi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          John M. Agnello, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994 1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
                  mrago@carellabyrne.com
                  zbower@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313 1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AKORN INC: A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled A.F. OF L.- A.G.C. Building Trades
Welfare Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Fougera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd.,
and Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 16-08469, was
transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01757-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      600 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 577-0040
      E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

The Defendant AKORN, INC. is represented by:

      Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq.
      KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
      1036 Franklin
      River Forest, IL 60305
      Telephone: (312) 862-2382
      E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.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

The Defendant Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by:

      Laura S. Shores, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      600 Massachusetts Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

         - and -

      Margaret A. Rogers, Esq.
      Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      250 West 55th Street
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 836-7830
      E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com
              saul.morgenstern@apks.com

The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented
by:

      David Neil Cinotti, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      1270 Avenue of The Americas, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 307-5500
      E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com

         - and -

      James Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
      Lisa Jose Fales, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      575 - 7th Street North West
      Washington, DC 20004-1601
      Telephone: (202) 344-4703
      Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
      E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com
              ljfales@venable.com

The Defendant Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc.is represented by:

     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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Reinstates Baggage Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has
reinstated a lawsuit seeking the return of baggage fees to
passengers whose luggage was delayed or lost on flights with an
airline that merged with American Airlines.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on May 3 that the
lawsuit provided sufficient evidence for its claim that the former
US Airways promised to deliver bags when passengers landed.

The ruling overturned a lower-court decision that dismissed the
lawsuit.  A spokesman for American Airlines said the company was
reviewing the decision and considering its legal options.

The plaintiff, Hayley Hickcox-Huffman, sought her $15 baggage fee
after her bag did not show up on a carousel following a US Airways
flight to California.

Her lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of other
passengers like her.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against American Medical
Supply Center, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive.

The case is captioned Mynor F. Portillo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Medical Supply
Center, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-02932 (C.D.
Cal., April 18, 2017).

American Medical Supply Center, Inc. provides home medical
equipment supplies, sales, rentals, and service to consumers in
the bay area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T SERVICES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in San Francisco has denied AT&T Services Inc's bid to dismiss a
wage-and-hour lawsuit accusing the telecommunications giant of not
paying its training specialists overtime as required by state and
federal law.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on April 28 that a jury
should decide whether the plaintiffs qualified for the Fair Labor
Standards Act's administrative exemption from overtime
eligibility, which turns on whether they exercised independent
judgment on significant matters.  The plaintiffs are represented
by Outten & Golden and Posner & Rosen. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Queensland Government Sued Over Palm Island Riots
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Branco, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that a class
action against the Queensland government over a "racist" police
response to an infamous death in custody, and resulting riots on
Palm Island, could cost almost $40 million, lawyers claim.

A Federal Court decision in December found police were racist in
responding to Cameron "Mulrunji" Doomadgee's death and the unrest
that followed, paving the way for further action.

Riot ringleader Lex Wotton and two of his family members were
awarded $220,000 but the decision opened the door for many more
affected members of the Palm Island community to claim
compensation.

While Mr Wotton, his wife and mother were the plaintiffs, they
were acting as representatives for the whole of Palm Island under
the Racial Discrimination Act.

A class action notice was filed to the Federal Court on
April 28, setting out details of the suit and who could claim.

Broadly speaking, the eligible "group" was Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders living on Palm Island when Mr Doomadgee died on
November 19, 2004, who still usually lived there on March 25, 2010
but not all would be eligible, according to the notice.

Those arrested or whose homes were raided by SERT officers during
the riots, or who wanted to leave or return to the island while it
was in a state of emergency, could be eligible.

Levitt Robinson Solicitors senior partner Stewart Levitt --
SLevitt@levittrobinson.com -- whose firm represented Mr Wotton,
said close to 500 people had signed on to the class action.

He said if the lawsuit ran its course, the government could be
liable for $20 million, plus almost as much in interest.

However, it was more likely the action would end in a settlement
after negotiations.

"Not all of them have in-principle claims.  Some of them were too
remote from the situation to expect to be compensated," Mr Levitt
said.

"On the other hand there are instances where people suffered in  a
manner which you wouldn't not necessarily anticipate.

"For example where because there was a state of emergency and
there was a ban on all commercial travel to and from Palm Island
for a couple of days, that meant that in some instances, there was
a mother that was . . . trapped in Palm Island when her child was
in intensive care in Townsville and so forth.

"People couldn't travel and they were traumatised by the emotional
separation they experienced."

Mr Mulrunji died in police custody after Senior Sergeant Chris
Hurley arrested him for hurling what he considered abuse.

The intoxicated 36-year-old struggled and fell with the officer,
before he was "dragged limp and unresponsive into a cell" and died
within an hour, according to Justice Debbie Mortimer's December
decision.

She stated police officers investigating Mr Mulrunji's death would
have acted differently in a remote non-Aboriginal community.

It found they did not ac impartially and independently,
highlighting that Senior Sergeant Hurley was never treated as a
suspect and in fact, picked the investigators up from the airport
and took them to his home for a meal.

A preliminary autopsy report finding Mr Mulrunji's death was an
accident despite his four broken ribs and a liver almost cleaved
in two sparked a riot, which Mr Wotton was eventually convicted of
inciting.

The state government initially appealed the finding, before
withdrawing in February.

A jury acquitted Senior Sergeant Hurley of Mr  Mulrunji's
manslaughter in 2007.

When contacted on May 1, police were not able to immediately
respond.

A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Yvette D'ath said the notice
was ordered by the Federal Court and set a deadline for people to
sign up for the class action.

That deadline is June 30. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Creevey Russell Files Shattercane Weed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a Queensland
law firm has announced it has lodged a class action which it says
is the first of its kind.

Creevey Russell Lawyers has lodged a claim in the Queensland
Supreme Court on behalf of sorghum growers impacted by the
aggressive shattercane weed produced by contaminated seeds.

Creevey Russell principal Dan Creevey said the class action by the
firm marks the first representative proceeding filed in the
Supreme Court of Queensland, following amendments to the Civil
Proceedings Act in November last year.

He noted the team was very proud to be the first to file such a
"historic claim".

"Shattercane grows rapidly and competes aggressively with crop
plants, significantly reducing yield, quality and value of
harvested seed, so this is a massive issue for growers,"
Mr Creevey said.

"Australia's agricultural industry earns more than $155 billion-a-
year, but certain sectors of the industry could be under
significant threat due to contaminated seeds.

"Contaminated seeds can carry disease, produce low-grade harvests
which may also in turn produce sterile seeds if contaminated with
weed seed. The contaminated seed can be resistant to pesticides
and normal processes of crop control."

Mr Creevey is calling for affected growers to come forward by
registering via an online portal.  He noted that the firm is keen
to meet with more sorghum growers impacted by shattercane.

"If shattercane is costing you time and money to control and you
are concerned about the financial impact on you and the value of
your property, then Creevey Russell Lawyers are here to assist,"
he said.

"If you purchased seed contaminated with shattercane weed, then
you may have a claim to financial compensation.  If you believe
that your property may be affected by seed that has been
contaminated, please contact Creevey Russell Lawyers for a no
obligation discussion on your concerns.  Our rural property law
team have a wide experience in advising primary producers."[GN]


AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Car Parts Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that AutoZone Inc.
and S.A. Gear Co. Inc. told an Illinois federal judge that
allegations about a defective car part cannot go forward as a
class action, arguing on April 28 that identifying class members
would require people to take apart their car engines, among other
hurdles.

Difficulties in identifying class members who bought the at-issue
part -- an allegedly defective timing chain tensioner for use in
Chrysler or Dodge engines -- and determining whether the putative
class members relied on the companies' representations about its
function when buying the tensioner make it impossible to certify
the class, the companies told U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle
in separate briefs.

Similarly, the vast differences in state consumer fraud laws,
which the suit relies on for relief for its claim the companies
knew the parts were defective when they sold them, prevents the
suit from making claims on behalf of a nationwide class, according
to parts maker S.A. Gear and parts retailer AutoZone.

"In short, this is a putative class action that has no business
being certified for class treatment, under any circumstances,"
S.A. Gear argued.  "Were it to be so certified, it would be (in
the words Judge Posner) 'a nightmare of a class action.'"

Plaintiffs Steve Williamson and Rhonda LeMaster had pointed to a
ruling from Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner's Seventh Circuit as
reason for why their proposed class should be certified, saying
the appellate court held that perfect commonality is unnecessary
in cases of consumer fraud class actions.

Holding classes who purchased a low-cost consumer product to that
standard "would eviscerate consumer-fraud class actions," the
appeals court had written.

The low cost of the part in question, the consumer fraud the suit
alleges, and the class members' potential injury if the part fails
make the case "the reason why class actions exist,"
Mr. Williamson and Ms. LeMaster told Judge Yandle in their motion
for class certification.

Mr. Williamson and Ms. LeMaster had filed their suit in 2015,
claiming Williamson purchased the part to replace the timing chain
tensioner in Ms. LeMaster's car from AutoZone.  The part failed
after just a few days, the suit claims, so Williamson bought
another and replaced it again, only to have it fail for a second
time.

Judge Yandle said in January 2017 the pair's claim that the
companies sold the customers the parts with the knowledge they
were likely to fail -- a claim brought under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act -- could go forward.
The suit claims the product's website and packaging contained
promises of strength and durability, promises Judge Yandle said
could constitute a warranty under Illinois law.

In their certification motion, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify a nationwide class of people who purchased the part from
AutoZone or a class of Illinois residents who purchased it.

But the companies said on April 28 that the nationwide class is
impossible because of the differences in state consumer fraud
laws.  Plus, each class member will have to first find out if they
have the part in their car and then show how they were misled by
the part's packaging, or prove that a specific flaw in the part
described in the suit was the reason it failed in their car, the
companies said.

They also criticized the lead counsel and lead plaintiffs' ability
to represent the class.  Ms. LeMaster did not purchase the part in
question at all, and Williamson did not own the car that contained
it when the part failed, the companies said.

And the fact the proposed lead counsel has not provided an expert
opinion at this stage in the litigation is troubling, the
companies added.

"The absence of any expert testimony in support of plaintiff's
claims at this stage is unusual, to say the least, in this type of
class action litigation, and raises questions about counsel's
commitment to the case or, alternatively, whether counsel was
simply unable to find any expert to support the claims," S. A.
Gear wrote.  "Neither possibility bodes well for the class."

Attorneys for the putative class did not respond to requests for
comment on May 1.

The putative class is represented by John J. Driscoll and Gregory
Pals of the Driscoll Firm PC.

AutoZone is represented by Jonathan D. Jay, Michael R. Cashman and
Anne T. Regan of Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC. S.A. Gear is represented
by Jonathan H. Garside and Sarah B. Mangelsdorf of Fox Galvin LLC.

The case is Williamson v. S.A. Gear Co. Inc. et al., case number
3:15-cv-00365, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. [GN]


BUFFALO TRACE: Seeks Dismissal of Whiskey False Labeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that distilleries
that have been accused of falsely labeling their products have
filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against
them.

Buffalo Trace Distillery Inc., Old Charter Distillery Co. and
Sazerac Co. Inc. are the defendants that on April 6 requested that
the lawsuit be dismissed.

Plaintiffs Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino and
Daniel Pope, who were customers, claimed the companies engaged in
false advertising regarding the age of Buffalo Trace bourbon.

The plaintiffs claim they lost money when they bought the whiskey,
believing it to be bourbon that was aged eight years.

The defendants state that the label indicates the product was aged
for eight seasons, not years, and therefore the plaintiffs
misunderstood the label.

"No reasonable consumer would transform a naked number '8' into
saying that the bourbon 'has been aged for 8 years,' or translate
'seasons' into 'years,'" the companies argued in the motion for
dismissal.

In their motion, the defendants state that the plaintiffs' claims
are barred by a safe harbor defense.

"The safe harbor applies because the number 8 and the term 'eight
seasons' on Old Charter's label are authorized by federal law, as
regulated by the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau," the motion states.

They also say their motion should be granted as the plaintiffs
failed to identify the state law they were bringing their action
under.

In addition, the companies assert that the plaintiffs' common law
claims fail because the label does not imply warranty, there is no
privity of contract and that the plaintiffs cannot plead a duty of
care that was breached

They have requested an oral argument on the motion, "because it
will provide the court with a material understanding of the
reasons warranting dismissal of this action with prejudice."

The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Eastern Missouri. [GN]


C.M.C. DRYWALL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
laborer alleges his former Kenner employer failed to pay the
correct rate for overtime work and has filed a class-action suit.

Horian Elias Maradiaga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed a complaint, on April 14 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
C.M.C. Drywall Inc. and Tulio Murillo alleging that they violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
2013 and August 2016, plaintiff suffered monetary damages for not
being paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  The plaintiff holds C.M.C.
Drywall Inc. and Murillo responsible because the defendants
allegedly paid him regular wages instead of the proper overtime
pay rate.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid overtime
wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and
such other general and equitable relief as the court deems
equitable.  He is represented by Roberto Luis Costales, William H.
Beaumont and Emily A. Westermeier of Beaumont Costales LLC in New
Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-03469[GN]


CABLE NEWS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in VPPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Forrest, Esq., of Covington & Burling LLP, in an article for
In Perry v. Cable News Network, the Eleventh Circuit dealt another
loss to putative class-action plaintiffs seeking to use the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") as a weapon against free online
video services.  The court affirmed that to be a "subscriber" of a
video service -- someone who can sue under the VPPA -- one must
have a genuine commitment, relationship, or association with that
service.  Because the Perry plaintiff could not show that, he
lost.

The VPPA creates a cause of action for video service providers
that disclose their consumers' personally identifiable information
alongside their viewing information.  The typical Internet example
is a paid video service that gives an advertiser a paying
subscriber's email address and viewing history.

To sue under the VPPA, a person must be a "consumer."  The VPPA
defines that term as meaning a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of
goods or services from a video service provider.  "Subscriber" has
raised the question of whether someone who downloads and uses a
free app can be a "consumer" who can sue under the VPPA.  At least
in the Eleventh Circuit, Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc. answered
that question: something more than mere use is needed. Instead,
Ellis held that a proper VPPA plaintiff needs "some type of
commitment, relationship, or association (financial or otherwise)"
between the plaintiff and the video service provider.

In Perry, the district court relied on Ellis to dismiss plaintiff
Perry's suit without leave to amend because he was merely a user
of CNN's free app.  Perry argued he could state a VPPA claim
because he subscribed to CNN's television channel through his
cable package.  This cable subscription let Perry access exclusive
content via the CNN app.  Perry said this made him a CNN app
subscriber.  He also said he paid CNN indirectly through his cable
subscription.  Perry appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on those
theories.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Perry's arguments.  It ruled that
under Ellis, subscribers must have commitments, relationships, or
associations with the video service provider itself.  But as the
court explained, Perry's relationship to CNN was not direct.  He
paid his cable company, not CNN, to be able to watch CNN on his
TV.  He did not even register an account on CNN's app.  Nor did he
give CNN any personal information like an email address, credit
card number, or GPS location.  Although he did log into the CNN
app to view exclusive content, he did so using his cable provider
credentials, not CNN credentials.  At most he downloaded CNN's app
and perhaps acknowledged that he had a cable TV subscription.
Such conduct, the Eleventh Circuit concluded, was only "ephemeral
investment and commitment" to CNN itself, nothing close to what
being a "subscriber" demands under Ellis.

The court also rejected Perry's argument that CNN's indirect
receipt of money, through Perry's paying his cable provider, made
Perry a CNN subscriber.  As the court explained, this shed no
light on Perry's commitment to CNN itself. For instance, if the
cable provider removed CNN from its package, Perry could still use
the app unimpeded.  So the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision to dismiss Perry's complaint without leave to
amend.

Separately, CNN had argued that Perry had no standing to bring his
case at all. It based this argument on the Supreme Court's holding
in Spokeo v. Robbins: a bare procedural violation of a statute
does not create standing because that violation may not cause, or
present any risk of, harm to the plaintiff.  But the Eleventh
Circuit ruled that Perry had not just alleged a bare procedural
violation of the VPPA. Rather, it ruled that violating a person's
privacy interests -- like the right not to have personal
information about video viewing disclosed -- is a harm even if it
is intangible.

Perry is another win for VPPA defendants. Even without a Spokeo
bar to standing, the narrowing of the "subscriber" definition may
make VPPA cases less palatable to the plaintiff's bar.[GN]


CAPFUSION LLC: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capfusion, LLC; Ryan Sullivan; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-00717
(C.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Capfusion, LLC and Ryan Sullivan, in negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on their cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Capfusion, LLC provides financial lending, and business
consultation for companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


EMILY CORP: Camp Drug Store Sues Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Emily Corporation d/b/a DDP Medical Supply,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00397 (S.D. Ill., April 14, 2017)
seeks to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant has sent advertisements by facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the regulations the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"), says the complaint.

Emily Corporation wholesales medical and surgical instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
   Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
   David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
   Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
   134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: 312-658-5500
   Fax: 312-658-5555


EXPRESS PAYROLL: "Medellin" Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Medellin, Benigno Aguilar, Eliazar Ochoa, and Rodolfo
Olivares, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Express Payroll, Inc. Robert Wayne Hutto d/b/a A&W
Services; Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. and Nabors Industries,
Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01232 (S.D. Tex., April 19, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a land-based drilling rig fleet and
provides related services to its customers in the oilfield
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Centre
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

         - and -

      Ross A. Sears, Esq.
      SEARS & CRAWFORD, LLP
      1200 Rothwell Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 223-3333
      Facsimile: (713) 223-3331
      E-mail: ross@searscrawford.com

CATALYST HEDGED: June 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until June 27, 2017 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:HFXAX)
(NASDAQ:HFXCX) (NASDAQ:HFXIX), if they purchased the Fund's Class
A, C and I shares between November 1, 2014 and April 28, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Catalyst Fund and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 27, 2017.

                      About the Lawsuit

Certain of the Fund's executive officers and/or trustees and
others are charged with failing to disclose material information
during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but not limited to, that: (i) the Fund's prospectuses declared
"[T]he Fund employs strict risk management procedures to adjust
portfolio exposure as necessitated by changing market conditions";
(ii) despite converting from hedge fund to a more risk-limiting
mutual fund, it continued to invest using a heightened risk
strategy; and (iii) as a result, the Fund's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Valerie Bolden-Barrett, writing for HR Drive, reports that CNN
faces a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by
about 175 former and current employees, the New York Business
Journal reports.  The lawsuit follows similar allegations against
Fox News and The New York Times.

Lead plaintiffs Celeslie Henley, a CNN executive assistant, and
Ernest Colbert Jr., a former manager at CNN affiliate Turner
Broadcasting System, claim the media organization is "rife with
racism" and "bigoted remarks," according to the Journal.

The plaintiffs allege that the following is one example of the
remarks made: "Who would be worth more: black slaves from times
past, or new slaves?" Henley and Colbert Jr. also claim that CNN
paid them less than their white counterparts.

Dive Insight:

Allegations of racism and bigotry against news organizations,
sadly, aren't new.  The recent spate of high-profile lawsuits
highlighted a longstanding issue for the industry.  The National
Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) issued a statement on its
website in reaction to allegations of racial discrimination
against CNN competitor Fox News.

"We've seen downsizing and layoffs in U.S. newsrooms that have had
a disproportionate effect on the number of working black
journalists," NABJ President Sarah Glover said in the statement.
"No one working in the media industry today should be subjected to
discriminatory practices. This has to end."

HR should always be at the forefront of addressing systemic issues
surrounding workplace diversity and discrimination issues. The
recent CNN lawsuit includes allegations that go beyond hiring
discrimination and detail claims of a workplace environment
hostile to underrepresented groups. Accusations of bias,
discrimination, racism and/or hostility must be taken seriously
and investigated, lest media fall the way of the tech industry.

Part of that self-examination includes reviewing hiring practices
to eliminate bias.  Are African-Americans, women and other under-
represented groups being recruited for only entry-level or
clerical jobs? Are they being developed for leadership roles?

A workplace in which discriminatory behavior and discourse are
tolerated could have financial as well as legal consequences for
employers.  Corporate sponsors of former Fox News host Bill
O'Reilly's show pulled their ads following sexual harassment
allegations that ended in his termination.

Employers should intervene when discriminatory claims arise and be
mindful of the possible consequences if they don't. Even simple
steps like taking names off of resumes have proven effective for
addressing hiring bias in some cases.  On the horizon, recruiting
technology in the form of AI and machine learning could play a
much bigger part in reducing bias. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Extends Initial Briefs Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard M. Bloom, Esq. -- BloomH@jacksonlewis.com -- and Philip B.
Rosen, Esq. -- RosenP@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C.,
in an article for The National Law Review, report that the Supreme
Court extended the deadline for initial briefs from April 28, 2017
to June 9, 2017 in three consolidated cases raising the issue
whether arbitration agreements between individual employees and
their employers that bar the employees from pursuing work-related
claims on a collective or class basis are lawful under the
National Labor Relations Act.  Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No.
16-285; Ernst & Young LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al., No. 16-300;
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-307. The Court granted the extension pursuant to a request
by the Acting Solicitor General of the United States.

Raising the possibility the government may decide to change its
position on whether such agreements are unlawful, in his request,
the Acting Solicitor General wrote, "[T]he current briefing
schedule is no longer adequate for the government [because] . . .
[t]he Acting Solicitor General is engaged in a process of
reviewing the position of the United States in these cases" and
that he "must . . . consult with new leadership within the
government." [GN]


FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimstad" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein granted in part and denied in part, the
motion filed by the defendant, FCA US LLC ("New Chrysler"), to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the adversary proceeding
captioned LYNN GRIMSTAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, et
al., Defendants, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01204 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiffs own vehicles that were manufactured and sold by the
debtors, collectively Old Carco LLC.  After New Chrysler,
purchased Old Carco's assets and continued its operations, New
Chrysler recalled the vehicles, attempted to fix a pre-existing
glitch, but according to the plaintiffs, made the situation worse.
The plaintiffs sued, and following the transfer of the lawsuit to
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York, New Chrysler moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint
arguing that their claims were barred by the sale order issued by
the Court on June 1, 2009.  The crux of New Chrysler's argument is
that the plaintiffs' claims are premised on the existence of a
pre-sale manufacturing defect.  The plaintiffs, however, argued
that New Chrysler's fault lies not in its failure to fix a
purported pre-existing defect, but in its disabling of features
during the recall that were previously functioning in the
vehicles.

Judge Bernstein ruled that the First Amended Complaint is
dismissed to the extent that it alleges that New Chrysler failed
to fix a pre-sale defect in the vehicles, but is otherwise denied
without prejudice to the parties' respective rights to raise the
issues on whether the disabling of the four-wheel drive capability
during the recall as alleged by the plaintiffs gave rise to an
independent claim under non-bankruptcy law, or is barred by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Bernstein's April 28, 2017 memorandum
decision is available at https://is.gd/Xf7dv8 from Leagle.com.

The bankruptcy case is In re: OLD CARCO LLC, et al., Chapter 11,
Debtors, Case No. 09-50002 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

Old Carco LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler LLC), Debtor, represented by
Corinne Ball -- cball@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, John E. Berg --
jberg@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PC, Lawrence V. Gelber --
lawrence.gelber@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Veerle
Roovers -- veerle.roovers@davispolk.com -- Jones Day, Benjamin
Rosenblum -- brosenblum@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Laurent
Stephan Wiesel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

RJM I, LLC, as Liquidation Trustee for Old Carco Liquidation
Trust, Liquidating Trustee, represented by Michael B. Solow --
michael.solow@apks.com -- Kaye Scholer LLP.

Manuel Mara, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apollo, A.O.E. Law
& Associates & Sedoo A. Manu -- sedoo@aoelaw.com -- A.O.E. Law &
Associates.

United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Andrew D.
Velez-Rivera, Office of the U.S. Trustee.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Chrysler LLC, et
al., Creditor Committee, represented by Philip Bentley --
pbentley@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel,
LLP, Thomas Moers Mayer -- tmayer@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Gregory G. Plotko -- gplotko@rkollp.com -
- Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP & Adam C. Rogoff --
arogoff@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee,
represented by Peter D'Apice -- d'apice@sbep-law.com -- Stutzman,
Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, P.C., Robert J. Feinstein --
rfeinstein@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP &
Robert T. Schmidt -- rschmidt@kramerlaw.com -- Kramer, Levin,
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.


FCA US: "Johnson" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Derek R. Johnson and Stonewall
J. Webster III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert
Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00047, filed on
March 28, 2017, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-cv-02146-EMC to
the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation no. 2777.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to the Honorable Edward M. Chen.

The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer,
manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components
and productions systems in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ann Ritter, Esq.
      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE, LLC
      28 Bridgeside Blvd.
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: aritter@motleyrice.com
              jrice@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Archie I. Grubb, Esq.
      W. Daniel Miles III, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
              dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

         - and -

      Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
      Eric B. Snyder, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
      Katherine E. Charonko, 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
              esnyder@baileyglasser.com
              jboggs@baileyglasser.com
              kcharonko@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      David S. Stellings, 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

         - and -

      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      Robyn R. English, 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
              renglish@bfalaw.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


FCA US: "Rivero" Class Suit Included in MDL 2777
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bret Rivero and Jamie Varnado,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA
U.S., LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00031, filed on January 12, 2017, was
transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02144-EMC to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation no. 2777.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to the Honorable Richard L. Bourgeois Jr.

The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer,
manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components
and productions systems in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Michaud, Esq.
      PATRICK MILLER LLC
      400 Poydras Ave., Suite 1680
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 527-5400
      E-mail: mmichaud@patrickmillerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Gary G. Hebert, Esq.
      MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
      601 Poydras Street, 12th Floor
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 596-2715
      Facsimile: (504) 596-2861
      E-mail: ghebert@mcglinchey.com


FCA US: "Rothe" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kirt Rothe and Catherine
Plaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert
Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00032, filed on
March 20, 2017, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-cv-02143-EMC to
the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation no. 2777.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to the Honorable Richard L. Bourgeois Jr.

The Defendants together with their subsidiaries, design, engineer,
manufacture, distribute, and sell passenger cars, LCVs, components
and productions systems in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Hafemann, Esq.
      21 W Park Avenue
      Savannah, GA 31401
      Telephone: (912) 226-6696
      Facsimile: (843) 645-6530
      E-mail: john@mja.law

         - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Telephone: (919) 600-5000
     Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
     E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      M. Diane Owens
      SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE & HIERS, LLP
      1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 874-8800
      Facsimile: (404) 888-6199
      E-mail: diane.owens@swiftcurrie.com


FLINT, MI: Benesch Attorney Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Gilman, Esq. -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that a statute, distilled to its
essence, is thought conveyed through words.  And when those words
are understandable and coherently arranged, there's nothing for
courts to do when adjudicating disputes involving them, other than
to apply them as written.

Simple, isn't it?

In theory, yes.  But theories don't wear judge's robes.

Fast forward to Flint, Michigan, and the water crisis it's been
enduring since 2014.  Let's let the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
set the stage:

"Prior to April 2014, Flint purchased treated water from the City
of Detroit.  Thereafter, the city began using the Flint River as
its water source.  The Flint River water was not treated with
corrosion-inhibiting chemicals, and this led to a multitude of
serious problems with the local water supply.  Residents
complained that the water was discolored and foul-smelling.  There
were reports of skin rashes, hair loss, and vomiting after
drinking and bathing in the water.  And most disturbingly, many
children in Flint were found to have high levels of lead in their
blood stream."

Lawsuits followed, including a putative class action filed during
July 2016 in a Michigan state court against one of the City of
Flint's engineering firms and one of its consultants.  The claims?
Negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and unjust enrichment.

Defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming that doing
was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act -- CAFA, for short
-- because the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the
putative class consisted of at least 100 persons, and "minimal"
geographic diversity between the parties existed (that is, at
least one class member was a citizen of a state different from
that of any defendant).

Plaintiff did not dispute these facts, but contended that the case
was not removable and should be bounced back to state court.  Why?
Because this case, it argued, was a "local controversy" under
CAFA, and therefore not eligible for removal.  A "local
controversy" is one in which more than two-thirds of the would-be
class members are citizens of the state in which the case was
first filed, at least one significant defendant is a citizen of
that same state, and the alleged injuries were incurred in that
state.

The district court sided with plaintiffs: this was, it held, a
local controversy, so it entered an order shipping the case back
to state court.

But there was a catch.  CAFA explicitly states that the local
controversy exception to federal jurisdiction does not apply if,
"during the 3-year period preceding the filing of [the] class
action," another "class action has been filed asserting the same
or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on
behalf of the same or other persons."  In other words, if, during
that three-year period, another similar class action had been
filed against any of the defendants, the case can be removed to
federal court -- even if it otherwise qualifies as a local
controversy under CAFA.

In fact, the statute's language is quite clear:  a federal
district court must decline jurisdiction over a local controversy
class action if, "during the 3-year period preceding the filing of
that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting
the same or similar factual allegations against any of the
defendants on behalf of the same or other persons."  (Emphasis
added.)

What does that mean?  It means that if any other class action
based on analogous facts had been filed against any of the same
defendants during that three-year period, the federal court can
adjudicate that lawsuit.  In fact, it must adjudicate the lawsuit
if the other requirements for CAFA removal have been met.

And therein, the catch: In the Flint case, no fewer than five
similar class actions had been filed against the same defendants
over the water crisis during 2015 and 2016 alone.

If that's the case, shouldn't the federal court have held onto the
lawsuit after it was removed from state court?

One would think so.

Then why didn't it do so?

That's not entirely clear.  Apparently, it considered this case so
distinctly local -- so crisply confined to Flint, Michigan -- that
it felt that the case really, truly belonged in state court.
Quoting from the Sixth Circuit, "the district court acknowledged
that other class actions had been filed in the previous three
years but agreed with the plaintiffs that this case was a 'truly
local controversy' and remanded the case to state court."

Defendants believed otherwise.  They appealed to the Sixth Circuit
and argued that they properly removed the case to federal court
under CAFA's clear and unambiguous language.  And the Sixth
Circuit agreed.  It reversed the district court and essentially
told that court that it had to handle the case.  Its rationale?
Exactly what you'd expect:  "The plain language of CAFA offers a
simple answer to our inquiry.  The local controversy exception
will apply only if no other similar class action was brought
against any of the defendants in the instant action during the
three years preceding the filing of this case . . .   It is
undisputed that five class actions were brought, each advancing
very similar factual allegations[.]  And each action sued at least
one of the defendants currently in this suit.  Applying the
language of the exception to the facts before us, the local
controversy exception cannot apply.  The statutory language is
clear and unambiguous.  The federal court retains jurisdiction
pursuant to CAFA."

But what about the district court's belief that this really, truly
was a local controversy?

Let's let the Sixth Circuit answer that.  "It is true that the
injuries were suffered by Flint residents in Flint, Michigan.  In
the colloquial sense, then, the controversy is 'local.'  However,
it is not local in the way Congress contemplated in CAFA . . .
The language of CAFA defines by its own terms what qualifies as a
local controversy, and those requirements are not met in this
case."

In other words, the statute means what it says.

The case is Davenport v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., United
States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, case no. 17-200, and
the decision, issued April 25, 2017, can be found at
https://goo.gl/87syk4 [GN]


FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Philadelphia Federation of
Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz
Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo Company, and Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 17-00936, was transferred on
April 18, 2017, from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01769-CMR to the
proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3 Terry Dr. Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Telephone: (215) 867-2399
      Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
      E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com


FOUGERA PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Sandoz, Inc., Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Wockhardt USA LLC, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, IUOE Local 30
Benefit Fund, and UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, Case No. 16-7229,
was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01753-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California St 14th Fl
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com
              dcg@girardgibbs.com
              eak@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,LLP
      275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000

         - and -

      Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway 27th Fl
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

The Defendant Fougera Pharmceuticals, Inc. is represented by:

      Laura S. Shores, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      600 Massachusetts Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

         - and -

      Margaret A. Rogers, Esq.
      Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      250 West 55th Street
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 836-7830
      E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com
              saul.morgenstern@apks.com

The Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., INC.is represented by:

      Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq.
      KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
      1036 Franklin
      River Forest, IL 60305
      Telephone: (312) 862-2382
      E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.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

The Defendant Perrigo Company PLC is represented by:

      Andrew S. Wellin, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      101 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10178
      Telephone: (212) 309-6154
      E-mail: andrew.wellin@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      J. Clayton Everett Jr., Esq.
      Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
      Tracey F. Milich, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 739-3000
      E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com
              SStempel@morganlewis.com
              tracey.milich@morganlewis.com

The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented
by:

      David Neil Cinutti, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      1270 Ave OF THE Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 370-6279

         - and -

      James Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
      Lisa Jose Fales, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      575 - 7th Street North West
      Washington, DC 20004-1601
      Telephone: (202) 344-4703
      Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
      E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com
              ljfales@venable.com

The Defendant WOCKHARDT USA LLC is represented by:

      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

The Movant NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund is represented by:

      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 W Broadway Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Duane Louis Loft, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Ave.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-2300
      E-mail: dloft@bsfllp.com

The Movant IUOE Local 30 Benefit Fund is represented by:

      Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Ave 14th Fl
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com

The Movant UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund is represented by:

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com


FOUGERA PHARMA: St. Paul Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled St. Paul Electrical Workers'
Health Plan, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated v.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis International AG, Akorn,
Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Perrigo
New York, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Wockhardt
Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No.
16-CV-9530, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-01762-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
      123 Justison St
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Laura S. Shores, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      600 Massachusetts Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

FOUGERA PHARMA: United Food Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo
Company PLC, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Wockhardt USA LLC, Case No.
16-7979, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01754-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin N. Boley, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe St Ste 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com
              kaw@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway 27th Fl
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

The Defendant Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by:

      Laura S. Shores, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      600 Massachusetts Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

         - and -

      Margaret A. Rogers, Esq.
      Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      250 West 55th Street
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 836-7830
      E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com
              saul.morgenstern@apks.com

The Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. is represented by:

      Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Esq.
      KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
      1036 Franklin
      River Forest, IL 60305
      Telephone: (312) 862-2382
      E-mail: douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.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

The Defendant Perrigo Company PLC is represented by:

      Andrew S. Wellin, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      101 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10178
      Telephone: (212) 309-6154
      E-mail: andrew.wellin@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      J. Clayton Everett Jr., Esq.
      Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
      Tracey F. Milich, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 739-3000
      E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com
              SStempel@morganlewis.com
              tracey.milich@morganlewis.com

The Defendant Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is represented
by:

      David Neil Cinotti, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      1270 Avenue of The Americas, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 307-5500
      E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com

         - and -

      James Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
      Lisa Jose Fales, Esq.
      VENABLE LLP
      575 - 7th Street North West
      Washington, DC 20004-1601
      Telephone: (202) 344-4703
      Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
      E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com
              ljfales@venable.com

The Defendant Wockhardt USA LLC is represented by:

      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


LANNETT COMPANY: 1199SEIU Nat'l Fund Suit Transferred to Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Lannett Company, Inc.,
and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 16-09666, was
transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court for rhe Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01764-CMR to the proceeding.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan is New York City's
largest municipal public employee union.

Lannett Company, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develop,
manufacture, market and distribute generic versions of branded
pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan Patrick Glackin, Esq.
      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
      Michelle Lamy, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      275 Battery St 29th Fl.
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
              efastiff@lchb.com

         - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
      1904 Third Ave Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
      Sona Ramesh Shah, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
      41 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
              sshah@zsz.com

The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by:

     Ryan T. Becker, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
     2700 Kelly Rd., ste. 300
     Warrington, PA 18976
     Telephone: (215) 345-7500
     E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com

The Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by:

     Chul Pak, Esq.
     Jeffrey C. Bank, 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


FOX NEWS: Reporter Files New Discrimination Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a Fox News
contributor said in a lawsuit filed on May 1 that she was taken
off the air after writing an article about a medical condition
that would likely leave her infertile, in the latest of a series
of discrimination claims against the network.

Diana Falzone, 34, said in the lawsuit in New York state court
that despite writing many popular articles for Fox News' website
and routinely being praised for on-air appearances, she was
abruptly sidelined in January, three days after the article about
her struggle with endometriosis was published.

Ms. Falzone said Fox, a unit of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc,
discriminated against her on the basis of sex and disability in
violation of New York City law.

The network did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fox News has faced mounting legal claims that it ignored
employees' complaints of sexual harassment and gender and race
discrimination.

Bill O'Reilly, the network's most popular anchor, and former Fox
News chief Roger Ailes both have been ousted over harassment
claims by several women, which they deny.

In the May 1 lawsuit, Ms. Falzone said she was not given a reason
for being taken off the air.  She said she complained internally
using an employee hotline, but did not bring her concerns to
network executives because they had, for years, been "complicit in
covering up and enabling a hostile and harassing environment for
women at Fox News."

"Once Diana disclosed her condition, Fox executives decided she no
longer conformed to their image of on-air women as 'physically
perfect,'" Nancy Smith, Ms. Falzone's attorney, said in a
statement.

Ms. Smith and Martin Hyman filed a sexual harassment lawsuit last
year against Mr. Ailes on behalf of former Fox News anchor
Gretchen Carlson.  The lawsuit, which was settled for $20 million,
led to Mr. Ailes' resignation after two decades as one of the most
influential executives in cable television.

Fox News anchor Kelly Wright, who is black, and several other non-
white employees filed a lawsuit seeking class action status,
claiming they were mocked and humiliated because of their race and
paid less than white coworkers. Fox has denied the claims.

Fox News announced on May 1 that Bill Shine, co-president of the
network since August, has resigned.  A Fox News contributor sued
Shine last month, accusing the executive of failing to investigate
her claims of sexual harassment. [GN]


FOX NEWS: Reporter's Complaints are Baseless, Says News Firm
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former Fox News radio reporter
has sued the network and its parent company, saying she was fired
last month in "a blatant act of retaliation" for complaining about
gender discrimination.

21st Century Fox said on May 4 that Jessica Golloher's complaints
are baseless.

A radio reporter based in Israel, Ms. Golloher said in a lawsuit
that she had complained previously that her New York bosses
treated her poorly in comparison to male counterparts.  She said,
for instance, that she was essentially forced to work as an
assistant to a male colleague covering the 2014 Winter Olympics in
Russia.

Ms. Golloher said she was fired within 24 hours after reaching out
to a company hotline created in the wake of employee complaints.
Two Fox News executives and anchor Bill O'Reilly have been ousted
in recent months following accusations of harassment and racial
discrimination at the leading cable news network.

Fox contends that Ms. Golloher's contract wasn't renewed due to
budget cuts and that the executive who informed her of the
decision was unaware that she had reached out to the hotline, said
an executive who spoke under condition of anonymity because the
person is not authorized to discuss personnel issues.

"Jessica Golloher's claims are without merit," Fox said in a
statement.  "Her allegations of discrimination and retaliation are
baseless.  We will vigorously defend the matter."


FOX NEWS: Pressure Over Abusive Workplace Unlikely to Go Away
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bauder, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
stories about an abusive workplace at Fox News Channel aren't
likely to go away even after claiming the jobs of Roger Ailes,
Bill O'Reilly and Bill Shine.

The continued presence of other executives implicated in stories
about harassment, discrimination and intimidation complicate Fox's
ability to change its culture, both in practice and public
perception.  One of those executives was promoted with Fox's
announcement on May 1 that Mr. Shine, Fox's co-president since
founding CEO Roger Ailes was ousted last summer, had resigned.

"There's a case to be made that the place is so toxic and
radioactive and there's very little you can do unless you wipe out
everybody and start fresh," said David Lewis, CEO of
OperationsInc, a human resources provider based in Norwalk,
Connecticut.

Fox's parent 21st Century Fox is attempting the turnaround while
trying to protect its greatest asset -- a thriving, profitable
news network that's essential to its politically conservative fans
and thus far unhurt by ugly stories about its Manhattan
headquarters.  The risk in a sudden, wholesale housecleaning is
removing all of the people who know how to run it successfully.

Fox News has maintained its status as the top-ranked cable news
network despite the loss of Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, its top-
rated prime-time star.  Another Fox personality, Sean Hannity,
assured fans he was staying despite his public support for Shine,
a close colleague.  Mr. Shine had been accused of looking the
other way at behavior by Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, even
retaliating against people who complained.

Suzanne Scott, a 21-year Fox veteran who was promoted to president
of programming on May 1, has been named in three lawsuits filed
against Fox in recent months.

Andrea Tantaros, a Fox personality who had accused Mr. Ailes of
sexual harassment, said nothing had been done after she complained
of his behavior to Ms. Scott.  Similarly, news anchor Kelly
Wright, who has accused Fox of discriminatory behavior, said Scott
failed to address concerns he had expressed to her. Fox's Julie
Roginsky said in her lawsuit that Ms. Scott tried to recruit her
to disparage Gretchen Carlson, the anchor who was the first to
accuse Mr. Ailes of sexual harassment.  Ms. Scott said through a
spokeswoman that she never asked women to back Mr. Ailes.

Fox's chief counsel, Dianne Brandi, has also been mentioned
several times by former and current Fox employees who had concerns
about how they were treated.

The lawsuit on racial discrimination, of which Ms. Wright is among
13 plaintiffs, talks about an atmosphere of hostility created by
Judith Slater, Fox's since-fired comptroller.  One of the
plaintiffs, Monica Douglas, said she complained about
Ms. Slater's behavior to Ms. Brandi and was told Ms. Slater would
not be fired because "she knew too much" about the behavior of
other Fox executives.

Ms. Brandi has denied the accusations through a Fox spokeswoman,
and Ms. Slater has disputed the characterizations of her behavior
through a lawyer.

In that lawsuit, Ms. Douglas said that Slater told her not to
complain to the head of human resources at Fox, Denise Collins,
because she was a good friend and would do nothing to help her.
Ms. Collins remains at Fox, although the company appointed
Kevin Lord, an executive from outside of Fox who worked at NBC and
General Electric, as the new chief of human resources overseeing
her.

Another Fox News employee, Diana Falzone, sued the company saying
that she was told that Fox executives ordered that she no longer
appear on the air after she wrote an article in January for the
Fox website detailing her battle with endometriosis.

According to her complaint, "the male-dominated senior management
at Fox News obviously objected to the fact that a female on-air
host had disclosed she suffered from a women's reproductive health
condition which, in their eyes, detracted from her sex appeal and
made her less desirable."  Ms. Falzone said that male Fox
employees like Neil Cavuto and Bob Beckel faced no repercussions
for publicly discussing their own health issues.

Fox's public relations chief, Irena Briganti, was charged in
Ms. Tantaros' lawsuit with turning Fox's PR operations against her
when she complained about Mr. Ailes -- including the creation of
false social media accounts from which she was criticized. Fox has
denied the allegation.

Nancy Erika Smith, lawyer for Ms. Carlson, Ms. Roginsky and Ms.
Falzone, said that Shine's departure from Fox was an overdue
positive step.

"To begin to change the culture at Fox, there are others who have
enabled and encouraged the sexism that should be next, starting
with Dianne Brandi, Suzanne Scott and Irena Briganti," she said.

Attorney Lisa Bloom, who has represented women in harassment
complaints against Meessrs. Ailes and O'Reilly, also said Fox
needed to take more action.

"After decades of flouting the laws against sexual harassment and
retaliation, if the network wants to redeem itself, it should fire
all executives who were complicit in covering up for harassers and
driving out women who complained," she said.

The issue for Fox is in rebuilding trust among employees who feel
that their concerns about the workplace had not been listened to,
and that's difficult when some of the same executives are still
there, said Lewis, the human resources expert.

"People who were harassed are not going to feel safe," said
Rob Wilson, president of Employco, a human resources provider
based in Westmont, Illinois.

Since his start in January, Fox said Lord has begun building a new
human resources team, including new heads of recruiting and
diversity and a Washington-based executive to head human resources
in bureaus outside of New York.  Fox has also hired a new chief
financial officer, Amy Listerman, formerly CFO of Scripps Networks
Interactive, who began work last week.

21st Century Fox had no comment on May 2.  The company has,
however, noted the speed in which investigations proceeded and
action was taken against Messrs. Ailes and O'Reilly -- arguably
the two most prominent figures at the network.  In both cases, the
allegations against the men dated back years, and the men remained
with the company until recent media reports raised public
pressure.

Tom Vogel, a senior vice president for crisis communications at
JConnelly in New York, said the Murdoch family that controls 21st
Century Fox will probably face less investor tolerance for bad
behavior than in the past.  And nothing is more dangerous for them
than a threat to the bottom line.

"They may be dragged kicking and screaming, but Fox will
eventually do the right thing," Mr. Vogel said.  "However, the
longer it takes to take definitive measures, the longer it will
take to recover what they've lost."


FU HING: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Li, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly
situated v. Fu Hing Main Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Fuhing Chinese
Restaurant, Man Chee Li and Jia Xing Chen, Case No. 1:17-cv-10670
(D. Mass., April 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant named Fuhing
Chinese Restaurant located at 200 Main St, Haverhill,
MA 01830. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard M. Brown, Esq.
      BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW PC
      1170 Beacon St. Suite 200
      Brookline, MA 02446
      Telephone: (617) 566-8090
      E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com

         - and -

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


FYRE MEDIA: Faces $100MM Fraud Class Action Over Fyre Festival
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karma Allen and Joshua Hoyos, writing for ABC News, report that a
$100 million proposed class-action lawsuit filed on April 30
accused the Fyre Festival and its organizers of fraud, alleging
the music festival's "lack of adequate food, water, shelter, and
medical care created a dangerous and panicked situation among
attendees -- suddenly finding themselves stranded on a remote
island without basic provisions."

The suit, filed by Daniel Jung on behalf of himself and all
festival attendees, claimed the festival, which was promoted as a
supermodel-filled luxury concert event, was closer to ""The Hunger
Games" or "Lord of the Flies" than Coachella." It seeks damages
"in excess of" $100 million.

Multiple concertgoers said they were left stranded on the private
island of Fyre Cay over the weekend after officials placed the
event site on lockdown because, according to the tourism ministry,
Fyre organizers had allegedly failed to pay customs duty taxes on
items imported for the event.

Ticket packages for the now-postponed event reportedly sold for
between $4,000 to as much as $100,000 per person, according to the
suit and ticket purchasers.

In a statement released on April 30, Jung's attorney, Mark
Geragos, whose past clients include Michael Jackson and
Chris Brown, said Fyre organizers "need to step up and make this
right but unfortunately, the opposite has occurred."

The suit slams organizers, claiming the festival "was nothing more
than a get-rich-quick scam from the very beginning" and that they
"intended to fleece attendees for hundreds of millions of dollars
by inducing them to fly to a remote island without food, shelter
or water -- and without regard to what might happen to them after
that."

The suit also alleges that concertgoers were left without money to
pay for basic transportation, such as local taxis or buses because
organizers told attendees to upload money to a wristband for use
at the festival rather than bring any cash.

Filed in the Central District of California, the suit asserts
claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good
faith, and negligent misrepresentation.

It names the festival's creators -- rapper Ja Rule and tech
entrepreneur Billy McFarland -- as well as the Delaware-based Fyre
Media entity as defendants.

The organizers did not immediately respond to ABC News's attempts
to reach out for comment on the tourism ministry's statement and
the lawsuit.


GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Newspaper Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Howard, writing for Community Word, reports that a
settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit against GateHouse
Media by Massachusetts newspaper subscribers over special
surcharges billed for "premium edition" sections inserted into the
regular newspaper.

Plaintiffs charged that GateHouse failed to properly disclose
specific surcharges tagged onto regular newspaper subscriptions.

GateHouse Media owns the Journal Star which also publishes
"premium edition" sections and does not bill separately for a
regular subscription and the charge for "premium edition"
sections.

According to the Massachusetts lawsuit, GateHouse Media allegedly
charged customers $2 per issue for the "premium edition" but
rather than clearly billing them for the supplement or allowing
them to decline the supplement, the newspaper simply shortened the
subscription period for which customers had paid.

GateHouse Media disputes the allegations made in the Massachusetts
lawsuit and is not required to admit any liability under the
settlement of the class action.  The settlement covers all people
in Massachusetts who, between April 1, 2014, and March 21, 2017,
purchased a subscription to a GateHouse Media publication and
received one or more "premium edition" publications.
Additionally, these subscribers were not billed separately for the
"premium edition" but had the expiration date of their newspaper
subscription shortened to cover the cost of the "premium edition."

In another case, the Des Moines Water Works sued the drainage
districts of three northwestern Iowa counties over high levels of
nitrates contaminating Raccoon River, the source of drinking water
for 500,000 central Iowa customers.  Farmers who do not follow
organic, sustainable practices add nitrogen fertilizer to their
fields. Nitrates run off in rainwater and contaminate ditches,
streams and rivers, ultimately resulting in the dead zone in the
Gulf of Mexico.

The Des Moines Water Works has to pay $1.5 million a year to
reduce nitrate levels in water in order to make it safe to drink.

The lawsuit was long, bitter, costly and secretive.  It was not
clear who was paying the litigation fees on behalf of the three
counties named in the lawsuit, a cost estimated at more than $1
million for one county alone.  The answer was finally unearthed by
a small twice-weekly publication, the Storm Lake Times,
circulation 3,000. The answer earned the paper a Pulitzer Prize.

In announcing the prize several weeks ago, the Pulitzer board said
the paper's tenacious reporting "successfully challenged the
powerful corporate agriculture interests in Iowa."

The newspaper reported the secret funder of the defendants was the
Iowa Farm Bureau and the Iowa Corn Growers.  A federal judge has
since dismissed the lawsuit contending water quality is an issue
for the Iowa legislature, not the Des Moines Water Works.  A bill
is in the Iowa legislature seeking to dismantle the independent
board of the Des Moines Water Works that filed the lawsuit.

In Peoria, Illinois American Water Company must remove atrazine, a
weed killer, from drinking water.  Atrazine is applied on
industrial corn fields throughout central Illinois.  Like
nitrogen, atrazine runs off farm fields and contaminates streams,
rivers and lakes.  A class action lawsuit over atrazine in
municipal drinking water was litigated for more than a decade
against the manufacturer, Syngenta.  In an out-of-court
settlement, Syngenta agreed to pay more than $105 million to
municipal water systems that must incur the cost of removing the
weed killer from drinking water.  Atrazine was banned in the
European Union more than a decade ago but is still widely used in
the United States.

Syngenta was recently purchased for $43 billion by China National
Chemical Corp.

Neither the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit nor the Syngenta class
action lawsuit resulted in the elimination of toxic farm chemicals
running off farm fields and ending up in public drinking water.


GERON CORP: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Announces a Proposed Class Action Settlement
Involving All Persons who Purchased or Acquired Geron Common Stock
between December 10, 2012 and March 11, 2014

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF GERON CORPORATION ("GERON") FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012
THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 11, 2014 ("CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on July 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Charles R. Breyer, at the United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 6-17th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94102, for the purpose of determining (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Action for
the principal amount of $6,250,000 for the Class should be
approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered
by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement
Fund, less Litigation Expenses, and an award to the Class
Representative not to exceed $10,000, and expenses not to exceed
$200,000 should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED GERON COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 11, 2014, YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. You
may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement
of Class Action ("Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form by writing to Geron Corporation Securities
Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4153, Portland, OR
97208-4153, visiting the website
www.GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com, e-mailing the Claims
Administrator at
questions@GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com, or calling the
Claims Administrator toll free at 1-844-299-2263.  Inquiries other
than requests for the above-referenced documents may also be made
to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

Richard W. Gonnello
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue
26th Floor
New York, NY 10017

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than July 11, 2017, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery. NOTE THAT NO CLAIMS LESS THAN
$10.00 WILL BE PROCESSED OR PAID.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired GERON common stock (GERN)
and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 26, 2017, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice
referred to above.  All Class Members who do not timely and
validly request exclusions from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to the Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California at the address below and received no later than June
26, 2017:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36060
San Francisco, CA 94102

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: April 7, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

URL: www.GeronCorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com[GN]


GERON CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of holders of Astoria
Financial Corporation ("Astoria") (NYSE:AF) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Astoria by Sterling
Bancorp ("Sterling") announced on March 7, 2017 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Astoria, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
and Sterling, is captioned Parshall v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-02165 (E.D.N.Y.).

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

On March 6, 2017, Astoria entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sterling.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Astoria will receive 0.875
shares of Sterling common stock for each share of Astoria stock
they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Astoria stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to Astoria's financial projections, the analyses performed
by Astoria's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed
Transaction.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief
and damages on behalf of holders of Astoria common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 30, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States. [GN]


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Bail System Unconstitutional, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Flynn, writing for Houston Press, reports that almost
exactly 13 months ago, before civil rights groups sued Harris
County over its bail system, 46-year-old Patrick Brown was booked
into the Harris County jail, accused of stealing a guitar.  He
could not afford the $3,000 bail to buy his way out.  And, as for
the vast majority of misdemeanor defendants in Harris County, a
bail hearing officer denied him a personal bond -- even though
Brown had no violent criminal history.

Less than a day later, he was beaten to death in a holding cell.

It is without a doubt that Mr. Brown's case is the most tragic
representation of the inherent inequality of a bail system
allowing defendants with money to go free within hours of their
arrest while those without languish in jail until trial --
possibly losing their jobs, their homes, their scholarships and,
in rare cases, their lives.

But after a federal judge's landmark ruling on April 28, it is
possible, if the ruling stands, that this practice may be coming
to an end in Harris County once and for all.

The scathing, 193-page ruling issued by Chief U.S. District Judge
Lee H. Rosenthal finds that Harris County's bail system violates
the constitutional rights of poor, misdemeanor defendants.  For
many in the criminal justice community, that has been clear for
decades -- yet until now has "escaped any real scrutiny" from
federal courts, said lead plaintiffs' attorney Alec Karakatsanis
of Civil Rights Corps.

On April 28, Judge Rosenthal granted the plaintiffs a preliminary
injunction and ordered sweeping changes to the misdemeanor bail
system, ensuring that no low-level poor person will be stuck in
jail just because he or she can't pay to get out.  Under the
preliminary injunction -- which temporarily blocks Harris County's
current system -- Judge Rosenthal has ordered that all misdemeanor
defendants be released on a personal bond within 24 hours after
their arrest, if they haven't already bailed out, and if they
aren't subject to other holds.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, who has long supported
bail reform, called the ruling a "watershed moment in Harris
County criminal-justice history."

"[Poor people] have faced detention, sometimes for months, in
maximum-security facilities such as the Harris County Jail, when
in some instances, their offenses don't even warrant jail time
upon conviction," Mr. Ogg said.  "We welcome this ruling and will
comply fully with it."

Judge Rosenthal granted class-action status to all indigent
misdemeanor defendants, represented by the Civil Rights Corps,
Texas Fair Defense Project and Houston law firm Susman Godrey,
which all worked pro bono.  The county, meanwhile, has spent more
than $2 million in taxpayer dollars hiring three private law firms
on the case.  That includes a recently hired appellate attorney,
Charles Cooper -- at one time Donald Trump's frontrunner for
solicitor general -- who will assist the county in deciding
whether to appeal Rosenthal's ruling.

In making the case against Harris County, Judge Rosenthal didn't
just dismantle the entire foundation of secured money bail -- that
is, forcing people to pay some arbitrary sum before being released
from jail.  She also dismantled the baseless defenses Harris
County officials have used to justify the system for decades, at
one point saying county policymakers are "apparently unaware of
important facts about the bail-bond system in Harris County."

What follows is a close look at Judge Rosenthal's most compelling
findings.

1. "In Harris County, secured money bail is not just a de facto
pretrial detention order; it is literally a pretrial detention
order." -- Judge Rosenthal, page 94

This statement encompasses the basis of Judge Rosenthal's ruling.
It's key to note that in no way is Judge Rosenthal saying that
money bail for misdemeanor defendants is illegal in general.  The
problem in Harris County is how judges impose it.  Mainly,
Rosenthal found: They don't consider people's ability to pay, as
the Constitution requires.

Harris County Chief Public Defender Alex Bunin said that this
specific finding -- and the 193 pages supporting it -- is what
makes Judge Rosenthal's ruling historic.  For what appears to be
the first time, he said, a federal judge has ruled that imposing
too-high bail amounts on poor, low-level defendants -- without
considering whether they can pay it -- amounts to a detention
order for those people, which is illegal.  As Judge Rosenthal
notes, since the 13th century, bail has only been legal because it
is supposed to be a mechanism for people's release -- not an
excuse to continue detaining them.

"The principles that she's using are not new," Mr. Bunin said,
"but no one has ever decided a contested class-action case based
on how a bail schedule is applied to misdemeanor cases."

Judge Rosenthal pointed to data showing that bail hearing officers
stuck to the bail schedule in 88.9 percent of misdemeanor cases
from 2015 through January 2017 as evidence that they can't
possibly be making case-by-case considerations in setting bail.
During that time, 40 percent of misdemeanor defendants remained
incarcerated until their cases were disposed, and only 9.7 percent
were released on personal bonds.

Every day, more than 100 people remain in the Harris County Jail
because they can't pay a bondsman even 10 percent of their bail
amount.

2. County judges are defending a secured money bail system without
any proof that it's more effective than releasing people on
personal bonds.

As it turns out, there isn't any credible research the county
could point to proving that people have more incentive to show up
for court if forced to pay a monetary sum upfront, compared to if
they are released on a personal bond. Because in both cases, if
the person fails to show up, he or she is still on the hook for
the full bail amount.  What difference does it really make, then,
if the person must first pay a non-refundable, 10 percent premium
of the bail amount to a bondsman in order to get out?

Judge Rosenthal found, based on available research, that the
answer is slim to none.  In one of the most compelling passages of
the ruling, she rebuked county officials for holding fast to their
belief about the effectiveness of their money bail system without
having the evidence to back it up.

"The court finds and concludes that the Harris County policymakers
. . . have no adequate or reasonable basis for their belief that
for misdemeanor defendants, release on secured money bail provides
incentives for, or produces, better pretrial behavior than release
on [personal bonds].  The policymakers are apparently unaware of
important facts about the bail-bond system in Harris County, yet
they have devised and implemented bail practices and customs,
having the force of policy, with no inquiry into whether the bail
policy is a reasonable way to achieve the goals of assuring
appearance at trial or law-abiding behavior before trial."

The county paid an expert, who had some ties to the American Bail
Coalition, more than $13,000 to try to prove a secured money bail
system was the more effective system -- but Judge Rosenthal called
his research "critically flawed" and said his conclusions are "not
entitled to any weight."

In perhaps their flimsiest argument, lawyers for Harris County
also claimed that family and friends who can post bond on behalf
of a poor defendant -- calling them "co-indemnitors" -- provide
more incentive for people to appear in court. Rosenthal rejected
that argument in this one sentence: "On that basis, the homeless
and the friendless are denied release on personal bond because
they lack co-indemnitors."

3. The county's current bail reforms won't stop the county from
violating poor people's rights.

The county was hit with this lawsuit just as it was unveiling
reforms to the bail system -- and therefore argued that the
lawsuit should be dismissed or delayed because the reforms address
all the plaintiffs' concerns.  The plaintiffs, and Judge
Rosenthal, disagreed.

The reforms are, without a doubt, commendable.  Starting in July,
defendants will have public defenders representing them at bail
hearings to advocate for personal bonds.  A new, objective risk
assessment tool will help bail hearing officers decide who should
be released on a personal bond and who poses a flight risk. And
for the first time in roughly 40 years, the county is revising the
bail schedule itself.

But as Judge Rosenthal noted, because the county's system will
still revolve around upfront secured money bail, none of these
reforms guarantee that the rights of poor people will be
protected.

This is why: On a regular basis, Rosenthal notes, hearing officers
and county judges are well aware that people charged with crimes
of poverty -- petty theft, trespassing, begging -- are assigned
bails that are obviously out of reach, resulting in their
automatic detention.  The judges know there is an "unwritten
custom" to deny all homeless people personal bonds because of a
perceived risk that they'll not come to court.  They know that
hearing officers deviate from the bail schedule only 10 percent of
the time and that, for whatever reason, they ignore Pretrial
Services recommendations for personal bonds two-thirds of the
time.

And yet, "The County Judges testified that they could change these
customs and practices legislatively in their Rules of Court, but
that they choose not to."

That is exactly why county officials such as County Judge Darrell
Jordan and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez -- the only defendants who actually
support the plaintiffs -- and County Commissioner Rodney Ellis
believe that without a federal court's intervention, true change
will not occur.

Chief Public Defender Bunin said he is hopeful that the county at
least gives Rosenthal's ordered changes -- requiring all eligible
defendants to be released within 24 hours of arrest -- a chance.
She was in no position, Bunin said, to take the county at its word
that all the reforms, though commendable, would resolve the
plaintiffs' constitutional concerns.  "She had to do something to
make sure that the principles would be honored," he said. "Her
solution is very simple and fair, in that poor people don't have
to put money up front if they don't have it."

For too many in the Harris County criminal justice community, this
solution has been self-evident for years.

For Patrick Brown, it would have been lifesaving. [GN]


HERTZ: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has once again dismissed a putative class action
lawsuit against Hertz Global Holdings by its shareholders -- this
time with prejudice -- finding no evidence to demonstrate the
company knowingly hid financial problems in order to boost the
price of its stock.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of
New Jersey dismissed the suit in a 53-page decision issued
April 27.  The lawsuit, seeking relief on behalf of a class of
Hertz shareholders, was filed in 2013 by the Sheet Metal Workers
Union Local No. 80 Pension Fund and the Westchester Teamsters
Pension Fund.

After the lawsuit was originally dismissed by U.S. District Judge
Stanley Chesler, also sitting in the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs refiled, and Arleo dismissed the amended complaint,
finding that the plaintiffs failed to show that Hertz and several
of its top officials acted knowingly or purposefully.

Once again, the plaintiffs repleaded -- alleging primarily the
same facts, Judge Arleo said.

"This is plaintiffs' third bite at the apple," Judge Arleo said in
her latest ruling, adding that the plaintiffs failed to allege
scienter.

"The [amended complaint] continues to suffer from some of the same
infirmities with respect to particularity and scienter and the
plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they could plead any
additional facts that would cure these defects," Judge Arleo said.

Hertz's attorney, Kevin Marino of Chatham's Marino, Tortorella &
Boyle, said in a statement: "Hertz is very pleased with the
court's thoughtful and comprehensive resolution of this case."
The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland,
Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, was away from his office and
unavailable for comment.

The suit claimed the company covered up an overvaluation of
certain cars in its rental fleet and failed to disclose
"overfleeting," or maintaining excess car inventory amid a weak
market for used cars.

The suit also claimed that the company's 2013 earnings guidance
failed to consider the expected impact on earnings caused by the
sequester -- a series of federal budget cuts adopted that year
that resulted in a drop in air travel.

The eventual disclosure of the overvaluation, overfleeting and
sequester issues in September 2013 caused the company's share
price to drop 16 percent, the plaintiffs claimed.

The suit accused Hertz of violating Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and two of its officers of
violating Section 20(a) of the act.

Stating a claim under 10(b) requires: a material misrepresentation
or omission; scienter; a connection between the misrepresentation
or omission and purchase or sale of a security; reliance upon the
misrepresentation or omission; economic loss; and causation. [GN]


HOME CITY: May 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
David Baker, writing for 3TV/CBS 5, reports that those who bought
packaged ice could be eligible for some cash as a part of a class
action lawsuit settlement.

If you purchased packaged ice from a supermarket, grocery store or
other retailer and the ice was made by The Home City Ice Company,
Arctic Glacier Inc., Arctic Glacier International Inc., Arctic
Glacier Income Fund, Reddy Ice Corporation, Reddy Ice Holdings
Inc., or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates between Jan. 1,
2001 and Mar. 6, 2008, you may be entitled to benefits from the
class action settlement.

Home City denied it did anything wrong but agreed to pay $2.7
million to settle the packaged ice class action lawsuit.

The potential reward is up to $12 with no proof of purchase. It's
$6 for one to six bags or blocks of packaged ice.  It's $12 for
those claiming seven or more bags or blocks of packaged ice. Those
who submit claims with proof of purchase for more than 12 packages
of ice are eligible to receive a payment of $12 for 12 bags of
ice, plus $2 for each additional package of ice

You must file a claim by May 17. [GN]


HONDA: Malaysian Family Files Suit in US Over Air Bag Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Ng, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Malaysian man whose wife's death is one of at least 16 blamed on
air bag defects has sued Japanese automaker Honda and the Takata
Corp. in a U.S. court, saying he wants the companies to disclose
more about the dangers.

Nida Fatin Mat Asis, a 29-year-old doctor, died almost instantly
after the Honda City she was driving hit a pole and skidded into a
ditch in Malaysia's eastern Sabah state on April 16 last year. An
autopsy found shrapnel from a Takata air bag inflator in the base
of her skull.

The lawsuit was filed by her husband in a U.S. District court in
Michigan on May 1.

Her father, Mat Asis Mahnoon, said on May 3 the family decided to
sue after Takata pleaded guilty to fraud in February and agreed to
pay $1 billion in penalties for concealing the defect blamed for
11 deaths in the U.S. and five in Malaysia. More than 180 injuries
have occurred worldwide and more than 100 million inflators have
been recalled.

Plaintiffs alleged in dozens of lawsuits that Honda, Toyota,
Nissan, Ford and BMW had independent knowledge that Takata's air
bags were unsafe before putting them in millions of vehicles. The
auto companies have asserted that they were deceived by Takata and
shouldn't be held liable.

Mat Asis told the Associated Press that the family refused a
settlement offer from Honda and Takata that was conditioned on
them not speaking publicly.

The woman's husband says her family wants to ensure the companies
do more.  "I refuse to let my wife die in vain.  By telling her
story, we hope Takata and Honda will do more, particularly in
Malaysia, to notify everyone with impacted cars that they are
potentially deadly," Abdullah Shamshir Abdul Mokti said in a
statement released by U.S. law firm Motley Rice LLC.

The couple did not know their car had a dangerously defective air
bag and were never notified by Honda of a potential recall.

The law firm's statement said a confidential settlement had been
reached with the two companies over another Honda City crash in
Malaysia.  That crash killed Law Suk Leh and her unborn baby.


HUAWEI DEVICE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Smartphone
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi, Colton Winfield and Edward Beheler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Google, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02185-
HRL (N.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
consumers who purchased Google Nexus 6P smartphones with defective
battery capabilities that are prone to enter an endless bootloop
cycle which renders them unresponsive and unusable, and severe
battery drainage which causes Class Phones to stop working
prematurely.

Huawei Device USA, Inc. operates an information and communications
technology company located at 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, Collin County, Texas 75024.

Google, Inc. operates a technology company specializing in
Internet-related services and products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory S. Fein, Esq.
      CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
      712 Main St., #800
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (281) 254-7717
      Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
      E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

         - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
              awf@chimicles.com
              jlt@chimicles.com


HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: "Gorbatchev" Sues for Defective Nexus Phones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Gorbatchev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. and
Google, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex., April
14, 2017) seeks redress for Defendants' breach of express and
implied warranties.

The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated consumers who purchased
Google Nexus 6P smartphones (the "Phones" or "Class Phones").

The complaint says the Class Phones are defective because they are
prone to (i) enter an endless bootloop cycle which renders the
phones unresponsive and unusable (the "Bootloop Defect") and (ii)
severe and premature battery drainage (the "Battery Drain
Defect").

Despite the fact that Defendants know of or are on notice of the
issues in Class Phones, they failed to disclose the issues
manifest in the Class Phones, and fail to provide an adequate
remedy, says the Plaintiff.

Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. provides information and
communications technology solutions and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cory S. Fein, Esq.
   Cory Fein Law Firm
   712 Main St., #800
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (281) 254-7717
   Fax: (530) 748-0601
   Email: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

        - and -

   Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
   Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
   Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
   Chimicles & Tickellis LLP
   One Haverford Centre
   361 West Lancaster Avenue
   Haverford, PA 19041
   Tel: (610) 642-8500
   Fax: (610) 649-3633
   Email: bfj@chimicles.com
          awf@chimicles.com
          jlt@chimicles.com


IDAHO: Dismissal of "Tucker" Suit Partly Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, January 2017 Term affirmed in
part and reversed in part, the district court's dismissal of the
complaint in the case captioned TRACY TUCKER, JASON SHARP, NAOMI
MORLEY, JEREMY PAYNE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF IDAHO; C.L.
"BUTCH" OTTER, in his official capacity as Governor of Idaho; HON.
LINDA COPPLE TROUT, DARRELL G. BOLZ, SARA B. THOMAS, WILLIAM H.
WELLMAN, KIMBER RICKS, SEN. CHUCK WINDER, and REP. CHRISTY PERRY,
in their official capacities as members of the Idaho State Public
Defense Commission, Defendants-Respondents, Docket No. 43922, 2017
Opinion No. 38 (Idaho).

The appeal was brought from the Ada County District Court by Tracy
Tucker, Jason Sharp, Naomi Morley, and Jeremy Payne, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.  The appellants
constituted a putative class of criminal defendants seeking to
challenge Idaho's public defense system.

On June 17, 2015, the appellants filed a class action complaint in
which they alleged Idaho's public defense system is inadequate
under federal and state constitutional standards.  The appellants
alleged Idaho's public defense system violates the Sixth and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of
the Idaho Constitution.  As defendants, the appellants named:

     (1) the State of Idaho;
     (2) Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, in his official capacity;
         and
     (3) the seven members of the Idaho Public Defense Commission
         (PDC), in their official capacities.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/InIDCO 20170501448/TUCKER v. STATE
- fid1
The appellants sought various forms of equitable relief, including
a declaration that Idaho's public defense system is
unconstitutional and an injunction requiring the respondents to
bring Idaho's public defense system into constitutional
compliance.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the case
was not justiciable because the appellants did not sue the proper
defendants.  Since the provision of public defense has been
delegated to Idaho's 44 counties under Idaho Code section 19-859,
the respondents maintained that the appellants erred by not suing
the counties.  The appellants countered that the State is
ultimately responsible for ensuring constitutionally adequate
public defense, contending they had sued the proper defendants.

The district court held that the appellants' claims were not
justiciable and dismissed their complaint on standing, ripeness,
and separation of powers grounds.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the dismissal of
appellants' complaint as to the State of Idaho and the PDC, but
affirmed the dismissal as to Governor Otter.

The Supreme Court held that the State's sovereign immunity is
inapplicable when constitutional violations are alleged.  The
Court also found that causation as to the State is met because the
appellants' alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the State.
Further, the Supreme Court found that because the appellants'
requested relief, if ordered against the State, would create a
substantial likelihood of redressing the appellants' injuries,
redressability as to the State is satisfied.  The respondents did
not contest that ripeness is met as to the State.  Therefore, the
Supreme Court held that the appellants' claims against the State
are ripe.

As to Governor Otter, the Supreme Court held that the governor's
general duty to enforce state law does not establish causation.
Accordingly, the Court found that the appellants did not satisfy
causation as to Governor Otter.

The Supreme Court, howerver, held that causation as to the PDC is
met because of its duty to promulgate rules governing training and
caseload reporting requirements.  The Court explained that the
PDC's failure to promulgate these rules illustrates that the
appellants' injuries are fairly traceable to the PDC.  The Court
also found that redressability as to the PDC is satisfied, and
that the appellants' claims against the PDC are ripe.

The final basis of the district court's order is the separation of
powers doctrine.  The Supreme Court found that the appellants'
claims do not implicate the separation of powers doctrine.
"Merely that it is possible that Idaho's three branches of
government may collaborate when deciding how to ensure our public
defense system passes constitutional muster does not raise
separation of powers concerns," the Supreme Court said.

The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Supreme Court's opinion.  The Court did not award attorney fees or
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's April 28, 2017 decision is
available at https://is.gd/vVLhu3 from Leagle.com.

Appellants are represented by:

          Richard Alan Eppink, Esq.
          Jason D. Williamson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212)549-2500

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, Trout, Bolz, Ricks, Winder and Perry
are represented by:

          Lawrence G. Wasden, Esq.
          Michael S. Gilmore, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          700 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 210
          Boise, ID 83720-0010

Thomas and Wellman are represented by:

          Daniel J. Skinner, Esq.
          CANTRILL, SKINNER, LEWIS, CASEY & SORENSEN, LLP
          1423 Tyrell Lane
          Boise, ID 83701
          Tel: (208)344-8035
          Fax: (208)345-7212
          Email: danskinner@cssklaw.com


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (NYSE
MKT:IMUC), certain of its former and current officers, and other
individuals and entities, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California (2:17-cv-03250), on behalf of
all persons who purchased or acquired ImmunoCellular common stock
on the open market, during the period May 1, 2012 through December
11, 2013, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than June 30, 2017 to be appointed lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased ImmunoCellular common stock during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

ImmunoCellular is a development stage company, and its lead
product candidate, ICT-107, is a dendritic cell-based vaccine
targeting multiple tumor associated antigens for glioblastoma
multiforme.

The Complaint charges that prior to and throughout the Class
Period, defendants developed a scheme to manipulate and
artificially inflate the stock price of ImmunoCellular.  By virtue
of this scheme, the market was conditioned to believe that
ImmunoCellular's clinical studies for ICT-107 were going well as
the placement of these fraudulent media reports were often timed
to coincide with ImmunoCellular's announcements of ICT-107, so to
have maximum impact upon ImmunoCellular's share price.

Unbeknownst to the market, beginning in September 2011,
ImmunoCellular hired Lidingo Holdings, LLC, a stock promotional
firm to pump up the value of ImmunoCellular stock.  This endeavor
included a campaign of planting phony analyst reports and news
articles that fawned over ImmunoCellular.  In many cases, these
phony media reports were written under aliases, and failed to
reveal that ImmunoCellular had complete editorial control over
their work.

On December 11, 2013, ImmunoCellular revealed that the primary
endpoint for its ICT-107 Phase II study "did not reach statistical
significance" because it failed to increase overall survival in
patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme.

As a result, ImmunoCellular stock declined nearly 60%, to close at
$1.10 per share on December 12, 2013.

On April 10, 2017, as part of an SEC proceeding, ImmunoCellular's
former CEO, Manish Singh acknowledged that he participated "in a
paid stock-touting scheme" where he "edited and approved articles,
directed which writers should publish articles and directed when
and where those articles should be published."

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The firm's
reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877.370.7703
Fax: 877.370.7704
Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
website: www.wolfpopper.com [GN]


IRS PAINTERS: "Chacon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Chacon, on behalf of himself, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRS Painters Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01182 (S.D. Tex, April 15, 2017) is brought
against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime pay pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to
perform all necessary work to include the performance of those
duties otherwise typically performed by "hourly" employees which
routinely required Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to work "overtime" and "off-the-clock" hours for which
they failed to receive overtime compensation as required by law.

Plaintiff Edwin Chacon worked as a Painter.

IRS Painters, Inc. is in the Painting and Paper Hanging
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   The Foley Law Firm
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $110.5MM in Talc Powder Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Johnson and Heather Hollingsworth, writing for The
Associated Press, report that Johnson & Johnson has been hit with
a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the fourth time over
whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer
when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

On May 4, a St. Louis jury awarded $110.5 million to Lois Slemp,
62, of Wise, Virginia, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in
2012. She blames her illness on her use of the company's talcum
powder-containing products for more than 40 years.

Besides Ms. Slemp's case, three other jury trials in St. Louis
reached similar outcomes last year, awarding the plaintiffs $72
million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of
$307.6 million.  The company says its product is safe, and it
plans to appeal the latest verdict, as it has the other three.

Johnson & Johnson also has had some legal victories, including in
March when a St. Louis jury rejected the claims of a Tennessee
woman with ovarian and uterine cancer.  Also, two cases in New
Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs' lawyers
hadn't presented reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian
cancer.

The next baby powder trial is in June in St. Louis, and will be
followed by another in July in California.

WHAT DO INVESTORS THINK?

Investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble,
even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits.
J&J shares fell 62 cents to $123.10 in late-afternoon trading on
May 5.

Johnson & Johnson, the world's biggest maker of health care
products, brings in about $72 billion a year selling prescription
drugs, medical devices, diagnostic equipment and consumer products
ranging from baby shampoo and Aveeno skin care items to Tylenol
pain reliever and Band-Aids.

Because of its size and diversified product lines, J&J is sued
frequently and investors don't panic when it loses product
liability lawsuits, so its stock price rarely drops much after
losses.  Also, the company clearly intends to keep fighting
lawsuits alleging its iconic baby powder isn't safe, rather than
settling suits at this point.

WHAT IS TALC?

Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world,
including the U.S.  The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a
white powder.  It's been widely used in cosmetics and other
personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894,
when Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder was launched.  But it's
mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and
plastics.

DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER?

Like many questions in science, there's no definitive answer.
Finding the cause of cancer is difficult.  It would be unethical
to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use
talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes
cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn't use it.

While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it's relatively rare.  It
accounts for only about 22,400 of the 1.7 million new cases of
cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year.

Factors that are known to increase a women's risk of ovarian
cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after
menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and
personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS

The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder
applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer.  But about two dozen
smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest
connection -- a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc
users.

However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer.  Several factors
make that unlikely, and there's no proof talc, which doesn't
interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive
tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer.

One large study published in June 2016 that followed 51,000
sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a
reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers.
An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women's
Health Initiative and the Nurses' Health Study, showed no
increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users.

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large
studies that tracked women's health for years would have verified
results of the smaller ones.

"Lord knows, with the amount of powder that's been applied to
babies' bottoms, we would've seen something," if talc caused
cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The National Cancer Institute's Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the
federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection.

"It is very hard to establish causal relationships," he said,
adding, "A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never
used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian
cancer."

On its website the American Cancer Society states: "The risk for
any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small."


KENMORE: Settles Consumers' Barbecue Grill Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
WTVF reports that have you spent money on bagged ice, barbecue
grills or weight loss supplements recently? You could be seeing
some of that money come back into your pockets.

Bagged Ice

A recent settlement in a class action lawsuit against makers of
bagged ice could get you some money back.

If you purchased bagged ice between 2001 and 2008, you could claim
up to $12 with no proof of purchase and more if you can present
receipts.  The lawsuit alleged that companies who produced the ice
colluded to keep prices up, though the makers claimed they have
participated in no wrongdoing.

The deadline to file claims is May 17, 2017.

Kenmore Barbecue Grills

A settlement in a lawsuit against Kenmore Barbecue Grills sold at
Sears department stores includes 15 models that allegedly have
fireboxes that could rust.  The rusting would expose the propane
tanks on the grills.

Grills purchased between 2011 and 2014 could earn consumers $300
back depending on repairs and/or replacements made to the product.
The manufacturer in the lawsuit claimed no wrongdoing.

The deadline to file claims in this suit is January 26, 2018.

Hydroxycut Supplements

A settlement against the makers of Hydroxycut weight loss
supplements found that weight loss may not be as advertised from
the product, naming about three dozen supplements that failed to
work as represented.

Supplements purchased between 2009 and February 2017 could grant
consumers full refunds with receipts and up to $28 without proof
of purchase.  The makers of the supplements claimed no wrongdoing.

The deadline to file claims against Hydroxycut is May 30, 2017.
[GN]


LANNETT COMPANY: American Fed. Fund Suit Transferred to Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned American Federation of State
County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health &
Security Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 17-00643, was removed on April 18,
2017, from the United States District Court Southern District Of
New York to the United States District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-01768-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by:

      Gerald E. Arth, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP
      2000 Market St., 10th Fl.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291
      Telephone: (215) 299-2000
      Facsimile: (215) 299-2150
      E-mail: garth@foxrothschild.com

         - and -

      Ryan Thomas Becker, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
      Stone Manor Corp Center
      2700 Kelly Road Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 18976
      Telephone: (215) 345-7500
      E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com

The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by:

      Chul Pak, Esq.
      Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
      Michael S. Sommer, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 497-7728
      E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com
              jbank@wsgr.com
              msommer@wsgr.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Plumbers Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Plumbers & Pipefitters Local
178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, and
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan v. Lannett Company,
Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 16-
09890, was transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States
District Court for the Southern District Of New York to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01766-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund and the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH &
SECURITY PLAN are pro se plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund is represented by:

      Scott Allan Martin, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      165 Broadway, Suite 2301
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 357-1195
      E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com

The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by:

      Ryan Thomas Becker, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
      Stone Manor Corp Center
      2700 Kelly Road Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 18976
      Telephone: (215) 345-7500
      E-mail: rbecker@foxrothschild.com
The Defendant Mylan Inc.is represented by:

      Chul Pak, Esq.
      Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      1301 Avenue OF THE Americas 40th Fl
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 497-7728
      E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com
              jbank@wsgr.com


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Solutions, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-00301-REP (E.D. Va., April 18, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Solutions, Inc. provides data,
analytics, and technology solutions to help customers across
industry and government to assess, predict, and manage risk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7570
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
              aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com


LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
AMRA KUC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., Manish Singh, Michael
Handelman and Elma Hawkins, Case No. 3:17-cv-02188 (N.D. Cal.,
April 19, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) Lion, through the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, Manish Singh, engaged in
a scheme to mislead investors by commissioning over 10 internet
publications and 20 widely distributed emails promoting Lion to
potential investors that purported to be independent from the
Company when, in fact, they were paid promotions; (ii) the
Defendant Singh engaged a notorious stock promotion firm to pay
writers to publish articles about Lion on investment websites as
well as to coordinate the distribution of articles to thousands of
electronic mailboxes; (iii) the Defendant Singh actively
participated in Lidingo's promotional work for Lion and understood
that Lidingo was using writers who would not disclose that Lion
was indirectly compensating them for their publications; and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, Lion's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, focuses on developing and commercializing cancer
immunotherapy products to harness the power of a patient's immune
system to eradicate cancer cells. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

        - and -

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


LULAROE: Takes Steps to Rectify Defective Leggings Issue
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Layton Turner, writing for Forbes.com, reports that after
months of customers complaining about how easily clothier
LuLaRoe's buttery soft leggings tear and the filing of a class
action lawsuit on March 23, 2017, alleging "defective leggings and
other clothing," LuLaRoe is taking steps to rectify the situation
and bolster its reputation.

LuLaRoe is a multi-level marketing company that designs,
manufactures, and distributes colorful knit clothing for women and
girls through its network of sales representatives, called fashion
consultants.  The company has been growing exponentially and
reportedly hit $1 billion in sales in 2016, after only four years
in business.  That pace of growth has brought on some challenges,
including complaints about product quality.

Class Action Lawsuit Brings Situation to a Head

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Julie Dean and Suzanne Jones, state
that "Customers have complained that the leggings are of such poor
quality that holes, tears, and rips appear before wearing, during
the first use or shortly thereafter.  The leggings have also been
described as tearing as easily as 'wet toilet paper.'"

The plaintiffs also allege that LuLaRoe has all but admitted that
it is responsible for the poor quality, stating in the lawsuit,
"Defendants are well aware that their products are defective. With
regard to the leggings, Patrick Winget, the head of production for
defendants, reportedly wrote in a company-wide email about that,
'The leggings may get holes because we weaken the fibers to make
them buttery soft.  We have done all we can to fix them.'"

Taking Responsibility

Part of the issue, the lawsuit alleges, is that LuLaRoe corporate
made it nearly impossible for customers to exchange defective
leggings or request a refund.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

If you are or were the owner of a participating policy of the
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company at any time
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, inclusive,
you are a part of a class action settlement.

IMPORTANT
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND,
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION, INCLUDING ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT

A Federal Court authorized this notice. You are not being sued.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

   * A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
("MassMutual").  The class action lawsuit challenges whether
MassMutual correctly calculated its compliance with
the limitation on retained surplus set forth in Section 141 of
Chapter 175 of the General Laws of Massachusetts.

   * You are included in the settlement if you were a
participating policyholder of MassMutual at any time between
January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Settlement
Class Period"), whether or not you received a dividend during that
period.

   * MassMutual has agreed to pay a settlement fund totaling $37.5
million.  Members of the Settlement Class with
policies that received an annual dividend during the Settlement
Class Period are eligible to receive a pro rata share of
a settlement fund remaining after payment of any attorneys' fees
and expenses the Court awards to Plaintiff's lawyers and any
service award to Plaintiff.  The amount of each Class Member's
payment is based on annual dividends paid on each participating
policy they own as a pro rata share of the total amount of annual
dividends MassMutual paid on all participating policies issued
during the Settlement Class Period.  However, if your MassMutual
policy or policies are not in force and your pro rata share of the
settlement fund would be less than $1.00 you will not receive a
payment.

   * Please read this notice carefully. Your legal rights are
affected whether you act, or don't act.

THIS TABLE CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND
OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY
JULY 3, 2017

You will receive no benefits under the settlement, but you will
retain any rights you currently have to pursue claims against
MassMutual about the allegations in this case.

OBJECT BY JULY 3, 2017
Write to the Court if you don't like the settlement to explain why
you object.

ATTEND A HEARING
Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement.

DO NOTHING

You will get your share of the settlement benefits to which you
are entitled and will give up your rights to sue MassMutual about
the allegations in this case.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is this notice and why should I read it?
A court authorized this notice to let you know about a proposed
class settlement of a lawsuit called Bacchi v. Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company, D. Mass. Civil Action No. 12-11280-
DJC (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  You need not live in
Massachusetts to get a benefit under the settlement.  This notice
describes the settlement.  Please read this notice carefully to
determine whether you wish to participate in the settlement.  Your
rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them -- are
explained in this notice.  Please understand that if you are a
settlement class member, your legal rights are affected regardless
of whether you act.

2. What is a class action lawsuit?
A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more plaintiffs -- in
this case, Plaintiff Karen L. Bacchi (the "Plaintiff") -- sue on
behalf of a group of people who allegedly have similar claims.
After the Parties reached an agreement to settle this case, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
preliminarily determined that the case should be treated as a
class action for settlement purposes.  Among other things, this
preliminary approval permits Settlement Class Members to exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class and to voice their support of
or objection to the settlement before the Court makes a final
decision whether to approve the settlement.  In a class action,
the court resolves the issues for all class members, except those
who exclude themselves from the class.

THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT AND THE SETTLEMENT
3. What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant
MassMutual on behalf of a class of MassMutual participating
policyholders alleging that MassMutual withheld more surplus than
allowed by Section 141 of Chapter 175 of the General
Laws of Massachusetts.  Plaintiff alleges that MassMutual
therefore was obligated to pay additional dividends on its
participating policies in years during the Settlement Class
Period.  A more complete description of what Plaintiff alleges is
in the Complaint, which is available on the Settlement Website at
www.MMLISettlement.com.

MassMutual denies Plaintiff's claims of wrongdoing or liability
against it, and asserts that its conduct was lawful. MassMutual's
answer to the allegations in the Complaint is available on the
Settlement Website at www.MMLISettlement.com.  MassMutual is
settling the Action solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience,
and inherent risk and disruption of litigation.

4. Why is there a settlement?
The Court has not decided in favor of either side in the case.
Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.  That way, both sides
avoided the cost and risk of a trial, and the affected current and
former MassMutual policyholders will get substantial benefits.
The Plaintiff and her attorneys think the settlement is in the
best interests for everyone who owned a participating MassMutual
policy during the Settlement Class Period.

WHO'S INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
5. How do I know if I am in the Settlement Class?
The Court decided that everyone who fits this description is a
member of the Settlement Class:

"All individuals and entities who were participating policyholders
of MassMutual at any time during the Settlement Class Period
[i.e., 'the period of time between January 1, 2001 and December
31, 2016, inclusive'], whether or not those policyholders received
a dividend during the Settlement Class Period."

The Court has excluded from the Settlement Class "(1) the
Honorable Denise J. Casper of the District of Massachusetts (or
other Circuit, District, or Magistrate Judge presiding over the
Action through which this matter is presented for settlement) and
court personnel employed in Judge Casper's or such other Judge's
chambers or courtroom; (2) MassMutual, MassMutual's subsidiaries,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which MassMutual has a
controlling interest and their current or former officers and
directors, except to the extent MassMutual or such other entity is
the owner of a policy held for the benefit of an individual who is
not otherwise excluded from membership in the Settlement Class and
that individual receives the benefit of any dividends that may
accrue on the policy; (3) any officer or director of MassMutual
identified in MassMutual's Annual Statement during the
Settlement Class Period and any member of those persons' immediate
families; (4) Persons who properly execute and file a timely
Request For Exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (5) the legal
representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded
Persons (but only then in their capacity as legal representative,
successor, or assign)."

If you meet the definition above, and you are not among those
specifically excluded by the Court, you are a member of the
Settlement Class.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
6. What does the settlement provide?
MassMutual has agreed to pay $37,500,000 to Settlement Class
Members, which sum includes amounts for attorney's fees and
expenses and a service award to Plaintiff (the latter of which
amounts must be approved by the Court). (See Questions No. 9-10.)
The amount of each Class Member's payment is based on annual
dividends paid on each participating policy they own as a pro
rata share of the total amount of annual dividends MassMutual paid
on all participating policies issued during the Settlement Class
Period. (Settlement Class Members who do not own an in-force
policy and whose pro rata share of the settlement fund is below
$1.00 will not receive a payment.) In addition, MassMutual has
agreed to pay the full administrative costs of the settlement.

The Parties estimate that the average amount paid to Settlement
Class Members receiving benefits will be $22.02.

MassMutual also has agreed to continue for at least 10 years to
provide to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance voluntary
annual safety fund calculations under Section 141 of Chapter 175
of the General Laws of Massachusetts.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class (see Question No. 5)
and you currently own a participating policy that received any
annual dividend during the Settlement Class Period, you will
receive a payment under the settlement in the form of a paid-up
addition to your policy.  If your policy cannot receive paid-up
additions for some reason, you may receive a check for the amount
of your payment net of any applicable income tax withholding
obligations if the amount of that check is not less than $1.00.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and you previously
owned a MassMutual participating policy issued during the
Settlement Class Period and that received dividends, then you will
receive a payment under the settlement if the amount of the
payment to you is at least $1.00.  The Parties agreed to propose a
minimum threshold because of the administrative costs associated
with very small payments.  You do not have to submit a claim to
receive a payment under the settlement.

HOW TO GET BENEFITS
7. How do I get benefits?
The benefits of the settlement will be distributed automatically
once the Court approves the settlement. Settlement Class Members
do not have to submit claim forms in order to receive settlement
benefits.

8. When will I get my payment?
If you own an in-force participating policy that was paid
dividends during the Settlement Class Period, then you will
receive your pro rata share of the $37,500,000 in the form of
additional paid up additions effective no later than 125 days
after the settlement has received final approval and/or after any
appeals have been resolved in favor of the settlement.  The
hearing to consider the final fairness of the settlement is
scheduled for July 27, 2017, at 3:00 pm.

If your participating policies are not in force and your pro rata
share is not less than $1.00, you should receive a check from
the Settlement Administrator within 90 days after the settlement
has received final approval and/or after any appeals have been
resolved in favor of the settlement.  All checks will expire and
become void 180 days after they are issued.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
9. Who represents the Settlement Class?
For purposes of the settlement, the Court has appointed lawyers
from the law firms of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C.; Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.; and Chavez & Gertler LLP as
Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If
you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your own expense.  In addition, the Court appointed Plaintiff
Karen L. Bacchi to serve as the Class Representative. She is also
a Settlement Class Member.

Subject to approval by the Court, Class Counsel has proposed that
up to $3,000 may be paid to the Class Representative in
recognition of time and effort she expended on behalf of the
Settlement Class.  The Court will determine the proper amount of
any award to the Class Representative. The Court may award less
than that amount.

10. How will the lawyers be paid?
From the beginning of the case, which was filed in July 2012, to
the present, Class Counsel have not received any payment for
their services in prosecuting the case or obtaining the
settlement, nor have they been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket
expenses they have incurred.  Class Counsel will apply to the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the
$37,500,000 settlement amount plus their costs and expenses
incurred in prosecution of the case. MassMutual has agreed not to
object to such an application.  The Court will determine the
proper amount of any attorneys' fees and expenses to award Class
Counsel.


Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid
to Class Counsel from the $37,500,000 settlement fund.  The
Settlement Class Members will not have to pay anything toward the
fees or expenses of Class Counsel.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
11. What is the effect of final approval of the settlement?
If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, a final
order and judgment dismissing the case will be entered in the
Action.

Payments under the settlement will then be processed and
distributed.  The release by Settlement Class Members will also
take effect.

All members of the Settlement Class will release and forever
discharge MassMutual and each of the Released Parties from any and
all Released Claims (as defined in the Agreement).  Please refer
to Section IV of the Agreement for a full description of the
claims and persons that will be released upon final approval of
the settlement.  The Agreement is available at
www.MMLISettlement.com.

Any and all members of the Settlement Class who do not exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class will not be permitted to
continue to assert Released Claims in any other litigation against
MassMutual or the other persons and entities covered by the
Release.  If you do not wish to be a Settlement Class Member, you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class.

If the settlement is not approved, the case will proceed as if no
settlement had been attempted or reached. If the settlement is not
approved and the case resumes, there is no assurance that a class
would be certified for litigation purposes or that members of any
certified class will recover more than is provided for under the
Agreement, or anything at all.

12. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you will release any claims you may have
against MassMutual or the Released Parties concerning the conduct
Plaintiff alleges in her complaint. (See Question No. 14.) You may
also receive a payment as described in Question No. 8.

13. How do I get out of the settlement?
To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must send a
letter saying that you "wish to be excluded from the Settlement
Class in Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. 12-11280-DJC"; include your name and
address, and your signature. Your Request For Exclusion must be
postmarked no later than July 3, 2017, and sent to the
Settlement Administrator at the following address: Bacchi v.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Analytics LLC,
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-
2004.
If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class you will not
receive any payment under the settlement and you cannot object
to the settlement.  You will not be legally bound by anything that
happens in the Action.

14. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue MassMutual for the same
thing later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue
MassMutual for the claims being resolved by this settlement.

15. If I exclude myself, can I get anything from this settlement?
No. If you exclude yourself, you are not entitled to any benefits
under the settlement, but you will also not be bound by the
settlement.

16. How do I object to the settlement?
If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you can
object to the settlement if you don't like any part of it.  If you
object, you must give the reasons why you think the Court should
not approve the settlement.  The Court will consider your views.
Your objection to the settlement must be postmarked no later than
July 3, 2017 and must be sent to the Court and the attorneys for
the Parties at the addresses below:

Court
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
John Joseph Moakley
U.S. Courthouse
One Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
Boston, MA 02210

Class Counsel
Jason B. Adkins
John Peter Zavez
ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114

MassMutual's Counsel
James R. Carroll
Kurt Wm. Hemr
Alisha Q. Nanda
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
500 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116

The objection must be in writing and include the case name Bacchi
v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No.
12-11280-DJC; as well as include your (a) name; (b) address; (d) a
statement that you are a member of the Settlement Class; (e) the
specific grounds for the objection (including all arguments,
citations, and evidence supporting the objection); (f) all
documents or writings that you desire the Court to consider
(including all copies of any documents relied upon in the
objection); (g) your signature; and (h) a notice of intention to
appear at the Fairness Hearing (if applicable). (If you are
represented by counsel, you or your counsel must file your
objection through the Court's CM/ECF system.) The Court will
consider all properly filed comments from Settlement Class
Members. If you wish to appear and be heard at the Fairness
Hearing in addition to submitting a written objection to the
settlement, you or your attorney must say so in your written
objection.

Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the Settlement
Website its request for attorneys' fees two weeks prior to
July 3, 2017.

17. What's the difference between objecting and excluding myself
from the settlement?
Objecting means telling the Court what you don't like about the
settlement.  You can object only if you stay in the Settlement
Class.

Excluding yourself from the Settlement Class is telling the Court
that you don't want to be part of the Settlement Class. If you
exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no
longer affects you.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING
18. When and where will the Court hold a hearing on the fairness
of the settlement?
A Fairness Hearing has been set for July 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm,
before The Honorable Denise J. Casper at the John Joseph Moakley
U.S. Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210
in Courtroom 11.  At the hearing, the Court will hear any
comments, objections, and arguments concerning the fairness of the
proposed settlement, including the amounts requested by
Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to
the Class Representative. You do not need to attend this hearing.
You also do not need to attend to have an objection considered by
the Court. (See Question No. 19.)

Note: The date and time of the Fairness Hearing are subject to
change by Court Order, but any changes will be posted at
www.MMLISettlement.com.

19. Do I have to come to the Fairness Hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have.
But you are welcome to come at your own expense.  If you
send an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk about
it.  As long as any written objection you choose to make was filed
and mailed on time and meets the other criteria described in the
settlement, the Court will consider it.  You may also pay another
lawyer to attend, but you don't have to.

20. May I speak at the Fairness Hearing?
If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may
ask the Court for permission to speak at the hearing concerning
any part of the proposed settlement by following the instructions
in Question No. 16 above.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
21. Where can I get additional information?
This notice provides only a summary of the matters relating to the
settlement.  For more detailed information, you may wish to
review the Agreement.  You can view the Agreement and get more
information at www.MMLISettlement.com.  You can also
get more information by writing to the Settlement Administrator at
Bacchi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
Analytics LLC, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2004,
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004 or calling toll-free 844-623-5243.
In addition, the Agreement and all other pleadings and papers
filed in the case are available for inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the office of the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court located at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse,
One Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, MA 02210.  If you would
like additional information, you can also call Class Counsel,
toll-free, at 1-855-882-6336.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE JUDGE, OR THE DEFENDANT
MASSMUTUAL WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-844-623-5243 TOLL FREE, OR VISIT
WWW.MMLISETTLEMENT.COM


MDL 1700: Class Deal in FedEx Employment Practices Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Roger
Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No.
3:05cv390 RLM-MGG (IN), Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM, No. MDL 1700
(N.D. Ind.), Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for final approval of the Indiana class action
settlement calling for payment of $33,950,000 to the plaintiffs.

A series of cases were filed in which FedEx Ground drivers claimed
to be employees, rather than the independent contractors their
employment contracts announced.  In July 2005, FedEx Ground's
second request to centralize the cases was granted.

Each case was mediated separately, with some cases requiring
several sessions.  The drivers and FedEx Ground exchanged experts'
views as to the maximum recovery for each case if the drivers
prevailed across the board.  Settlements were reached in each
case, and the court granted preliminary approval of each of the
settlements.  The plaintiffs then retained Rust Consulting to
administer the settlements.

In June 2016, the parties reached a proposed settlement.  FedEx
Ground would pay $33,950,000 to the plaintiffs.  For each workweek
of 35 or more hours during the class period, each class member
would receive $83.83; for each workweek of 16-35 hours, each class
member would receive $29.34.  No class member would receive less
than a $250 lump sum.  The average recovery per class member would
be $29,520, with the highest share being $116,028.  No plaintiff
would be required to fill out, or collect the information needed
for, a claim form.  No part of the settlement fund would revert to
FedEx Ground if anything were left over.  No class member has
objected to the proposed settlement.

Judge Miller found that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for its final approval.

Judge Miller also granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's
fees and costs and awarded class representatives Harold Bennett,
Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, and David Stacy
$15,000 each for their services in this case.  Plaintiffs' counsel
was awarded $10,185,000 from the class settlement fund.

A full-text copy of Judge Miller's April 28, 2017 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/rXcddH from Leagle.com.

Roger Riewe, David Stacy, Jeffrey Shelton, Harold Bennett, Rodney
Owens, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis M. Brennan, Brennan &
Brennan PC, Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson
Agostino & Keller PC.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn R. Faris --
lfaris@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP.

FedEx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Pamela A. Paige --
ppaige@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney PC.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Defendant, represented by Alison
G. Fox -- alison.fox@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Laura E. Robinson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Thomas J. Brunner, Jr.,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Flores" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc. d/b/a
Midway Energy Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00312 (E.D.
Tex., April 14, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and Class Members were not compensated for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a tool pusher.

Defendant is an oilfield services company that does business in
various states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shane McGuire, Esq.
   The McGuire Firm, PC
   102 N. College St., Suite 301
   Tyler, TX 75702
   Tel: 903-630-7154
   Fax: 903-630-7173
   Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com

        - and -

   Keith Miller, Esq.
   Law Office of Keith Miller
   100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101
   Tyler, TX 75702
   Tel: 903-597-4090
   Fax: 903-597-3692
   Email: keith@5974090.net


MONSANTO: Former EPA Director Taken to Court in Glyphosate Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pris Pho, writing for Who What Why, reports that the former Deputy
Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who
allegedly bragged that he deserved a medal for killing a study
about the safety of Monsanto products is being taken to court over
his refusal to answer "simple" questions about his current
employment.

Jess Rowland left the EPA in May 2016 soon after the apparently
inadvertent release of an internal memorandum.  Mr. Rowland was
the chair of the committee that concluded that glyphosate, the
active ingredient of Monsanto's flagship weed killer Roundup, was
"not carcinogenic to humans."  The report was posted briefly
online before being pulled.  It was later cited in one of
Monsanto's court cases.

Monsanto is currently facing more than 50 lawsuits from farmers
and clients diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma for allegedly
causing the cancer through exposure to the company's flagship weed
killer, Roundup, and for covering up the risks.

The EPA is also being sued for delaying the release of the
agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) report and all
documents relating to glyphosate.  This follows a report from the
World Health Organization labelling the active ingredient
glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015.

In the process, San Francisco federal district court Judge Vince
Chhabria ordered the communications between the EPA and Monsanto
to be unsealed.

"Monsanto's production of documents suggests that Mr. Rowland went
out of his way to benefit Monsanto's business," states the current
brief against Rowland, which was filed on April 28.

"In the absence of scientific evidence to support its claim that
Roundup does not cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Monsanto has relied
overwhelmingly on the conclusions of the EPA, specifically a
report engineered and authored by [Jess] Rowland . . .  [who] is
not a medical doctor, has no PhD., was not trained in nor worked
in the fields of epidemiology or toxicology, and did not include
any medical doctors in his review process and report on
Glyphosate."

During a deposition with Jess Rowland over a possible cover up
between the EPA and Monsanto, Rowland "refused to answer the
simple question of whom he has been working for post-EPA
departure" in May 2016, the brief states.

"Mr. Rowland's counsel corresponded with plaintiffs multiple times
prior to deposition stating that he is not consulting for Monsanto
since his retirement, and that he needn't be questioned on his
consulting work any further," stated a letter request from the
plaintiffs to Judge Chhabria.

Claiming that the information was irrelevant to the case, Rowland
refused to answer "simple, relevant, [and] unprivileged
questions," according to the letter.  Subsequently, the Miller
Firm, one of the representing law firms handling the litigation,
requested a telephone hearing on April 24th.

Under the judge's order ruled on the same day, Mr. Rowland then
"almost immediately" revealed three companies for whom he has been
consulting since leaving the EPA.  Despite his counsel having
previously stated that his recent work has been unrelated to the
chemical industry, Mr. Rowland admitted that his consulting work
concerned chemicals.

In light of this misrepresentation of facts, the lawyers for the
class action suit asked the court to compel Mr. Rowland to answer
follow-up questions "which violate no privilege" that he refused
to do under the orders of his lawyers.

"The remaining questions that the witness refused to answer are
relevant to the reasons why EPA engaged in this relationship . . .
Without that information, Plaintiffs will still be fighting
Monsanto's "EPA defense" with two hands tied behind their backs,"
the lawyers' request stated.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael H. Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No.
2:17-cv-00306-TC (D. Utah, April 19, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is an insurer organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its
headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Stavros, Esq.
      Michele Anderson-West, Esq.
      Adam Clark, Esq.
      Austin Egan, Esq.
      STAVROS LAW P.C.
      11693 South 700 East, Suite 200
      Draper, UT 84020
      Telephone: (801) 758-7604
      Facsimile: (801) 893-3573
      E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com
              michele@stavroslaw.com
              adam@stavroslaw.com
              austin@stavroslaw.com


NUVASIVE INC: Judge Denies Request to Stay Kickback Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fink Densford, writing for MassDevice, reports that NuVasive Inc.
was denied a stay of action as it looks to pause a class action
case which alleges that the company lost share value after it hid
a kickback scheme.

NuVasive was requesting the stay while it appeals a case that was
certified in March.  The motion appointed Brad Mass and Daniel
Popov as class representatives.

Judge Jeffrey Miller of the US District Court of the Southern
District of California denied the request for a stay on April 28,
according to court documents.

"Here, Defendants' motion to stay is not well-founded because they
fail to establish a serious legal question or that they would be
irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted," Judge Miller wrote
in court documents.

Judge Miller wrote that public interests "caution against granting
a stay of this action," according to the documents. "This case is
nearly four-years old and the public has an interest in the
efficient prosecution of securities laws and seeking to hold
alleged corporate wrongdoers accountable.  This factor does not
favor a stay."

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that NuVasive submitted false claims
to Medicare and Medicaid in violation of state laws and
regulations, and that the company made illegal kickbacks to
doctors and engaged in off-label promotion of its products and
services, according to court documents.

NuVasive paid approximately $13.5 million in fines and penalties
related to the alleged actions, according to the plaintiffs, while
shareholders "suffered significant losses and damages," according
to court documents.

The payment dates back to 2015, when the company finalized a
previously announced deal with the Justice Dept.  NuVasive said in
July 2013 that the U.S. Health & Human Services Dept.'s inspector
general issued a subpoena "in connection with an investigation
into possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to
Medicare and Medicaid" for documents from January 2007 through
April 2013.  In April the company said it agreed to pay $13.8
million to settle the probe.

On July 29, 2015 NuVasive said the deal called for it to pay $13.5
million, plus fees and accrued interest, but admitted no
wrongdoing in the case. [GN]


ORACLE CORP: Denial of "Matam" Suit Class Certification Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, affirmed the trial court's order denying class
certification in the case captioned RAGHUNANDAN MATAM, Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent,
No. A143830 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Raghunandan Matam, a former employee of Oracle Corporation,
brought a putative class action against Oracle alleging that
Oracle committed various violations of California's wage and hour
laws, including by failing to pay class members for overtime and
by failing to provide class members with required meal and rest
periods.

Matam sought certification of the proposed class, relying
principally on his expert's analysis of various Oracle databases
to conclude that class members worked overtime for which they were
not paid and had meal breaks that were short, late, or missed
altogether.

Oracle opposed Matam's motion and submitted the declaration of its
own expert, who opined that Matam's expert had made numerous
errors in his method and his calculations, rendering his
conclusions unreliable.

The trial court agreed, and denied Matam's motion finding he had
failed to demonstrate that common questions predominated and that
his claims were capable of class-wide proof.

In affirming the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals of
California concluded that the trial court acted within the bounds
of its discretion and that substantial evidence supports its
determination that a liability determination cannot be made based
upon the analysis of Matam's expert on Oracle's databases.

The appellate court also held that, because the trial court found
that Matam did not establish that class members took non-compliant
meal breaks or worked time for which they were not paid, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Matam had
failed to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's April 28, 2017 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/12vrbB from Leagle.com.


OUNZE CORPORATE: "Rives" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rives, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Ounze Corporate, LLC d/b/a Tapelia, and Juan Miguel Perez
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:17-cv-21467-CMA (S.D. Fla. April 19, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this
action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone:  (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile:  (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


POLK FOUNDATION: "Confair" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Confair, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Charles P. and Margaret E. Polk Foundation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00674-SHR (M.D. Pa., April 14, 2017)
is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime pay
in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was required and/or permitted to work in excess of forty
(40) hours per workweek, but was not properly compensated at one
and a half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over
forty (40) hours in a given workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a maintenance man for the Polk Foundation at
their facilities in Millersburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania based non-profit corporation,
which operates Polk Personal Care Center, an assisted living
facility, a medical center and other related facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
   Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
   McCarthy Weisberg Cummings, P.C.
   2041 Herr Street
   Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
   Tel: (717) 238-5707
   Fax: (717) 233-8133
   Email: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
          lweisberg@mwcfirm.com


PUERTO RICO: Bondholders File Suits After Litigation Freeze Ends
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danica Coto, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
bondholders sued Puerto Rico on May 2 in the first legal
challenges to hit the U.S. territory after the expiration of a
freeze on litigation that protected it from lawsuits amid a deep
economic crisis.

A group representing those who bought a portion of the $16 billion
worth of bonds backed by Puerto Rico's sales tax said in its
lawsuit that a government plan to cut its $70 billion debt is
unconstitutional.  The group accused government officials of
strong-arming it into what it called "unfair, unjust, and
illegally punitive terms."

Another lawsuit filed by Ambac Assurance Corp. accuses the
government of illegally retaining $300 million owed to
bondholders.  The company said it also has been forced to pay more
than $52 million in insurance claims as a result of ongoing
defaults by Puerto Rico's government.

Ambac also filed three other lawsuits, one against U.S. Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin seeking a lien on rum taxes that his
department collects and later remits to Puerto Rico.  Ambac argued
that Puerto Rico has illegally diverted rum tax revenue slated for
bondholders.

Aurelius Investment LLC and others who represent those who hold
some $1.4 billion in general obligation bonds also filed a lawsuit
against Puerto Rico.  The group said it is seeking in part to
recuperate more than $240 million worth of interest owed, plus
interest.  The bonds are backed by the island's constitution.

The lawsuits are expected to be among several filed as bondholders
seek to recover the money they invested in Puerto Rico government
bonds.  Puerto Rico already faced about a dozen lawsuits before
the litigation freeze was implemented as part of a rescue package
that U.S. Congress approved last year.

The newest suits come after the administration of Gov. Ricardo
Rossello failed to negotiate any deal with bondholders after the
May 1 deadline of the litigation freeze.  Puerto Rico has
defaulted on $1.3 billion of principal owed since the previous
governor declared the $70 billion public debt load unpayable in
June 2015.

Puerto Rico Chief of Staff William Villafane told The Associated
Press just hours before the freeze expired that the government
preferred to reach a deal with bondholders.  But he said embracing
a bankruptcy-like process could be an option if negotiations fail.

"At least essential services would be guaranteed," he said.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Ricardo Rossello said there would be no
immediate comment other than a statement issued late on May 1 in
which the administration said it was pursuing consensual
agreements but that other options are on the table.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New York Democrat, demanded faster action,
calling on a federal control board overseeing Puerto Rico's
finances to seek a court-supervised debt restructuring similar to
Chapter 9.

"And Governor Rossello must either get on board or get out of the
way," she said, saying she voted in favor of a rescue package last
year so Puerto Rico could restructure its debt.

"Puerto Rico is no longer shielded from creditors rushing to the
courthouse to lay claim to its assets -- that includes the
beaches, pieces of art, historical furniture and any assets
whether they are nailed down or not.  The people of Puerto Rico
have had enough. The governor and the board have a moral
imperative to act immediately."

Puerto Rico could announce a historic, court-supervised
restructuring for a portion of its $70 billion debt.  By
comparison, the U.S. city of Detroit had $9.3 billion of
obligations when it filed for bankruptcy in 2013 in the biggest
U.S. municipal bankruptcy ever.

Puerto Rico's situation is more dire than Detroit's because the
city, in part, had a firm set of rules in bankruptcy court, an
option that the U.S. territory doesn't have, said Greg Clark, head
of municipal research at Debtwire.

He also noted that that the government has to walk a fine line
with bondholders amid negotiations.

"They're going to need them again at some point," he said.  "Where
that sweet spot is, nobody exactly knows."

The government on April 29 offered to pay 50 cents on the dollar
to holders of general obligation and sales-tax bonds backed by
Puerto Rico's constitution.  Bondholders rejected the offer.

A fiscal plan for Puerto Rico sets aside $800 million a year for
debt payments, a fraction of the $35 billion due in interest and
payments over the next decade.


PURDUE PHARMA: Settles OxyContin Class Action for $20 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Howlett, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
pharmaceutical giant behind the blockbuster pain pill that
triggered Canada's deadly opioid crisis has agreed to pay $20-
million to settle a long-standing class-action lawsuit.

The proposed national settlement caps a legal battle that began a
decade ago between Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and
lawyers representing as many as 2,000 Canadians who got hooked on
the drug after their doctors prescribed it.  The country's opioid
epidemic traces its roots to the introduction of the prescription
painkiller 21 years ago.  From 2000 to 2015, more than 6,300 died
in Ontario alone from overdoses related to opioids.

"We're happy we at least have something to offer to the class
members after all this time," Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner said.

The settlement, which must be approved by the courts, includes $2-
million in compensation for provincial governments.  The
provinces' public drug programs spent $93-million in 2014 on
medications to treat patients suffering from dependence on
opioids, a 60-per-cent increase over four years, according to
figures obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Wagner's law firm launched the class action in 2007 in
Atlantic Canada and later joined forces with firms in Ontario and
Saskatchewan representing people across the rest of the country
who were introduced to the drug through a doctor's prescription.

The class-action accuses Purdue of knowing that anyone who took
OxyContin would be at risk of becoming addicted to it and suffer
withdrawal symptoms if they stopped.  But at no time were these
risks disclosed.

The settlement is not an admission of liability by Purdue.  "The
complaints stem from marketing activities that allegedly occurred
primarily between 1996 and 2001," the company said in a statement.

Purdue and the owners of the Stamford, Conn.-based company, the
Sackler family, amassed a fortune from OxyContin.  Purdue
generated $31-billion (U.S.) in revenue from the drug, and the
Sacklers were included on Forbes Magazine's list of the richest
American families in 2015, with an estimated net worth of $14-
billion.

It was Purdue's marketing prowess that transformed the way doctors
treat pain. Until the mid-1990s, opioids were used primarily for
people with terminal cancer.  But Purdue said its innovative pill
would substantially improve the "efficiency and quality of pain
management" because it did not need to be taken as frequently as
other medications, according to documents filed with the Canadian
Intellectual Property Office seeking to patent OxyContin.  In
1996, Health Canada approved the drug to relieve pain that was
moderate to severe.

Purdue distinguished OxyContin from its rivals by promoting its
time-release formula -- the pill was designed to be swallowed
whole and digested over 12 hours.  Company sales reps persuaded
doctors to expand their use of opioids beyond treating cancer pain
by pushing the notion that OxyContin posed a lower threat of abuse
and dependence to patients than other, faster-acting painkillers,
the lawsuit says.  Doctors started prescribing OxyContin for
everything from backaches to fibromyalgia, and the drug became the
top-selling long-acting opioid in Canada for more than a decade.

OxyContin also became a lightning rod in the early 2000s, as
reports of opioid dependence and overdoses exploded.  But the
nature and scope of Purdue's deceit did not become publicly known
until May, 2007, when the company and three of its executives paid
$634.5-million to settle criminal and civil charges against them
in the United States for misbranding OxyContin as less addictive
than other pain medications.

With questions mounting in Canada about OxyContin's role in the
opioid crisis, Purdue pulled the drug from the market in 2012,
just a few months before the patent was to expire.  Purdue
attempted to paint the problem as one of abuse, saying people were
intentionally using the pills to get high.

OxyContin was popular not only with people who became dependent
after their doctors prescribed it, but also with heroin users,
because it could be crushed, snorted or injected for a quick high.
A host of other, stronger drugs filled the void when it was taken
off the market, including illicit fentanyl, which began appearing
on Canada's streets in 2012.

"The people we represent in our class action were given the drug
by their family physician and they were misinformed about the
impact," Mr. Wagner said.

Jordan Grenier, 59, is one of them.  The Oakville, Ont., resident
has been drug-free for two years.  But his previous dependency on
prescription opioids cost him his career as a car salesman and he
is now on disability.  At one point, he was taking 80 milligrams
of OxyContin twice a day after he injured his back unloading a
truck in the late 1980s.

"The doctor told me at the time that this is a miracle drug and it
is not addictive," he said.


RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a San Diego County consumer alleges a Van Nuys
company unlawfully called her to solicit its services.

Rebecca Stacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on April 14 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Renewable Energy
Center LLC, doing business as American Pro Energy, alleging that
the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that starting
March 30, she received numerous telephone calls on her cellular
telephone from the defendant utilizing an automatic telephone
dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice.  She
alleges she asked to be removed from the defendant's call list and
not to call her anymore but still received numerous calls.

The plaintiff holds Renewable Energy Center LLC, doing business as
American Pro Energy, responsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to get prior express consent before placing numerous calls
and failed to cease all calls even after being requested to stop.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks for herself and
each class member $500 in statutory damages, injunctive relief
prohibiting such conduct in the future and any other relief the
court may deem just and proper. She is represented by Joshua
Swigart and Kevin Lemieux of Hyde and Swigart in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 3:17-cv-00755-CAB-WVG [GN]


ROMBOUT VILLAGE: Shareholders File Class Action Against Board
-------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat, citing the Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that
shareholders, fined for feeding squirrels, sue co-op board.

Shareholders have filed 10 lawsuits against the Rombout Village
board of directors and its management company over the past
decade.  The two latest, in state Supreme Court, claim that
illegal fines have been used to harass and intimidate shareholders
and, ultimately, invalidate their leases.

The reasons for the fines? Squirrels were seen eating bread left
in the bed of a shareholder's pickup truck.  Another shareholder
was fined for tossing a football with his son in the co-op's
parking lot.  A third shareholder was fined for "objectionable
conduct" when she complained that her air conditioning had not
been repaired by the co-op's staff.  A fourth was fined for taking
pictures of construction materials containing black mold that had
been removed from one of the apartments.

In each case, management determined that the shareholders had
violated the cooperative's bylaws or house rules.  "Respect and
adherence to these rules are essential for many people to coexist
peacefully in the same space," says Bill Dimmick, Rombout
Village's property manager and a former board member.

More plaintiffs may be coming.  In what experts say is a rare move
in lawsuits against co-op boards, the attorney in the two pending
cases is seeking class-actions status.  In court papers, attorney
Matthew Noviello of Carmel said class-action status is necessary,
in part, because many shareholders are so intimidated by the fines
and alleged harassment, they are afraid to assert their legal
rights.

Lawsuits have been leveled at the board since 2005 by
shareholders, a local contractor, the state Division of Human
Rights, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development, many alleging punitive actions taken by management.
Rombout Village has prevailed in most cases, settled at least one
and lost the lawsuit involving the contractor who was not paid for
work.

"Life here," says one of the plaintiffs, Frances Hilton, "has been
hell."

It's almost enough to make you want to move to big bad New York
City.


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of holders of Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. ("Royal Bancshares")
(NASDAQ:RBPAA) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Royal Bancshares by Bryn Mawr Bank Corporation
("Bryn Mawr") announced on January 31, 2017 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Royal Bancshares, its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), and Bryn Mawr, is captioned Parshall v. Royal Bancshares
of Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-1641 (E.D. Pa.).

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

On January 30, 2017, Royal Bancshares entered into an agreement
and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Bryn Mawr.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Royal Bancshares
will receive 0.1025 shares of Bryn Mawr common stock for each
share of Class A common stock they own, and 0.1179 shares of Bryn
Mawr common stock for each share of Class B common stock they own
(the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29,
2017.  The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Royal Bancshares stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary
to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to
vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information
with respect to Royal Bancshares' financial projections, the
analyses performed by Royal Bancshares' financial advisor, and the
background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of Royal Bancshares common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 30, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: "Dickon" Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD DICKON, an individual; on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUBIN
& ROTHMAN, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07961-SCM
(DNJ), the Plaintiff was slated to move the Court on May 9, 2017,
at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom MLK 2B, at the United States Court for
the District of New Jersey, for an Order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action and final approval of the Parties' class
settlement agreement, on behalf of the following class:

   "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New
   Jersey, against whom Rubin & Rothman filed a complaint in a
   lawsuit, between November 14, 2014, and September 25, 2015, in
   connection with the collection of a consumer debt on behalf of
   Toyota, which indicated Toyota was seeking to collect late
   charges or attorney's fees".

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges Rubin & Rothman violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending consumers
initial collection letters that failed to inform consumers late
charges and attorneys' fees would be added to their debts if/when
a lawsuit was filed and, therefore, failed to correctly state the
amount of the debt owed. The Litigation further alleged that Rubin
& Rothman was not legally permitted to collect such attorneys'
fees and late charges in the collection lawsuit it filed.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r3ytvE5d

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN & THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500


SAFEWAY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Pay Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that employees who
spend more than half their work time carrying out management tasks
aren't eligible for overtime pay, a California appeals court ruled
earlier this month.

In its ruling handed down April 4, the California Court of Appeal,
Second District, Division 4, ruled against a group of Safeway
assistant managers who claimed they should be classified as
nonexempt, making them eligible for overtime pay.  The ruling also
upheld a lower court's findings that more than half of the
assistant managers' time had work was spent in management tasks,
making them exempt from overtime pay.

"The evidence presented bore out the court's conclusions," the
appeals court ruling said.  "Each appellant relied on different
facts and different scenarios, and there was little overlap in the
evidence to support the respective claims.  Moreover, numerous
managers and AMs testified that the majority of their workdays was
spent attending to managerial duties."

The assistant store managers also based their claims for non-
exempt status on their job requirements that they carry out non-
exempt work such as stocking shelves, checking customers'
purchases and building product displays.  The appeals court didn't
look favorably on that claim.

"That managerial employees performed lengthy store walks once or
twice a day for the purpose of talking to department heads and
other employees, assessing the condition of the store and
determining the problems that needed to be addressed throughout
the store that day, was established by the testimony of numerous
witnesses, and supported the court's categorization of store walks
as exempt tasks," the ruling said.

The case has its roots in the putative class action filed in July
of 2002 filed by Peter Knoch and Jason Ritchey on behalf of all
Safeway store managers and assistant manager over unpaid overtime
and alleged violations of California's unfair competition laws.
Class certification was denied in July 2007 with the ordering
denying that certification entered in September of the following
year.

Before that denial, Safeway Assistant Manager Gary Batze filed his
complaint for unpaid wages in February 2006.  Two other assistant
managers, Carlo Cesar and Justin Hayes, filed complaints in
October 2008.  Other managerial level employees also filed related
complaints in 2005 and 2006, and all of the claims later were
combined.

During their appeal, plaintiffs claimed that the trial court was
wrong when it ruled that they spent most of their work time at
Safeway in managerial tasks during the four-year period described
in their complaints.  The court rejected that argument, as well as
other allegations that a strike period amounted to an emergency
that allowed Safeway to assign management employees to do non-
exempt tasks without losing their exempt status.  The appellate
court likewise upheld the trial court's finding that the class
action did not toll the statute of limitations.

"The fact that nearly 200 plaintiffs had already brought
individual claims before the class certification was denied adds
further support to the trial court's ruling, as it demonstrates
that denial of class certification was not unforeseen," the
appeals court ruling said.  "The court also found that Cesar and
Hayes unreasonably delayed asserting their claims after
certification was denied, adding to the prejudice to respondent of
defending stale claims." [GN]


STEAK 'N SHAKE: Must Face ADA Class Action, Judge Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a lawsuit alleging the Steak 'n Shake restaurant chain violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act by not having adequate
accessibility for handicapped patrons has been granted class
action status.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District
of Pennsylvania granted lead plaintiffs Christopher Mielo and
Sarah Heinzl's motion for class approval April 27 in their case
against Steak 'n Shake Operations Inc.

The class includes "[a]ll persons with qualified mobility
disabilities who were or will be denied the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages or accommodations of any Steak 'n Shake restaurant
location in the United States on the basis of a disability because
such persons encountered accessibility barriers at Steak'n Shake
restaurants where defendant owns, controls and/or operates the
parking facilities."

R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch
Sweet & Kilpela represents the class plaintiffs and did not return
a call seeking comment.  Maria Greco Danaher --
maria.danaher@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart represents Steak 'n Shake and also did not return a call
seeking comment.

The lead plaintiffs are both paraplegic and require the use of
wheelchairs.  According to Judge Mitchell's opinion, the two
visited multiple Steak 'n Shake locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio
and found the restaurants had architectural barriers in the
parking lots preventing easy access to wheelchairs.

In their lawsuit, they claimed the lack of accessibility violated
Title III of the ADA, which "prohibits discrimination against the
disabled in the full and equal enjoyment of public
accommodations."

"Plaintiffs contend that defendant has adopted an ADA compliance
policy that largely ignores its obligation to ensure its parking
facilities become and remain accessible to individuals with
disabilities," Judge Mitchell said.  "Specifically, when a
restaurant is built, defendant does not conduct an independent
post-construction assessment to determine whether architectural
barriers actually exist in its parking facilities, but rather,
relies exclusively on purportedly ADA complaint design plans as
its sole means of ensuring a parking facility is constructed in
compliance with the ADA."

Steak 'n Shake argued that the court should interpret the ADA as
limiting the company's restaurant maintenance obligations to
correcting temporary mechanical failures.

But Judge Mitchell said that "[f]or the purpose of deciding the
motion before us, we agree with plaintiffs."

Judge Mitchell found that the plaintiffs satisfied all of the
requirements for a class action, including numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. [GN]


SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Gamory" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Gamory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02727 (S.D. N.Y., April 14, 2017) seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and costs for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff without disclosing
that the account balances due may increase due to interest and
fees, the complaint says.

Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Igor Litvak, Esq.
   The Litvak Law Firm, PLLC
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 989-2908
   Fax: (718) 989-2908
   Email: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 1
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCR) from
December 6, 2016 through April 26, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Synchronoss investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Synchronoss class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1107.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Synchronoss would not be able to meet revenue guidance
provided to investors; (2) as such, Synchronoss would need to
revise its prior guidance; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Synchronoss's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 30, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1107.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
[GN]


TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces GE Ingredients Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Pegg, writing for Food Chemical News, reports that
New Jersey-based soup manufacturer Tabatchnick Fine Foods has been
served with a false advertising lawsuit that alleges it is
misleading consumers by labeling products that contain GMOs as
"all-natural."  The complaint adds to a growing list of litigation
that stems from both the FDA's reluctance to formally define
"natural" claims and consumer wariness of foods made with
genetically engineered ingredients.

The lawsuit, filed April 24 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, alleges the plaintiff -- and a
potential class of thousands -- would not have purchased
Tabatchinick's soups if they'd known the products contained GE
soy, corn. [GN]


TARO PHARMA: Sergeants Fund Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Taro
Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, INC.,
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Case No. 16-08911, was
transferred on April 18, 2017, from the United States District
Court for the Southern District New York to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-01759-CMR to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets generic and branded
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Christina H.C. Sharp, Esq.
      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California St 14th Fl
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      E-mail: aep@girardgibbs.com
              chc@girardgibbs.com
              dcg@girardgibbs.com

         - and-

      Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway 27th Fl
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Anne Elizabeth Railton, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      620 8th Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 459-7434
      E-mail: arailton@goodwinlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher T. Holding, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      100 Northern Avenue
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 570-1000
      E-mail: cholding@goodwinlaw.com


TENNESSEE: DCS Prepares to Exit Court Foster Care Oversight
-----------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that the Tennessee Department of Children's
Services (DCS) is preparing to exit court oversight in the Brian A
v. Haslam class-action lawsuit, filed in 2000 by Children's Rights
on behalf of children in foster care. When the lawsuit was filed,
DCS caseworkers had high caseloads, and children were often placed
in congregate care, such as orphanage-like settings and emergency
shelters. The plaintiffs said the state violated children's
constitutional rights, and subjected children to physical and
emotional harm and ongoing risks of such harm.


TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Fee Award to Plaintiffs in Medicaid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
and remanded the district court's interim fee order which awarded
the full amount of requested attorney fees to the plaintiffs in a
class action that was brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible
children in Texas.

The class action was brought more than two decades ago, alleging
that the State was failing to provide adequate Early, Periodic
Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services.  The EPSDT
program focuses on preventative health care for indigent children,
especially routine checkups and necessary follow up care.

The district court had entered a consent decree in 1996 aimed at
"enhance[ing] the availability of health care services,
eliminate[ing] barriers that have the effect of preventing access
to services, and more effectively inform[ing] recipients that
services are available and important to their current and future
health."

More than a decade later, in 2007, the plaintiffs successfully
obtained an agreed corrective action order.  The order resulted
from the plaintiffs' motions to enforce and to find the defendants
in violation of the original decree.  Each of the plans in the
2007 order deals with a specific issue, such as transportation,
health care provider training, and outreach efforts.

Portions of the original consent decree and a 2007 corrective
action order are still in effect.  But the district court recently
concluded that one of the 11 corrective plans from the 2007 order
-- one requiring Texas to provide annual reports on the number of
eligible children receiving medical and dental checkups and to
take steps to boost compliance in counties that lag behind
statewide participation rates -- was no longer needed.  That
decision was made in response to motions filed pursuant to a
procedure the 2007 corrective action order set forth in which,
after four years, the parties would confer about the need for
further action.  If the parties were unable to reach agreement, as
turned out to be the case, the "dispute [would] be resolved by the
Court."

The plaintiffs nonetheless sought attorney fees incurred both in
preparing their motion and opposing the one filed by defendants.
They asserted entitlement to fees both as a "prevailing party"
under 42 U.S.C. section 1988 and as a matter of contractual right
under a fee order that accompanied the 2007 corrective action
order.  The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and awarded
the full amount of requested fees without engaging in a
reasonableness analysis that considered the plaintiffs' degree of
success.  The court ordered that the defendants pay the
plaintiffs' their requested $129,140.00 for work on the contested
motions.

The Fifth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs had an entitlement to
fees as the round of motion practice was the final step
contemplated under the 2007 corrective action order for which they
were the prevailing party.  However, the appellate court also held
that, as with a typical fee request, the district court should
have engaged in a reasonableness analysis that included evaluating
the party's degree of success.

The case is captioned CARLA FREW; CHARLOTTE GARVIN, as next friend
of her minor children Johnny Martinez, Brooklyn Garvin and BreAnna
Garvin; CLASS MEMBERS; NICOLE CARROLL, Class Representative; MARIA
AYALA, as next friend of her minor children, Christopher Arizola,
Leonard Jimenez and Joseph Veliz; MARY JANE GARZA, as next friend
of her minor children, Hilary Garza and Sarah Renea Garza,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHRIS TRAYLOR, Commissioner of the Texas
Health and Human Services Commission in his official capacity; KAY
GHAHREMANI, State Medicaid Director of the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission in her official capacity, Defendants-
Appellants, No. 14-41232 (5th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's April 27, 2017 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/EdYGbK from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.

            -- and --

          Jane K. Swanson, Esq.
          1408 Bentwood Rd
          Austin, TX 78722-1016
          Tel: (512)220-0678

Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          James Byron Eccles, Esq.

            -- and --

          Arthur D'Andrea, Esq.
          Tel: (512)936-0181

            -- and --

          J. Campbell Barker, Esq.
          300 W 15th St
          Austin, TX 78701-1649
          Tel: (512)936-1700

            -- and --

          Sean Patrick Flammer, Esq.
          The Haehnel Building
          1101 East 11th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Tel: (512)623-7727
          Fax: (512)623-7729


THIRD AVENUE: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Third Avenue Fund Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re THIRD AVENUE MANAGEMENT LLC
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02758-PKC
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates To:
          ALL ACTIONS.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING
THE THIRD AVENUE FOCUSED CREDIT FUND

TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF THE THIRD AVENUE FOCUSED
CREDIT FUND (THE "FUND") DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 2013
THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2015, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS PERIOD")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that
Plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants to
resolve all claims in the case for $14,250,000 in cash.

Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, a "Settlement Hearing" will be held
on June 23, 2017, at 2:15 p.m., before the Honorable P. Kevin
Castel, United States District Judge, at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, to determine, among other things: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Action for the sum of $14,250,000 in
cash on the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
March 31, 2017 ("Stipulation")1 should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether an Order Approving Class
Action Settlement and Judgment should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED FUND SHARES DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2013
THROUGH DECEMBER 10, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY THIS SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to
Third Avenue Fund Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30255, College Station, TX 77842-3255,
by telephone, at 1-844-540-6003, or by email, at
info@thirdavenuefundsettlement.com.  You may also download these
documents from the Internet at  www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail postmarked no later than July 19, 2017, at the
Claims Administrator's address, Third Avenue Fund Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
30255, College Station, TX 77842-3255 or online at
www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com no later than July 19, 2017,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.

You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless
you request to be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked
no later than June 2, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in
the detailed Notice, referred to above.  If you submit a valid and
timely request for exclusion, you cannot share in the settlement
money, cannot object to the Settlement, and will not be bound by
the Settlement or the Court's rulings.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses must comply with the requirements stated in the
Notice and must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, no later than June 2, 2017, and received by the
following no later than June 2, 2017:

Lead Counsel:

Defendants' Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Jeffrey D. Light
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

ROPES & GRAY LLP
Robert A. Skinner
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA  02199

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement or
the Action, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above or Rick Nelson, a representative of Lead Counsel at 1-800-
449-4900.

DATED:  April 20, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1 The Stipulation and other settlement related documents can be
viewed at
www.thirdavenuefundsettlement.com. [GN]


TILLIS PEST: Faces "Barbour" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Barbour, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tillis Pest Control, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00677-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 14,
2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
the similarly situated employees an overtime premium for all of
the overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiff Rob Barbour was employed by Defendant as a manager.

Defendant Tillis Pest Control, Inc. operates a pest control
company in Debary, in Volusia County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
   Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A.
   1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Tel: 813-224-0431; 813-229-8712
   Fax: 813-229-8712
   Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
          mk@wfclaw.com


TREASURY WINE: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian ALitigation funder IMF Bentham says the Federal
Court has ordered that a class action brought against wine
producer Treasury Wine Estates go to mediation before mid-August.

IMF said on May 1 that the order for mediation before August 14
meant no more than that the parties propose to discuss settlement
in good faith.

Treasury Wine Estates shareholders began legal action against the
global winemaker and distributor in 2013 for allegedly breaching
disclosure obligations over writedowns incurred to deal with
excess, aged and deteriorating stock in the United States.


US CONCRETE: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on May 1 announced a
class action lawsuit against U.S. Concrete, Inc. ("U.S. Concrete"
or the "Company") (USCR) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017 inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm
prior to the May 30, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet.  Until a
class is certified, you are not considered represented by an
attorney.  You may also do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, U.S. Concrete
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting and thus its public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  On
March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the
resignation of the Company's CFO Joseph Tusa, and advising
investors that the Company dismissed its previous auditor, Grant
Thornton LLP, and engaged Ernst & Young LLP as its new public
accounting firm.  When this information reached the public, U.S.
Concrete's stock price declined materially, which harmed investors
according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles devoted to
upholding shareholders' rights.

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


WELLS FARGO: August 30 TCPA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo").  The lawsuit
alleges Wells Fargo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an
artificial or prerecorded voice to initiate calls to cell phones
("Automatic Calls") in connection with student loans, without
prior express consent.  Wells Fargo denies the allegations, and
the Court has not decided who is right. Instead, both sides agreed
to a settlement.

You are included in the Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if
you received an Automatic Call regarding a Wells Fargo student
loan account from April 21, 2011 to December 19, 2015.

Wells Fargo has agreed to create a $2,075,071.80 Settlement Fund.
The Fund will be used to make cash payments to Settlement Class
Members who submit valid claims and to pay Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees and costs (up to $622,522), a $15,000 service
award to each of the two Class Representatives, and settlement
administration costs. Settlement Class Member's payments are
estimated to be between $20 and $50, but they will depend on the
total number of approved claims that are filed.

To receive payment, you must complete and submit a valid Claim
Form by July 31, 2017.  If you received a Postcard Notice in the
mail you may file a claim using the detachable Claim Form, or
online or by phone using the Claim ID provided on the front of the
card.  If you did not receive a Postcard Notice in the mail, you
may print a Claim Form from www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com and mail
it to the address on the form. Claim Forms are also available by
calling 844-363-2463.

If you don't want a payment from this Settlement, and you want to
keep the right to sue or continue to sue Wells Fargo on your own
about the legal issues in this case, then you must request
exclusion from the Settlement by sending a letter to the Claims
Administrator by June 30, 2017.  The letter requesting exclusion
must contain the information set forth in the full Notice and in
the Settlement Agreement, both are available at
www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com.  Unless you exclude yourself, you
are choosing to stay in the Settlement and you are releasing Wells
Fargo from the legal claims resolved by this Settlement. The
Released Claims are described in full in the Settlement Agreement.

If you don't exclude yourself, you can object to any part of the
Settlement. You must file your objection with the Court and mail
it to Class Counsel and Counsel for Wells Fargo by June 30, 2017.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you choose to do nothing,
you will not receive a payment, you will be bound by the
Settlement, and you will release Wells Fargo from the legal claims
in this case.

The Court will hold a hearing on August 30, 2017 to decide whether
to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees and expenses, and Class Representative service awards.  You
may attend, but it is not required.  If you wish to hire your own
attorney, you may do so at your own expense.

For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement
Agreement, visit www.PratherWellsFargoTCPA.com. [GN]


* Congressman Trey Gowdy Supports Class Action Reform Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Palmetto Business Daily reports that Congressman Trey Gowdy, a
South Carolina Republican, has offered his strong support for
legislation that aims to curb what sponsors argue are abusive
practices related to class action lawsuits.

The U.S. House passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
in March, and it is now with the U.S. Senate's Judiciary
Committee.  Its main provisions include setting limits on
recoveries for victims; requiring that class actions consist of
members with the same type and scope of injury; and mandating that
those with lesser injuries file separate actions.

"Class action lawsuits provide a level playing field for both
consumers and businesses to settle disputes," Mr. Gowdy told
Palmetto Business Daily.  "The Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act ensures Americans have the opportunity to resolve their
grievances through our civil litigation system while
simultaneously providing judges with the discretion they need to
protect equal access to justice. "

The congressman, who voted for the bill, praised Rep. Bob
Goodlatte (R-VA) for introducing it "and for his steadfast
commitment to a fair and transparent justice system."

The bill will now be considered by the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee, of which Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is a member. In
response to questions from Palmetto Business Daily asking for the
senator's position on the bill, Graham's press spokesman, Kevin
Bishop, said, "It hasn't come up yet."

Mr. Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said class
action lawsuits "were supposed to provide a level playing field
for both consumers and businesses, so their issues could be
settled in a just and fair system."

"Sadly, because of abuses by unscrupulous trial lawyers, many
Americans now see class action lawsuits as a television
commercial, a hotline, and a cottage industry where lawyers win
and victims lose," Mr. Goodlatte said in a statement following the
passage of the bill in the House.

Mr. Goodlatte claimed trial lawyers are exploiting loopholes in a
previous bill he authored more than 10 years ago, the Class Action
Fairness Act. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

"We are giving judges the tools they need to keep abusive
practices out of our courts, and to prevent further exploitation
of victims by trial lawyers who wish to line their pockets," the
congressman said.

The bill also contains additional provisions prohibiting judges
from approving class actions in which the lawyer representing the
class is a relative of a party in the class action suit; requiring
class action lawyers only receive payment after victims are paid;
and ordering that any third-party funding agreement be disclosed
to the court.

It also contains provisions relating to asebestos bankruptcy
trusts, which were set up to manage the disbursement of awards in
those cases. The bill orders increased transparency. [GN]


* DOL's Fiduciary Rule Spurs Changes Despite Implementation Delay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Finkle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than six years have passed since the U.S. Department of
Labor first rolled out its fiduciary rule for the retirement
industry, but whether that rule becomes effective in early June,
as now planned, still remains uncertain.  Despite the delay,
analysts say the mere threat of the federal rule going live --
along with a decade of class action litigation -- already has
wrought changes to an industry more in the public view than ever
before. As the attorneys who represent companies parse the fine
print to ensure legal compliance should the rule stand, some
observers predict many companies will adopt stricter standards for
a simpler reason: good business.

"The cat's out of the bag," said Stephen McCaffrey, board chairman
of the Chicago-based Plan Sponsor Council of America. "People,
their eyes are open about the things that they have to ask for and
look at.  They recognize that it's their money and they need to
ask questions."

It doesn't mean Republicans aren't pushing back. President Donald
Trump in February ordered the agency to re-examine the rule, which
was due to go into effect in April but was delayed until early
June.  The regulation was designed to extend fiduciary
responsibilities to a wider universe of people providing
retirement advice.

Financial firms and their attorneys are scrambling to keep pace
with its evolution in Washington, though experts note that the
policy fight of the past half dozen years has already had a
significant impact on the industry.

Indeed, the landscape for handling retirement accounts has been
transformed in recent years -- and many analysts expect a number
of those changes to stick.  A series of class action lawsuits
hatched over the past decade are credited with significantly
reducing fees associated with 401(k) plans and with ensuring that
the interests of employees and retirees come first in the
management of those plans.

At the same time, the DOL's measure has put the term "fiduciary"
squarely in public view -- bringing with it attention from
consumers that may spur many companies to broadly comply with the
new standard, regardless of its official status.

"There's a higher level of care throughout the industry," said
Marcia Wagner of Wagner Law Group in Boston, who specializes in
employee benefits law.

Regulatory Uncertainty
For those in the retirement industry, the next key date to watch
is June 9, when the first components of the DOL rule are now
planned to take effect.  While there's still considerable
uncertainty around its final fate -- including whether
controversial parts or even the whole rule is reversed --
attorneys are advising clients to move forward with compliance,
assuming the date will stand.

"Are companies gearing up to comply with June 9? Yes, they are,"
said Kent Mason, a partner at Davis & Harman in Washington who
specializes in retirement savings. "People have to assume, at
least for now, that what's in the document is final.  Obviously,
it can change, but I don't think people can count on that for
compliance purposes."

The delay notice hinted that financial advisers and others
impacted should take the date seriously, suggesting that it would
be "inappropriate" to "broadly delay" implementation of the new
definition for fiduciary advice and its best interest standard "in
disregard of its previous findings of ongoing injury to retirement
investors."

But here are some analysts who doubt that the entire rule will
survive intact.  "In some ways, this is career staff slow-walking
the execution order of a rule they crafted," said Edward Mills, a
policy analyst at FBR Capital Markets based in Arlington,
Virginia, particularly given that the delay language was finalized
without a Trump-appointed labor secretary in place. (At press
time, the president's nominee, Alexander Acosta, was approved by a
U.S. Senate panel but not by the full Senate, though he is likely
to be confirmed.)

"To me, the important thing is, what does the Trump administration
and the Republican Congress want to do? They don't want this rule
to go into effect," Mr. Mills said, predicting that the most
likely outcome remains "a series of short-term delays that are
ultimately going to lead to a long-term delay, a revoking of the
rule or a fundamental rewriting of the rule."
A spokesman for the Department of Labor did not respond to
requests for comment on its review of the rule.

Still, while companies scramble to keep pace with the latest
developments regarding the regulation, observers said that some
advisers and brokers may adopt the stricter fiduciary standard
voluntarily in order to differentiate themselves from competitors.
With so many firms working for a year or longer to put the
fiduciary rule into place, the regulation already has prompted
significant changes in the retirement industry.

"There's a lot more focus on compensation arrangements and
different fee structures," said Seth Safra, a partner at Proskauer
Rose in Washington who focuses on employee benefits and executive
compensation.  "No matter what happens, the awareness is not going
to go away.  Just from a competitive perspective, service
providers are looking at this and saying, 'Maybe we can use some
of this to our advantage to distinguish ourselves in the
marketplace.'"

That's due in part to the widespread publicity the rule has
garnered, which extends far beyond the nation's capital.

Plaintiffs' Bar Action

One of the most contentious fights over the fiduciary rule
involves how much potential legal liability those covered under
the measure will have to assume under the regulation.  Morningstar
Inc. analyst Michael Wong estimated in February that class action
litigation stemming from the rule could cost the industry $150
million annually -- or even more in the early years -- among those
selling commission-based products under one of the rule's
exemptions.

The brokerage industry doesn't have to look far to see the threats
that such liability can bring, as a handful of plaintiff's firms
has filed dozens of cases against employers for breach of
fiduciary duty in recent years with respect to the management of
employee 401(k) plans.

"The risk of fiduciary lawsuits is very significant," said
Mr. Safra.  "All of the 401(k) litigation that's going on right
now is enough to see why one would be scared about that, even
where the fiduciaries have had some success" in defending
themselves.

Defined-contribution plans have been replacing traditional
pensions since the 1980s, but oversight of the programs and their
management failed to garner much attention in those early years.
One firm, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, began pursuing cases in the
mid-2000s against employers that, it argued, were allowing
participants to be charged excessive fees, including cases where
those fees presented a conflict of interest or the possibility of
self-dealing for the companies involved.

"What existed was a system in a dark closet," said Jerome
Schlichter, founding and managing partner of the St. Louis-based
firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton, who's been leading the class
action fight against 401(k) plan sponsors.

Dozens of cases have since been filed by the firm and others, and
Schlichter has been credited with helping to reduce overall 401(k)
record keeping fees by an estimated $2.8 billion per year. He's
secured a number of high-profile settlements, including a $62
million deal with Lockheed Martin Corp. in 2015, the largest to
date.  Just two of the cases have gone to trial so far, and both
continue to wind their way through the courts after more than a
decade.  Schlichter called the effort to bring the litigation "an
intense battle."

Plan sponsors "know that actions that they may have taken in the
past that they thought were responsible are going to be
scrutinized much more carefully," said Mark Hess, a partner at Fox
Rothschild in Los Angeles, who focuses on employee benefits law.

Still, he noted, the enhanced scrutiny that's come with the threat
of lawsuits could motivate plan sponsors to become overly cautious
in their management.

"Judgment is going to be impaired somewhat by the fact that
they're always looking over their shoulders -- how can my actions
be interpreted five years from now?" Mr. Hess added.

Going forward, it appears that plaintiff's firms may be looking to
raise the bar even higher for companies managing a 401(k) plan.
Charles Humphrey, an attorney for Fiduciary Plan Governance, a
Newbury, Massachusetts-based consultancy, points to a handful of
cases filed over the past two years that further probe the actions
taken by plan sponsors with respect to their fiduciary duties,
digging into the performance and design of certain investments.

Such cases indicate that "the plaintiff's bar is trying to delve
into the weaknesses of particular employee benefit plans to see if
they can exploit those weaknesses," Mr. Humphrey said, though it's
unclear at this point whether the new efforts will be successful.

These trends will be crucial to watch for organizations of all
kinds.  Company executives who take on a fiduciary role are
personally liable under the law -- breaching those duties
willfully can lead to significant fines and even jail time. And
yet, experts say, many fiduciaries still don't necessarily
understand the extent of the responsibilities involved in managing
a firm's 401(k) plan.

"A lot of these people are volunteered into the position," said
PSCA's McCaffrey.  "Their duty of loyalty is solely to the
participants and the beneficiaries -- and they need to know, when
they walk into a fiduciary meeting, they have to shed their
company hat."

The combination of the pending federal fiduciary rule and the
heightened risks associated with class action lawsuits have pushed
plan managers, advisers and other players to pay closer attention
to implementation and oversight of retirement savings accounts.
Whether or not the Labor Department ultimately decides to rescind
the intensely debated regulation, those broader changes are
unlikely to dissipate.

"There was a huge lack of understanding, and I think the entire
industry -- from plan sponsors to plan vendors -- is evolving,"
said Wagner.  "People now understand that this is a serious
responsibility."


* FDA Calories Labeling Rule Carries Legal Risks for Food Chains
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Dayton Klein, writing for StarTribune, reports that
consumers rolling up to drive-throughs may have noticed the
calorie counts at fast food chains in recent years.  And soon,
consumers can expect to start seeing calories on display at
additional restaurants and food venues.

The reason stems from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules
that the agency was slated to start enforcing on May 5, but just
recently delayed until May 2018.  This rule means certain
restaurants will need to include calories on their menus or face
penalties starting next year.

And while many large chains are already displaying calories --
including the Minnesota-made chains such as Dairy Queen and Dunn
Brothers -- the new rules pose significant changes and hurdles for
newer or medium-sized chains.

Why calories and why now?

This federal effort to give consumers more food information
follows a trend at the state and local level dating back over a
decade.  There's long been a push to provide consumers with more
information about the food they eat, in the hopes of promoting
healthier lifestyles.  At first, many in the restaurant industry
fought these regulations, noting compliance was expensive and
fearing calorie count displays might hurt demand.

However, as these laws rolled out across the country and as data
rolled in showing marginal change in consumer behavior,
restaurants switched to favoring a federal standard, rather than
face a patchwork of laws and regulations.  As a result, the
Affordable Care Act authorized the FDA to set the rules, which
were implemented in 2015, giving the restaurants a few years to
come into compliance before the start of enforcement.

Who is affected?

Restaurants, coffee shops and other "covered establishments" (such
as delis and buffets found in grocery and convenience stores) with
20 or more national locations under the same or similar brand, or
under common ownership, must follow these rules.

Restaurants with fewer than 20 locations may also opt to register
to be governed by the FDA rules.  This may be an appealing option
for smaller chains that want to be subject to just one set of
standards, rather than several different standards in different
cities and states.

What are the rules?

The FDA rules require venues to disclose several pieces of
information to consumers and certify the information is correct.
First, menus must show the calories of the items that are
routinely offered.  There is an exception for items that appear
periodically and for menu items that are being test marketed.
Second, restaurants must make additional nutrition information --
such as fat, protein, carbohydrates, sodium and the like --
available upon request.  Also, restaurants must certify that the
calories they display match the calories in the food that is
served.

It is unclear what shape FDA enforcement will take.  The agency
has indicated it is still working on an enforcement plan and the
precise penalties.  They have hinted at partnering with state and
local officials to enforce these regulations, particularly in
places that already had menu-labeling rules in effect.

Once enforcement begins in May 2018, inspectors will likely visit
stores and ask to see caloric and nutritional information.  They
also might ask for certifications about the accuracy of the
calories disclosed on the menus and about the precision of
following the recipes.

Operating challenges

Restaurants that must display calories face some operational and
legal challenges.  For example, costs of menu redesign and
printing can be steep, and it can be challenging to display the
calories in a conspicuous way while maintaining aesthetic
aspirations.

Also, adding items to the menu is now more complicated than just
adding the item to the list.  The item will need to be evaluated
for calories and other nutritional information before it can go on
the menu.  Further complicating the mix, the rules require each
restaurant location to certify that it follows the recipes for the
items closely to ensure that the calories in the food served match
the calories displayed. This can be challenging to manage
consistency for chains with many locations.

Displaying calories also carries some legal risk.  Particularly,
there is a potential for consumer class action groups to test food
items to see if they match the calories displayed.  Recently,
Chipotle was sued in California for having inaccurate calorie
counts for its chorizo burrito.  These cautionary tales should
keep businesses vigilant in ensuring consistent production of food
items to match the calorie count on display.

Guidance for compliance

Restaurant chains subject to these rules need to revise menus to
disclose calories, as well as update websites in cases where
customers can place orders online.

Running any potential changes by an attorney with experience in
these issues will also help restaurants make sure their investment
in these changes add value to their business while minimizing
legal risk.

Bon appetit!

Julia Dayton Klein is a principal at Minneapolis-based Gray Plant
Mooty.


* New NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra May Undo Pro-Union Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Higgins, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that Philip
Miscimarra, the new chairman of the National Labor Relations
Board, is poised to be the Antonin Scalia of workplace law,
business and labor experts say.  Like the late Supreme Court
justice, he believes that the only thing that matters is what the
text of the law explicitly says.

Also like Scalia, he has penned a string of vigorous, sometimes
acerbic dissents to his colleagues' rulings.  He will have the
opportunity to roll back the board's recent, mainly pro-union
changes now that President Trump has put him in charge of the
nation's main federal labor law enforcement agency -- a prospect
that has business groups cheering and labor advocates gloomy.

"The fact that he is chairman is encouraging.  This is an
opportunity to restore some common sense to labor law," said Glenn
Spencer, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
Workforce Freedom Initiative.  The chamber doggedly fought the
board under former President Barack Obama.

Labor advocates scoff at the notion that the board overreached
under Obama.  "The idea that you cannot look at the developments
in the workplace and how it has changed over the past 80 years
when it comes to interpreting the law is absurd," said
Joshua Parkhurst, a New York labor rights attorney.

Nevertheless, it will be a while before Miscimarra can assert
himself.  Although chairman, he is still in the minority because
the other two current board members, Mark Pearce and Lauren
McFerran, are Democrats. He will have to wait until Trump
nominates and the Senate confirms two Republicans to fill the
remaining open seats.

Miscimarra was a lawyer in private practice in Chicago when he was
picked by Obama in 2013 to fill an open Republican seat on the
Democratic-majority board. At the time, the board, long a little-
known federal backwater, was just beginning to assert itself as a
major force by rewriting workplace law.

In dissents that were often far longer than the majority's
rulings, Miscimarra regularly argued the board was exceeding the
authority Congress had given it. The board's other Republican,
Harry Johnson, whose term expired in 2015, usually joined him.

That stance was perhaps most clear in a 2014 case called Murphy
Oil.  The board majority said the National Labor Relations Act
gave it the right to invalidate class-action waivers that
employers required workers to sign.  The labor act couldn't do
that, Miscimarra countered, because it was written before class
actions existed.

"It defies reason to suggest that Congress, in 1935, incorporated
into the NLRA a guarantee that non-NLRA claims will be afforded
'class' treatment when there was no uniformity then -- nor is
there now -- regarding what 'class' treatment even means," he
said.

He made a similar argument in 2015's Browning Ferris, one of the
board's most notable rulings.  The case involved when one business
became a "joint employer" of another company's workers and
therefore legally responsible for any violations of workplace
laws. Previously, a business had to have "direct control" over the
workers to be considered a joint employer, but the labor board
expanded that to the much vaguer "indirect control." Miscimarra
was one of the controversial ruling's biggest critics.

"No bargaining table is big enough to seat all of the entities
that will be potential joint employers under the majority's new
standards. In this regard, we believe the majority's new test
impermissibly exceeds our statutory authority," he wrote.

Steve Bernstein, a management-side attorney with the Tampa law
firm Fisher & Phillips, points to Miscimarra's dissents in the
various cases the labor board has taken up about employer policies
toward social media such as Facebook as another area where
Miscimarra has pointed out that the Labor Relations Act is simply
silent.

"It is increasingly hard for the NLRB to argue that the people who
wrote the law would have done the same thing that the board is
doing right now," Bernstein said.

Like Scalia's, some of Miscimarra's dissents could be quite
scathing. When in a 2016 joint employer case involving McDonald's
Corp. the board denied the company the right to subpoena certain
documents for its defense, Miscimarra compared it to a person
being denied the opportunity to say they killed in self-defense.

"If a person accused of murder maintains he was acting in self-
defense, evidence that he was being attacked is obviously
relevant," he wrote.

After the board instituted a new rule speeding up the scheduling
of workplace elections, a change that unions applauded, Miscimarra
slammed the majority's "preoccupation with speed" in a February
case called European Imports. The sped-up process "extinguishes
the employees' right to have a reasonable period of time to become
familiar with election issues," he said.

All those comments point to Miscimarra pulling the board back from
its current activist period into something closer to status quo
that prevailed prior to Obama, observers say.

Miscimarra is also apparently a sci-fi nerd. In a 2016 case called
American Baptist Homes of the West he said the majority's opinion
was wrong because the law "does not require parties to maintain
Spock-like objectivity."  In a footnote he explained, "Mr. Spock -
- a main character in the well-known television and movie series
Star Trek -- was perhaps best known for his (largely successful)
efforts to suppress emotion . . . However, even Spock, who had a
human mother, experienced a 'strained and often turbulent'
relationship with his Vulcan father."


* OSC's Whistleblower Program Faces Criticism
---------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that
will financial rewards to whistleblowers from the OSC help or
hinder companies from complying with securities laws?

On the way to her office one morning in early March, Nadia Campion
-- ncampion@polleyfaith.com -- glanced up at the digital display
in the elevator she had just entered and noticed an ad for a
snitch program that has caused more than one client to pick up the
phone and call her. It was a promotion from the Ontario Securities
Commission's Office of the Whistleblower: "Know of a company
breaking securities law? We want to hear from you."

Ms. Campion, a partner at Polley Faith LLP in Toronto, says she
has questioned whether the prospect of financial rewards will have
an impact on the number of whistleblowers who come forward, the
quality of the information and the seriousness of the conduct
reported.  But in a January article published by the New York
School of Law on the topic, 2016 was heralded as a "banner year"
for the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission's
whistleblower programs.

"The stats look pretty favourable to the regulators," she says.

"In my view, I think that financial rewards are likely the best
way forward for regulators, and in any event, the criteria for
obtaining a financial reward are difficult to satisfy -- they
provide a good counterweight to the concerns expressed by critics
and act as a strong gatekeeper to prevent the misuse of the
whistleblower program," says Ms. Campion.

The OSC's whistleblower program was introduced in July 2016 and
offers financial rewards of up to $5 million to those who
voluntarily come forward with information -- provided, of course,
that they satisfy certain eligibility criteria and that the
information submitted is of real assistance to the OSC and results
in monetary sanctions of $1 million or more.  The rewards promised
are potentially much less, but the program is somewhat similar to
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission program created in
2011, as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis.  So far, the SEC
has paid out US$149 million to 41 whistleblowers.

In January, the SEC announced an award of $7 million to be split
between three whistleblowers who helped the SEC prosecute an
investment scheme.

In the Ontario program, individuals who participate in the
misconduct reported are also eligible for a financial reward.  In
addition to financial rewards, whistleblowers to the OSC are
promised various protections, including that the OSC will use all
reasonable efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower
confidential. And, employers of whistleblowers are strictly
prohibited from taking any retaliatory measures.

By late September, the OSC reported it had received more than 30
"credible" tips reporting potential violations of securities laws
such as mistakes in accounting and disclosure violations.

Critics of the OSC whistleblower program argue that providing
financial rewards will give rise to an "American-style bounty
program" and may lead to individuals coming forward with
incomplete or misleading information that may implicate others for
nefarious or monetary motives.  Also, giving wrongdoers financial
rewards may be contrary to the jurisdiction's common law tradition
that one should not profit from their crimes.

John Tuzyk -- john.tuzyk@blakes.com -- partner at Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP, says whistleblower programs with cash rewards
represent the "continuing evolution" of the privatization of
securities law enforcement that started with securities class
actions.

"You pay people to come forward with complaints and then class
action lawyers bring secondary market claims: It's a market-driven
privatized system," he says.

Mr. Tuzyk argues the whistleblower program creates disincentives
for anyone to use internal reporting programs and mechanisms that
companies were already required to set up under the existing
national rules.

This means that corporations and employers lose control of the
disclosure and internal investigation process, which could be
problematic.

"Essentially, individuals with evidence of wrongdoing may jump the
queue to the detriment of the corporation/employer and may make it
difficult for such entities to defend themselves or at least
manage the process," Ms. Campion says.

Ms. Campion says these criticisms "have had some traction."  Last
summer, Quebec's Autorite des marches financiers introduced its
new whistleblower program, which does not provide any financial
rewards, and Alberta's regulators have announced they have opted
to go with a no-rewards-for-tips whistleblower policy.

In the face of all this, Ms. Campion says, corporations, with the
assistance of their in-house legal teams, should create a culture
of reporting internally without fear of retaliation and develop a
concrete framework for addressing allegations made by
whistleblowers.  "As I recently said to one in-house lawyer on the
topic: 'In the absence of an effective internal reporting process,
whistleblowers will contact the OSC directly, particularly if they
will be paid for their tips.'"

Ms. Campion says the cash-for-information whistleblower program
creates a big risk for companies that don't have robust reporting
programs or the right culture and incentives provided to employees
to report internally first.  Instead, the incentive now is to go
to the OSC.

Academically, she says, the conclusions drawn elsewhere, such as
in Quebec and Europe, seem to suggest the financial reporting
doesn't improve the quality of information reported.  However, the
stats in the U.S. from the SEC seem to suggest they are getting a
lot of tips.

"Ultimately, what companies and their in-house lawyers want to do
is control the process," says Ms. Campion.

Barbara Hendrickson of BAX Securities Law says internal reporting
policies and the OSC's whistleblower program don't have to be
inconsistent with each other. If an issuer has a robust internal
policy, they can potentially deal with issues before they are
escalated to the OSC, and most public companies will have a
program in their own code of business ethics.

"It's a big step to go to the OSC, for anyone," says Ms.
Hendrickson.  "If people felt there were internal procedures in
place and their concerns would receive a fair hearing and there
would be no retaliation, then they might be more likely to go
internally.  I guess the only caveat is how serious it is -- that
may affect a whisteblower's confidence in the internal control
system."

Ms. Campion does agree a financial rewards program is probably
better than what Quebec and Alberta have.  From a regulator's
perspective, it increases the chance they will come across good
and reliable information as opposed to a program where there is no
financial incentive.

"I do think there is a good balance when you read the various
policies of the OSC and what they will consider in terms of giving
a financial reward," she says.

In Ontario, general counsel can also be whistleblowers, which
Campion says calls into question whether an in-house lawyer would
be offside their solicitor-client privilege obligations.

If someone made an internal complaint and the company dealt with
it internally, there is an existing policy on companies getting
"credit for co-operation."  The OSC Staff Notice 15-702 Credit for
Cooperation program was revised in 2014 and addresses self-
disclosure and expectations from market participants in such a
situation.  However, how it actually works in practical terms is
somewhat of a mystery to some in the securities bar.

They would like the OSC to be more transparent about what happens
when people have self-disclosed under the Credit for Cooperation
program or fixed a problem that was detected and then disclosed.
Some have asked for examples where the OSC has applied the policy
and what some of the fact patterns were when it has been applied.

"There is less information than would ultimately be out there,
ideally," says Danielle Royal, partner with Stikeman Elliott LLP.
She says there should be more transparency in this area.  "If you
think about compliance as a tool box, the whistleblower program is
just one piece of it. We know the enforcement authority doesn't
have the resources to track everything, so I think it's in
everyone's interest to provide incentives to the companies to do
their own internal reviews and enforcement."

Royal says she understands the rationale for a whistleblower
program, but she says it will be "a more interesting conversation
to have in a year" to see if the OSC has struck the right balance.
[GN]


* Use of Pelvic Mesh Subject of Senate Inquiry in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that a
woman who launched a campaign to support women victims of pelvic
mesh and hold Australian health regulators to account has won two
awards for consumer health advocacy.

Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group founder Caz Chisholm received
the Western Australian Health Consumers Council health consumers
award and the Rosemary Caithness Award for outstanding service to
health consumers after a campaign, supported by the Newcastle
Herald, for a Senate inquiry into pelvic mesh.

Ms Chisholm's group jumped from 39 members in early 2015 to more
than 600 by April 27 when she received the awards, only days
before International Mesh Awareness Day on May 1.  The day was
initiated by mesh support groups in countries including Australia,
America, New Zealand, Great Britain and European countries
including the Netherlands.  In America alone more than 125,000
women have initiated legal action against mesh manufacturers after
they were implanted with transvaginal mesh (surgery through the
vagina rather than the abdomen) after post-childbirth
complications.

An American woman was awarded $20 million compensation for
complications after mesh surgery in 2007 using a Johnson & Johnson
transvaginal mesh.  In Australia 450 women have joined a class
action against Johnson & Johnson, another 350 women have joined a
class action against a second American device manufacturer, and
more than 1000 women in total have complained of serious injuries
after mesh surgery.

Ms Chisholm said she was "thrilled and honored to receive these
awards as this represents the acknowledgement of all women
suffering from the devastating effects of mesh".

"What we seek first and foremost is recognition of our pain and
suffering because most of us have been ignored by doctors, and
when we do present with complications we are told they are caused
by anything other than mesh," Ms Chisholm said.

"Yet when women join the support group and they read about the
same complications as others, they breathe a sign of relief and
often cry because finally they have the recognition that they are
not imagining their pain and they are not going crazy.

"They realise their pain is real and their pain is from mesh."

Western Australian Health Consumers Council executive director Pip
Brennan said Ms Chisholm's double win of the two most prestigious
consumer health awards recognised her tireless advocacy for mesh
victims and outstanding work on giving them a voice.

"The use of mesh is now the subject of a federal Senate inquiry,
which is taking submissions until May 31, and the inquiry's title
is 'Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh
implants and related matters'. This highlights that we simply
don't know how many women have had these implants, and how many of
them have suffered complications," Ms Brennan said.

"Caz Chisholm has spent significant time and energy raising
awareness for women about the issue and providing essential peer
support. She was also directly responsible for ensuring that the
Senate inquiry was successfully advocated by Senator Derryn
Hinch."

In 2016 Australia's peak health regulator for medical devices, the
Therapeutic Goods Administration, quietly placed on its website a
list of at least 30 known complications following pelvic mesh
surgery, after TGA executives met with Ms Chisholm and other
support group members.

The complications include punctures of vessels, nerves, structures
or organs including the bladder, urethra or bowel; foreign body
response including erosion of mesh into the vagina, bladder or
bowel; chronic infections; acute or chronic pain; pain during
intercourse; temporary or permanent inability to void via the
lower urinary tract; bleeding; chronic pain in the groin, thigh,
leg or abdomen; atypical vaginal discharge; exposed mesh may cause
pain to the patient's partner during intercourse and abscess.



                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *