CAR_Public/170518.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 99



                            Headlines

ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Certification Motion
ALDRIDGE PITE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit
ALEXION PHARMA: Erste & PERSI Granted Lead Plaintiff Status
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Unit Still Defends Antitrust CID Lawsuit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Private Party Antitrust Action Ongoing

AMGEN INC: District Court Okays ERISA Class Action Suit Accord
BANK OF NEW YORK: Beverly Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
BANKERS LIFE: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Davis" Class Suit
BAPTIST HEALTH: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Whitley" Suit
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Order Closing Phillips Colon Health Suit

BB&T: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
BLUENRGY: Texas Court Approves Class Action Settlement
BOCA WEST: Country Club Residents File Class Action Over Loss
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: To Seek Dismissal of 3rd Amended Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Nieder" Class Suit in Discovery

BUDGET RENT-A-CAR: BCCA Reaffirms Principles of Preferability
CATALYST CAPITAL: "Emerson" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement
CATHOLIC GUARDIAN: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
CELGENE CORP: Feb. 2018 Completion of Fact Discovery in IUB Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Merger Suit Settlement Has Final Approval

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Pending
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
CHEMOURS CO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Girardot" Class Suit
CITIZENS INC: Gamboa's Securities Class Action Suit Underway
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expects Settlement Approval by June 30

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
CONAGRA BRANDS: Case to Test Gorsuch's Class Action Stance
CONSOL ENERGY: Certification Order in Hale Suit Under Appeal
CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Denied in Addison Litigation
CONSOL ENERGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Fitzwater Litigation

CR BARD INC: Continues to Face Various Hernia Product Claims
CR BARD INC: Still Defends Women's Health Product Lawsuits
CR BARD INC: Still Faces Various Filter Product Claims, Lawsuits
CVS PHARMACY: Lowe Moves for Certification of Three TCPA Classes
DAIKIN APPLIED: Park-Kim Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit

DOW CHEMICAL: Had US$130MM Liability in Rocky Flats Class Action
DOW CHEMICAL: Levine Suit in Mich. District Court Has Concluded
EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Adkins" Suit
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Can't Arbitrate Employees' Wage Class Action
EXPEDIA INC: Hotels Consolidate Bait-and-Switch Scheme Case

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Faces Firefighters Hearing Loss Cases
FIELD & TECHNICAL: "Close" Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Robocalls
FLETCHER BUILDING: Faces Probe Over Non-Compliant Steel Mesh
FMS INC: Vega Moves for Class Certification Under Campbell-Ewald

FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in "Agrawal" Class Action Underway
FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees' Suit Still Pending
FREDDIE MAC: Appeals Court Wants Response to Panel Rehearing Bids
FREDDIE MAC: Moved to Dismiss Jacobs and Hindes Suit
GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: "Delnoce" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Baltimore County Suit Dismissed
GT ADVANCED: Must Face Shareholders' Class Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
HONGLI CLEAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
IDAHO: Correction Dep't Sued Over Failure to Provide Kosher Meals

INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Unit Still Defends BOH-Related Lawsuit
INTEL CORP: Still Defends McAfee Shareholder Class Litigation
INVESTOR INCOME: Appeals Decision in "He" Suit to Sixth Circuit
ITC HOLDINGS: May 25 Hearing on Preliminary Settlement Approval
JOEL CARDIS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action
LIVING ESSENTIALS: ABC Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
LLR INC: Wins Bid to Deny Webster's Class Certification Motion
LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Lapsed Auto Coverage Fine Okayed
LTD FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit

LUSH INTERNET: Hite Appeals D. New Jersey Ruling to Third Circuit
MADISON COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over "Top-Down Program"
MDL 2020: Aetna Still Defends Remaining Claims
MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $705 Million Liability as Reserve
MASTERCARD INC: Parties in Canadian Suit Negotiating Accord

MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends ATM Surcharge Complaints
MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial in U.S. Liability Shift Suit
MICHIGAN: Sued Over Driver's License Suspensions Policy
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suit in British Columbia Ongoing
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Dormant

MIDLAND FUNDING: Small Claims Court Case Waived Arbitration Right
NATIONAL BOARD: Hutton Appeals From Md. Ct. Ruling to 4th Cir.
NATIONAL BOARD: Mizrahi Appeals From D. Md. Ruling to 4th Cir.
NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS: Consolidated Securities Action Underway
NAVIENT CORP: Student Loan Borrower Class Action Settled in 2016

NAVIENT CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Lawsuit Underway
NAVIENT CORP: TCPA Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set for July
NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Underway
NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
NRG ENERGY: Class Certification Hearings on June 19 and Aug. 21

NRG ENERGY: Opposition to Demurrers Due June 15 in "Braun" Suit
NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Set for June 20 in "Ahmed" Suit
NRG ENERGY: Unit Defending Against "Griffoul" Suit
NRG ENERGY: Defending Against "Rice" Suit in W.D. Pa.
OASIS LEGAL: "Davis" Usury Case Removed to S.D. Ga.

OHIO, USA: Palladeno's Certification Bid Denied; May Amend Suit
PARKLANCE FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Approves Settlement Deal
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Putative Securities Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Long Appeals Decision in Class Suit vs. SEPTA
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Alfred" Suit

PESEK INC: Hagaman Moves for Certification of Servers Class
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Securities Class Action in Minn.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: July 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
RICHARD FEARON: Graham Appeals Ruling; Mediation Call Today
RE GAS DEVELOPMENT: Pa. Sup. Ct. Ruling in "Cardinale" Appealed

RS&H INC: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Jones" Suit
RWDT FOODS: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Bottley" Labor Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Overheating Phone Suit
SAN JOSE, CA: Class of Firefighters Certified in "Wallace" Suit
SCOTTRADE INC: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Data Breach

SERVICE CORP: Vasquez Lawsuit on Units' Labor Practices Ongoing
SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Class Action Alleging TCPA Violations
SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeals Ruling in PERS of MS Suit to 9th Circuit
ST. CHARLES: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay

TILE SHOP HOLDINGS: Court to Hear Class Suit Settlement in May 3
TOTAL GAS & POWER: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anastasio" Suit
UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Remain Pending
US BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
US STEEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

USG CORP: Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Investors' Class Action Looms
VINCE HOLDINGS: July 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WASHINGTON: Settles State Patrol Troopers' Class Action for $15MM
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Stony Hollow Landfill Fined Amid Class Action

WESTERN UNION: Awaits Final Approval of "Douglas" Case Settlement
WESTERN UNION: "Pincus" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
WESTERN UNION: Bids to Consolidate 3 Suits Filed
WHITE OAK: Class of Abattoir Workers Certified in "Taylor" Suit
WW GRAINGER: Davies Complaint on TCPA Violations Still Ongoing

* NC General Assembly Enacts Class Action Appeals Amendment






                            *********


ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Reisman and Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, report that a
proposed telemarketing class action against medical supply company
Adelphia Supply Inc. was dealt a setback in Illinois federal court
when a Chicago pharmacy's bid for class certification was denied
without prejudice as premature.

In a minute order U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah tossed
Bolling Prescription Lab Inc.'s motion for certification after it
tried to initiate a class action against Adelphia for allegedly
spamming the drug store and others with unsolicited fax
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

Bolling, which does business as Roseland Pharmacy, claimed that
Adelphia submitted 20 unsolicited faxed advertisements from
September to January touting discounted medical supplies and other
pharmaceutical products, such as a '"Hot Deal!!' on blood pressure
monitors and states," according to the complaint filed on Feb. 27.

"Plaintiff and the other class members owe no obligation to
protect their fax machines from defendants," Bolling said in its
complaint.  "Their fax machines are ready to send and receive
their urgent communications, or private communications about
patients' medical needs, not to receive defendants' unlawful
advertisements."

The TCPA, which was amended in 2005 by the Junk Fax Prevention
Act, permits businesses to transmit unsolicited advertisements by
fax to companies with whom they have no previous relationship
provided that the ads prominently feature opt-out notices
instructing the recipient on how to avoid receiving future ads.
The statute requires that the opt-out notice must include language
indicating "that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable
time, as determined by the Commission" is unlawful. According to
an FCC consumer information webpage, a sender has 30 days to honor
an opt-out request.

Bolling claims that Adelphia violated the telemarketing statute by
not including an opt-out notice compliant with this provision and
other provisions mandating that the notice include two contact
numbers for opting out, including one that must be toll-free.

The proposed class membership was intended to extend to anyone who
received the allegedly unsolicited Adelphia faxed ads after Feb.
27, 2013.  The pharmacy said it filed its motion for class
certification jointly with its original complaint to forestall any
attempt from Adelphia to moot individual claims.

In addition to the TCPA claim the pharmacy also brought a
conversion claim, alleging that Adelphia unlawfully took over
potential class members' machines for its own use.

The pharmacy had requested statutory damages, trebled damages,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorneys' fees.

The parties did not respond on May 8 to requests for comment.

Bolling is represented by Phillip A. Bock, Robert M. Hatch, Tod A.
Lewis and David M. Oppenheim of Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC.

Counsel information for Adelphia was not available on May 8.

The case is Bolling Prescription Lab Inc. v. Adelphia Supply USA
Inc., et al., case number 1:17-cv-01485, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]


ALDRIDGE PITE: Certification of Class Sought in "Defalico" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Defalico moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned LEE DEFALICO, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALDRIDGE PITE HAAN,
LLP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00568-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff argues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kqr1ZYgy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALEXION PHARMA: Erste & PERSI Granted Lead Plaintiff Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut awarded lead plaintiff status to Erste-
Sparinvest KapitalanLagegesellschaft mbH (Erste) and the Public
Employee Retirement System of Idaho (PERSI) on April 12, 2017 in
securities class action lawsuits against the Company.

In the fourth quarter 2016, several securities class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and its former officers in
federal district court alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging that
defendants made misstatements and/or omissions concerning the
Company's sales of Soliris.

Erste and PERSI filed its shareholder putative class action with
the Court on December 29, 2016, alleging that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris between February
10, 2014 and December 9, 2016.

The Company stated, "The litigation is in the early stages, and
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.  Given the
early stages of this litigation, management does not currently
believe that a loss related to this matter is probable or that the
potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be
reasonably estimated."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes life-transforming therapeutic
products.  The Company serves distributors, pharmacies, hospitals,
hospital buying groups, and other health care providers, as well
as governments and government agencies in the United States,
Europe, the Asia Pacific, and internationally.  Alexion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has agreements with X-Chem Pharmaceuticals
(X-Chem) to identify novel drug candidates from X-Chem's
proprietary drug discovery engine; and Moderna Therapeutics, Inc.
(Moderna) that provides the option to purchase drug products for
the development and commercialization of Moderna's messenger RNA
therapeutics to treat rare diseases.  The Company was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Unit Still Defends Antitrust CID Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that wholly-owned subsidiary
American Airlines, Inc. (American) still defends itself in a
consolidated class action suit related to an antitrust civil
investigative demand by the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ).

In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID)
from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an
investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or
coordination of air passenger capacity.  The CID seeks documents
and other information from American, and other airlines have
announced that they have received similar requests.  American is
cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by
the DOJ, American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation
filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in
approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful
agreements with respect to air passenger capacity.  The U.S.
lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for
the District of Columbia.

On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline
defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions.

AAG said, "Both the DOJ investigation and these lawsuits are in
their relatively early stages and American intends to defend these
matters vigorously."

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as a network air carrier.  It provides scheduled air
transportation services for passengers and cargo.  The company was
formerly known as AMR Corporation and changed its name to American
Airlines Group Inc. in December 2013.  American Airlines Group
Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Private Party Antitrust Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG) said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that wholly-owned subsidiary American
Airlines, Inc. (American) "intends to vigorously defend against
the allegations" in an antitrust action filed by Carolyn Fjord,
among other private parties.

On December 9, 2013, a subsidiary of AMR Corporation (AMR) merged
with and into US Airways Group, Inc. (US Airways Group), a
Delaware corporation, which survived as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of AAG, and AAG emerged from Chapter 11 (the Merger).  Upon
closing of the Merger and emergence from Chapter 11, AMR changed
its name to American Airlines Group Inc.  On December 30, 2015, in
order to simplify AAG's internal corporate structure, US Airways,
Inc. (US Airways), a wholly-owned subsidiary of US Airways Group,
merged with and into American, with American as the surviving
corporation.

Prior to the Merger, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v.
US Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed on July 2, 2013 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The complaint named as defendants US Airways Group
and US Airways, alleged that the effect of the Merger may be to
create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Antitrust Act, and sought injunctive relief and/or divestiture.

On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the
Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants.  On
November 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to preliminarily enjoin the Merger.

On August 19, 2015, after three previous largely unsuccessful
attempts to amend their complaint, plaintiffs filed a fourth
motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to
add a claim for damages and demand for jury trial, as well as
claims similar to those in the putative class action lawsuits
regarding air passenger capacity.  Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a
request with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
consolidate the Fjord matter with the putative class action
lawsuits, which was denied on October 15, 2015.

A scheduling order setting deadlines for fact and expert discovery
and the parties' summary judgment briefing (if any) was entered by
the court on February 22, 2017.

AAG said, "American believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations."

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as a network air carrier.  It provides scheduled air
transportation services for passengers and cargo.  The company was
formerly known as AMR Corporation and changed its name to American
Airlines Group Inc. in December 2013.  American Airlines Group
Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


AMGEN INC: District Court Okays ERISA Class Action Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on April 27, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, on April 5,
2017, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California entered a final order approving the settlement of an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action
lawsuit against the Company, among others.

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v.
Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District
Court and named Amgen, Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr.,
Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David
Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D.
Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori
Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and their duty of loyalty by continuing to
offer the Amgen stock fund as an investment option in the Amgen
Retirement and Savings Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan
for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the Plans) despite the alleged
off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) and despite a
number of allegedly undisclosed study results that allegedly
demonstrated safety concerns in patients using ESAs.  Plaintiffs
also allege that defendants breached their obligations under ERISA
by not disclosing to plan participants the alleged off-label
marketing and study results.

On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who
had filed claims against Amgen.  The claims alleged by the second
plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the
plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court).

On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc.,
et al., in the California Central District Court.  The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action.  The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing,
Limited; Richard Nanula; Dennis Fenton; and the Fiduciary
Committee of the Plans.

On July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California
Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court.
In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks
on June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court alleging
the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et al. v. Amgen Inc.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added two additional
plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa.  Amgen filed a motion
to dismiss the amended/consolidated complaint, and on March 2,
2010, the California Central District Court dismissed the entire
lawsuit without prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 23, 2010.  Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on
April 20, 2010.

On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court entered an
order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice.  On June 24,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court.  On June 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed
the decision of the California Central District Court and remanded
the case back to the California Central District Court for further
proceedings.

On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court for
rehearing and/or rehearing en banc.  The Ninth Circuit Court
issued an amended opinion and denied Amgen's petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 23, 2013.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for
certiorari filed by Amgen and the other named defendants, vacated
the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded this case to
the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
decided June 25, 2014.

On October 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court reaffirmed its
earlier decision of June 4, 2013.  On November 13, 2014, Amgen
filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit
Court.  On May 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court denied Amgen's
petition for rehearing en banc.

On January 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen's
petition for certiorari, reversed the judgment of the Ninth
Circuit Court and remanded the case back to the California Central
District Court for further proceedings.

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

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide.  It offers products for the treatment of
illness in the areas of oncology/hematology, cardiovascular,
inflammation, bone health, nephrology, and neuroscience.  The
company's products include Evenity to treat osteoporosis in
postmenopausal women; Prolia to treat postmenopausal women with
osteoporosis; Xgeva for the prevention of skeletal-related events;
Repatha to treat coronary artery diseases; Enbrel to treat plaque
psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis; Parsabiv
to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT); and Erenumab for
the prevention of chronic migraine.  Amgen Inc. was founded in
1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Beverly Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patricia Beverly filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Patricia Beverly v. The Bank of New York
Mellon, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01928-DOC-KES, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights, wrongful
foreclosure, violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and
Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Patricia Beverly v. The Bank of
New York Mellon, et al., Case No. 17-55557, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Patricia Beverly's opening brief is due on
      October 2, 2017;

   -- Appellees Ditech Financial LLC, Does and The Bank of New
      York Mellon's answering brief is due on October 31, 2017;
      and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA BEVERLY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellees THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, a New York
corporation, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of The CWABS,
Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-16, FKA The Bank of
New York, and DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, FKA Green Tree Servicing, are represented by:

          Erik W. Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON APC
          One Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: ek@severson.com


BANKERS LIFE: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Davis" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John J. Davis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled John Davis v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., et al.,
Case No. 2-15-cv-03559, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as John Davis v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Co., et al., Case No. 17-1919, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN J. DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John A. Avery, Esq.
          David L. Menzel, Esq.
          KRAEMER BURNS MYTELKA LOVELL & KULKA
          675 Morris Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 912-8700
          Facsimile: (973) 912-8602
          E-mail: javery@kraemerburns.com
                  dmenzel@kraemerburns.com

               - and -

          David M. Hoffman, Esq.
          28 Countryside Drive
          Baskin Ridge, NJ 07920
          Telephone: (908) 608-0333
          E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com

Defendant-Appellee BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY CO. is represented by:

          Joseph L. Buckley, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643-7000
          jbuckley@sillscummis.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 210-9465
          Facsimile: (212) 210-9444
          E-mail: adam.kaiser@alston.com

Defendants-Appellees BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY CO. and ASMA NORRIS
are represented by:

          Richard H. Epstein, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643-7000
          E-mail: repstein@sillscummis.com


BAPTIST HEALTH: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Whitley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Baptist Health and Baptist Health Hospitals filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Whitley v.
Baptist Health, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00624-DPM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Whitley v. Baptist
Health, et al., Case No. 17-8020, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Respondent Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY LAW FIRM
          506 Hospital Drive
          Mountain Home, AR 72653-0000
          Telephone: (479) 202-5200
          E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Donald K. Campbell, III, Esq.
          BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
          500 Pleasant Valley Drive, Suite C
          Little Rock, AR 72227-0000
          Telephone: (501) 313-4967

               - and -

          Kendel Grooms, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & GROOMS
          8500 W. Markham Street
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: (501) 313-4967
          E-mail: kendel@campbellgrooms.com

               - and -

          Geoff Hamby, Esq.
          Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq.
          BAILEY & OLIVER
          3606 W. Southern Hills Boulevard
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 202-5200
          E-mail: ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
                  rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
          BAILEY & OLIVER
          2000 S.E. 14th Street
          Bentonville, AR 72712
          Telephone: (479) 273-1445
          Facsimile: (479) 657-6758
          E-mail: soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
          HENINGER & GARRISON
          2224 First Avenue N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com

Petitioners Baptist Health and Baptist Health Hospitals are
represented by:

          Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM
          425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372-6175
          E-mail: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Order Closing Phillips Colon Health Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Michael Vazguez entered an order in the consolidated
lawsuit captioned In Re: Bayer Phillips Colon Health Probiotics
Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:11-cv-03017-JMV-MF
(D.N.J.):

   -- granting Bayer Healthcare, LLC's motion for summary
      judgment;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and motion to strike; and

   -- directing the Clerk of the Court to close the matter.

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


BB&T: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
a federal judge has approved allowing a former employee's class-
action lawsuit against BB&T Corp. to proceed on a conditional
basis.

Judge Terrence Boyle ruled in the case involving
Ruby Sheffield, who had worked in the bank's Lumberton call center
as a special assets collection employee from March 23, 2015, to
March 9, 2016. She was paid $12.50 an hour.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 23 in the Eastern District of N.C.

Ms. Sheffield's complaint said more than 100 collection or
customer service employees work at the Lumberton center.

The complaint centers on Sheffield's claims that employees are
required to report to their work stations 10 minutes before each
scheduled shift begins to log on and get their computer programs
and application ready to function.  Those duties are considered
essential to the job.

She claimed BB&T does not compensate employees for those 10
minutes, which she said was worth $15.63 in weekly compensation to
her.  She said she was paid for scheduled overtime at time and a
half.

The complaint requests overtime for all off-the-clock time past 40
hours per week.

BB&T declined on May 8 to comment on pending litigation.  In its
complaint response filed Nov. 23, the bank denied Ms. Sheffield's
off-the-clock payment claims and sought dismissal of the case
without the option to refile.

The complaint claims BB&T benefits from the off-the-clock practice
"because it provides uninterrupted coverage and shorter hold times
when a customer calls a customer service representative or when a
representative calls a customer."

"It also permits BB&T to provide the same service with fewer
employees."

The class-action lawsuit is pursuing: compensatory wage damages,
including overtime; interest on the wages; a declaration of
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and an
incentive award for Sheffield.

Boyle wrote that both parties have agreed that the statute of
limitations for the class-action period is three years prior to
the date that a court-ordered motion is sent.

Affected employees will be contacted by personal email or at their
home address by mail.  Employees will have 60 days upon the notice
being sent out to opt-in to the complaint. [GN]


BLUENRGY: Texas Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of BlueNRGY Group
Limited, f/k/a CBD Energy Limited (OTCMKTS:CBDEF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BLUENRGY
GROUP LIMITED, F/K/A CBD ENERGY LIMITED COMMON STOCK FROM JUNE 13,
2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 24, 2014, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that a hearing
will be held on July 27, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Gray H. Miller, United States District Judge of the Southern
District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Court Room 9-D, Houston, Texas
77002, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $1,500,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the
Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$35,000, and an incentive payment to Lead Plaintiffs of no more
than $10,000 in aggregate, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 14, 2017 (the
"Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased BlueNRGY Group Limited, f/k/a CBD Energy Limited
("CBD") common stock during the period from June 13, 2014 through
October 24, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in CBD common stock. 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 Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or
calling the Claims Administrator: CBD Energy Limited Litigation,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-
7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than June 29, 2017 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than July 6, 2017, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  All members of the Settlement Class who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than July 6, 2017, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
515 Rusk Street
Houston, Texas 77002 LEAD COUNSEL:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS PILLINGER, BARLOW,
MORRO, AND BOTTO:

Gerard G. Pecht
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, TX  77010-3095

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION AND
NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.:

Paul R. Bessette
KING & SPALDING LLP
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 3200
Austin, Texas 78701
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
(212) 686-1060

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated:  April 20, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]


BOCA WEST: Country Club Residents File Class Action Over Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
of country club residents has hit a Boca Raton country club with a
lawsuit in Florida federal court, alleging the club and its
board's mismanagement lost residents $17 million and decimated
property values in violation of state consumer protection
statutes.

Lead plaintiff Frank Calmes filed on May 3 putative class action
against Boca West Country Club Inc., its attorney Larry Corman,
and its board members Jerold Glassman and Philip Kupperman.
Mr. Calmes alleges the trio's professional negligence caused the
club to lose millions. [GN]


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: To Seek Dismissal of 3rd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the defendants
intend to file a third motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third amended
complaint in the case, Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et
al.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.
On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and
the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016,
which was granted by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2017 and the
defendants intend to file a third motion to dismiss.

Bridgepoint is a provider of postsecondary education services
through its regionally accredited academic institutions, Ashford
University(R) and University of the RockiesSM. Ashford University
offers associate's, bachelor's and master's programs, and
University of the Rockies offers master's and doctoral programs.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Nieder" Class Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC, is in discovery.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an answer denying the claims and the case is
currently in discovery.

Bridgepoint is a provider of postsecondary education services
through its regionally accredited academic institutions, Ashford
University(R) and University of the RockiesSM. Ashford University
offers associate's, bachelor's and master's programs, and
University of the Rockies offers master's and doctoral programs.


BUDGET RENT-A-CAR: BCCA Reaffirms Principles of Preferability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara D.N. Babich, Esq. -- sbabich@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the BC Court
of Appeal recently reaffirmed the principles of preferability in
class action certification proceedings in the case of Vaugeois v
Budget Rent-A-Car, wherein the certification judge had determined
that a class proceeding was not the preferable forum to decide the
disputes between vehicle renters who had allegedly been improperly
charged for vehicle repairs.

While the Court of Appeal indicated that the standard of review
with respect to the preferability question was determinative of
the appeal, Willcock JA's reasons illuminated several key points.

First, the Court of Appeal restated that the standard of review is
very high when an appeal court is reviewing a certification
judge's decision on preferability.  Willcock JA stated that
special deference should be paid to the weighing of factors by the
chambers judge and the appeal court must determine whether any
errors in principle are present which are directly relevant to the
conclusions reached.

Second, where the certification judge considers the relevant
elements of the three principal advantages of class proceedings,
there will generally be no appealable error. In this case, the
certification judge considered the three elements as follows:

1. Judicial economy

While the difficulty in assessing individual claims factored
heavily in the analysis, it was also clear to the Court of Appeal
that the certification judge had considered the value of
resolution of the common issues.  The Court of Appeal also pointed
out that the certification judge properly recognized that success
for the class would fail to advance the cause of any individual
plaintiff and the dismissal of the class action would not finally
determine the claim of any class member.  The Court of Appeal
emphasized at para. 14 that the "fact the litigation would not
finally determine the claims either way, must be weighed in
assessing whether certification will serve the end of judicial
economy" (emphasis in original).

2. Access to justice

The Court of Appeal noted the arguments of the proposed class
members that a class proceeding is the only way for most members
to obtain any remedy and in particular the relief sought from the
BC Supreme Court (rather than in Provincial Court proceedings).
However, the certification judge concluded that individual trials
would have been inevitable in this case since individual trials
would have been required to determine liability for each claimant
even if the common issue of conspiracy was proven. Few plaintiffs
would have been spared the expense and risk of trial.

The Court of Appeal also stated that the possibility that claims
will not be advanced at all if the class action is not certified
is a factor that should be considered at the certification stage.
However, this depends on the respondents being inclined to settle
claims if the common issues are determined in favour of the class
and in this case it was apparent that the respondents would be
unlikely to do so.

3. Behaviour modification

The Court of Appeal also deferred to the reasoning of the
certification judge that behaviour modification could be achieved
by obtaining relief in Provincial Court for those claims which
were not statute barred.  The Court of Appeal also concluded that
it was not a reviewable error for the certification judge to place
weight on the ability of the Director to bring an action pursuant
to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act [BPCPA].

The Court of Appeal in this case approved of certification judges
drawing certain assumptions in assessing the preferability of
class action proceedings. In particular, Willcock JA held that the
certification judge did not err:

in assuming that the Provincial Court would fairly use the tools
at its disposal to resolve the disputes of claimants including the
discretion available to judges pursuant to the Small Claims Rules
to determine evidence required and procedure to be followed
including with respect to the production of relevant information;
and in assuming that the officers of the Legislature would use the
available tools to protect consumers and effect behaviour
modification, including the ability of the Director to bring an
action pursuant to the BPCPA even where, as in this case, there is
no indication that the Director will in fact take up the cause.

This decision opens up the possibility of further permissible
assumptions with respect to the preferability analysis, including
where proposed class members may have alternate but uncertain
avenues of relief.

Case Information

Vaugeois v Budget Rent-A-Car of B.C. Ltd., 2017 BCCA 111

Docket: CA42857

Date of Decision: March 8, 2017 [GN]


CATALYST CAPITAL: "Emerson" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------------------
Roger Emerson, Mary Emerson and Martha J. Goodlett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Mutual Fund Series Trust, Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC, Northern
Lights Distributors LLC, Jerry Szilagyi, Tobias Caldwell, Tiberiu
Weisz, Bert Pariser, Erik Naviloff and Edward Walczak, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02565 (E.D. N.Y., April 28, 2017) seeks damages
and interest, rescission and/or a rescissory measure of damages,
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs purchased shares of the Catalyst Futures Fund between
November 1, 2014 and April 28, 2017. They claim that the Fund's
prospectuses and registration statements were inaccurate and did
not disclose that the Catalyst Futures Fund took massive
directional bets against U.S. stock market indexes through complex
derivative instruments, thereby exposing investors to the
heightened risk of loss of capital. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
             bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856
      Email: frankj@johnsonweaver.com

             - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      Email: scotth@johnsonweaver.com


CATHOLIC GUARDIAN: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thania Fernandez, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Catholic
Guardian Services f/k/a Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau
and Craig Longley, individually, Grace Poppe, individually and
Dolorez Ortiz, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03161,
(S.D. N.Y., April 28, 2017), seeks damages sustained as a result
of unpaid wages, liquidated damages and any other statutory
penalties, damages resulting from failure to provide accurate wage
statements, compensation for lost wages, benefits and all other
remuneration, whether back pay or front pay, whether legal or
equitable, emotional distress damages and punitive damages, costs
and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and
other costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as provided by the fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Catholic Guardian is a New York non-profit corporation that places
undocumented children with foster care sponsors where Plaintiff
worked for Defendants as a foster care case planner, finalizing
the custody process and monitoring children's health and well-
being while under their parents' care.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joan B. Lopez, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


CELGENE CORP: Feb. 2018 Completion of Fact Discovery in IUB Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017 that the completion of fact discovery in the
class action lawsuit by the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) is scheduled for
February 1, 2018.  Completion of expert discovery is set for July
15, 2018.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the
Company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
(Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of the Company's THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs
to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of
bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the
FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and
(c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits
against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay
those companies from obtaining approval for proposed generic
versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R).

IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party
payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

On February 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint.

On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence filed a similar putative
class action making similar allegations.

Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and
damages.  Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to
dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in
Providence's complaint.

A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law claims was
filed on April 20, 2015.  On October 30, 2015, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss on all grounds.

The Company stated, "Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and
Providence complaints on January 11, 2016.  The completion of fact
discovery and expert discovery is scheduled for February 1, 2018
and July 15, 2018, respectively.  No trial date has been set. We
intend to vigorously defend against IUB and Providence's claims."

Celgene Corporation discovers, develops, and commercializes
therapies to treat cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit,
New Jersey.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Merger Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the merger class
action lawsuit.

On May 18, 2016, the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Mergers dated as of May 23, 2015 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"),
Charter Communications, Inc. prior to the closing of the Merger
Agreement ("Legacy Charter"), CCH I, LLC, previously a wholly
owned subsidiary of Legacy Charter and certain other subsidiaries
of CCH I, LLC were completed (the "TWC Transaction," and together
with the Bright House Transaction described below, the
"Transactions"). As a result of the TWC Transaction, CCH I, LLC
became the new public parent company that holds the operations of
the combined companies and was renamed Charter Communications,
Inc. As of the date of completion of the Transactions, the total
value of the TWC Transaction was approximately $85 billion,
including cash, equity and Legacy TWC assumed debt.

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

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

In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York
Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the
settlement in October 2016 and granted final approval in March
2017.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has not
yet ruled upon Charter's motion to dismiss a merger class action
lawsuit.

On May 18, 2016, Legacy Charter and Advance/Newhouse Partnership
("A/N"), the former parent of Bright House Networks, LLC ("Bright
House"), completed their previously announced transaction,
pursuant to a definitive Contribution Agreement (the "Contribution
Agreement"), under which Charter acquired Bright House (the
"Bright House Transaction") for approximately $12.2 billion
consisting of cash, convertible preferred units of Charter
Holdings and common units of Charter Holdings. Pursuant to the
Bright House Transaction, Charter became the owner of the
membership interests in Bright House and the other assets
primarily related to Bright House (other than certain excluded
assets and liabilities and non-operating cash).

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

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


CHEMICAL AND MINING: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. a/k/a Sociedad Quimica y
Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM) disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and order on
March 28, 2017 denying in part and granting in part the Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit.

Specifically, the district court denied the motion to dismiss
under the doctrine of forum non conveniens; denied the motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the
statements concerning legal compliance, internal controls, and
financial reporting and accounting; and granted the motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the
statements concerning the Company's code of ethics and the status
of the Corfo litigation.

Since October 2015, the consolidated class action lawsuit has been
pending against the Company in federal district court in the
United States, alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in
connection with the subject matter of the investigations in Chile.

The complaint alleges that certain statements made by the Company
between June 30, 2010 and June 18, 2015, principally in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, were materially false
and/or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint challenges
certain of the Company's statements concerning its compliance with
applicable laws and regulations; the effectiveness of its internal
controls; its adoption of a code of ethics consistent with SEC
requirements; its revenues and taxes owed; and its compliance with
applicable accounting standards.

The complaint also alleges that the Company made inadequate
disclosures concerning the status of the Corfo litigation.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class consisting
of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between June 30, 2010 and
June 18, 2015, and seeks damages of an undetermined amount to
recover the economic losses allegedly suffered by the class as a
result of the challenged statements.

On March 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or,
alternatively, pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.  Briefing on that motion to
dismiss was completed on June 29, 2016.

Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. a/k/a Sociedad Quimica y
Minera de Chile S.A. produces and sells specialty plant nutrients,
industrial chemicals, iodine and derivatives, lithium and
derivatives, potassium, and other products and services.  The
Company sells its products through sales offices and a network of
distributors worldwide.  Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc.
was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile.


CHEMOURS CO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Girardot" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Peter Butler, Mark Girardot and Gerhard R. Wittreich
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mark
Girardot, et al. v. Chemours Co., Case No. 1-16-cv-00263, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to pay former
employees a lump sum severance benefit of one week of base pay for
each full year of service, with both a minimum benefit of two
weeks of base pay and a cap of 26 weeks base pay, and additional
sum payment equal to the costs of three months of COBRA medical
coverage.

The Chemours Company operates a chemical company headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Girardot, et al. v.
Chemours Co., Case No. 17-1894, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARK GIRARDOT, GERHARD R. WITTREICH and
PETER BUTLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Robert K. Beste Jr., Esq.
          COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHILL & FURMAN PC
          Nemours Building, Suite 1130
          1007 North Orange Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 425-5089
          E-mail: rbeste@cohenseglias.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Landesman, Esq.
          COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHILL & FURMAN PC
          30 South 17th Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-1700
          E-mail: jlandesman@cohenseglias.com

Defendant-Appellee CHEMOURS CO is represented by:

          Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
          Bradley J. Crowell, Esq.
          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5761
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com
                  bradley.crowell@morganlewis.com
                  bortelere@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Kathleen F. McDonough, Esq.
          Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
          1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-6000
          Facsimile: (302) 658-1192
          E-mail: kmcdonough@potteranderson.com
                  sobyrne@potteranderson.com


CITIZENS INC: Gamboa's Securities Class Action Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed on
or about March 16, 2017 by Juan Gamboa in the United States
District Court, Western District of Texas against the Company and
five of its current and former directors and executive officers,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects.  The
complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 11, 2015 and March 8, 2017,
inclusive.

Citizens said, "The Company believes that the lawsuit is without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted.  At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the outcome of this litigation."

Citizens, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides life insurance
products in the United States and internationally.  The Company's
Life Insurance segment offers ordinary whole-life, burial
insurance, pre-need, and accident and health related policies in
the Midwest and southern United States, as well as ordinary whole-
life policies and endowment policies to non-U.S. residents.  This
segment offers its products through third-party marketing
organizations and independent marketing consultants.  Its Home
Service Insurance segment provides final expense, ordinary, and
industrial life insurance services; and annuities, as well as
limited liability property policies to middle and lower income
individuals in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.  This segment
markets its products through funeral homes and independent agents,
as well as through a home service marketing distribution system.
Citizens, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Austin, Texas.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Expects Settlement Approval by June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
expects the trial court to approve the settlement in the case,
Lopez v. Yakima Regional Medical & Cardiac Center and Toppenish
Community Hospital, on June 30, 2017.

This class action lawsuit arose out of alleged conduct at these
hospitals prior to the HMA acquisition. The suit alleges the
hospitals' charity care policies did not comply with Washington
state law. The trial court has certified a class and granted
partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This matter
has now been settled, and the Company expects the trial court to
approve the settlement on June 30, 2017.

The Company recorded an estimate of the probable liability at
December 31, 2016 based on the settlement of this matter.

Community Health is one of the largest publicly traded hospital
companies in the United States and an operator of general acute
care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the
country.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that oral argument on
the appeal in the shareholder federal securities class action was
scheduled for May 3, 2017.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which
was filed on October 5, 2015.

The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The matter is fully briefed, and oral argument was
scheduled for May 3, 2017.

The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case.

Community Health is one of the largest publicly traded hospital
companies in the United States and an operator of general acute
care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the
country.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Case to Test Gorsuch's Class Action Stance
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Justice Neil
Gorsuch of the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have much of a record on
class actions.

As a private lawyer at Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel
between 1995 and 2005, Justice Gorsuch wrote a couple of amicus
briefs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asking to tighten
requirements in securities class actions.  He wrote a handful of
opinions in class action cases in his last job, as a judge on the
10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, none espousing an overarching
policy on class actions as a vehicle of justice. Both friends and
foes of the newest justice consider Justice Justice Gorsuch to be
pro-business, but the truth is that we don't know yet if he will
prod his fellow justices to revive Justice Antonin Scalia's years-
long campaign to rein in class actions.

An important early indicator arrived last month at the Supreme
Court.  Conagra Brands is petitioning the justices to review a 9th
Circuit opinion certifying a class of Wesson cooking oil
purchasers who claim they were deceived by the product's "all
natural" labeling.  Conagra, represented at the Supreme Court by
Jones Day and McGuireWoods, contends that the justices must step
in to resolve a deep circuit split on whether lead plaintiffs in
class actions must show a feasible way to identify absent class
members in order to be certified to litigate as a class.

Ascertainability, as this issue is known, has been a particularly
hot controversy since 2015, when the 7th Circuit roundly rejected
the 3rd Circuit's conclusion that classes cannot be certified
unless plaintiffs offer a "reliable and administratively feasible"
way to determine who's in the class.  The 3rd Circuit said in
2013's Carrera v. Bayer that plaintiffs' affidavits are not
sufficient to establish class membership.  The 7th Circuit said
they were in 2015's Mullins v. Direct Digital.

The division has since deepened amongst the federal circuits, as
Conagra's brief points out.  The 2nd, 4th and 11th Circuits use
ascertainability tests in line with the 3rd Circuit's.  The 6th
Circuit -- and the 9th Circuit in the Conagra case -- agree with
the 7th Circuit.

"This disagreement is intolerable," Conagra said in its petition
for certiorari.  "Class certification is the most important
decision in any class action, and now it turns on venue in many,
many cases.  This case -- involving those who bought '100%
Natural' Wesson Oil in 11 states over the past decade or so --
provides this court with the perfect opportunity to finally end
the dispute over this fundamental question of class-action law."

An intractable circuit split on an issue affecting scores of
defendants and thousands of consumers might seem to be a no-
brainer for Supreme Court review, but in 2016, the justices
declined to grant certiorari to defendants in the 7th Circuit case
that first created the division in federal appellate courts, as
well as a 6th Circuit case that widened the divide. Those denials
both came after Scalia's death in February 2016.

Conagra's petition argues that its 9th Circuit case presents the
ascertainability issue more cleanly than the 6th and 7th Circuit
class actions the justices decided not to review.  In the previous
cases, Conagra said, plaintiffs actually had ways to identify
class members through existing records. In contrast, the company
said, there is truly no feasible way to figure out who bought low-
cost Wesson cooking oil years ago.

And meanwhile, according to Conagra, it's become increasingly
evident that certification of consumer class actions depends on
geography.  "Courts that require plaintiffs to propose a reliable,
feasible method of identification have routinely denied class
certification," Conagra said.  "By contrast, classes like these
sail through in jurisdictions where courts ask only for an
objectively defined class."

The cert petition lists nearly a dozen trial court rulings in each
category to prove Conagra's point.  "This has to stop," the brief
said.  "There is no question that class certification matters,
that courts disagree about whether a class of impossible-to-
identify plaintiffs can be certified, or that this disagreement
leads to conflicting outcomes in indistinguishable cases.  This
case -- the paradigmatic consumer class action at the heart of
this disagreement -- gives the court an ideal vehicle through
which to end the confusion."

The plaintiffs suing Conagra, represented at the 9th Circuit by
Grant & Eisenhofer and Milberg, have brought in New York
University law professor Samuel Issacharoff to oppose Conagra's
cert petition.  That's undoubtedly a smart move: Issacharoff
fended off Supreme Court review in the two previous
ascertainability cases before the justices and has become a kind
of human firewall between consumers and corporations bent on
restricting class actions through appellate litigation.

Mr. Issacharoff's opposition brief in the Conagra case isn't due
until mid-June, according to the Supreme Court docket, but he
hinted at one of his arguments at a class action conference I
attended last week.  Mr. Issacharoff was moderating a panel on
using social media to expand class members' participation in class
actions. He hypothesized that Big Data could moot the debate over
ascertainability by providing class counsel a means of identifying
purchasers of even the humblest, least expensive products. If data
collectors such as store loyalty programs, credit card records and
point-of-sale inventory systems can pinpoint who bought which
products, there's no need for the Supreme Court to wade into the
policy morass.

Conference goers seemed to think the Supreme Court will once again
decide not to grant review of the ascertainability issue. When
Bethany Lukitsch -- blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods,
moderating a panel on consumer class actions, asked the audience
if it expected the justices to take the Conagra case, only a few
people raised their hands.  Conventional wisdom among class action
cognoscenti is that the Supreme Court will leave it to Congress to
decide whether to clarify the class action rules. (As you know,
the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure recently
approved tweaks to Rule 23, which governs class actions, but the
rule changes do not address ascertainability; the House of
Representatives' Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, passed
in March, includes an ascertainability requirement adopting the
3rd Circuit's language.)

"If Justice Scalia were alive, I bet he'd be pushing for the
Supreme Court to take the Conagra case.  I'm sure the business
lobby is hoping Justice Gorsuch picks up right where his
predecessor left off," Ms. Frankel says. [GN]


CONSOL ENERGY: Certification Order in Hale Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that CNX has filed an
appeal from the Court order on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification in the Hale Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of force-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, which CNX opposed. On March 29, 2017, the Court
issued an Order certifying four issues for class treatment: (1)
allegedly excessive deductions; (2) royalties based on purported
improperly low prices; (3) deduction of severance taxes; and (4)
Plaintiffs' request for an accounting.

On April 13, 2017, CNX filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal
with the Fourth Circuit seeking review of the Order and on April
24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed its answer to the Petition.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Denied in Addison Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied
class certification in the Addison Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, which CNX opposed. On March 29, 2017, the Court
issued an Order denying class certification in this matter.

CONSOL Energy believes the case has meritorious defenses, and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company has established an
accrual to cover its estimated liability for this case. This
accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL
Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Fitzwater Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an amended complaint
has been filed in the Fitzwater Litigation.

Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued CONSOL Energy Inc.,
Fola Coal Company, Consolidation Coal Company and CONSOL of
Kentucky Inc. (COK) in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA
violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. The
Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral
statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly
made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary
Plan Documents that clearly reserved to the Company the right to
modify or terminate the CONSOL Energy Inc. Retiree Health and
Welfare Plan.

Pursuant to plaintiffs amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017,
plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and
seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were
associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation.The Company
believes it has meritorious defense and intends to vigorously
defend this suit.


CR BARD INC: Continues to Face Various Hernia Product Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that approximately 25 federal and 80 state lawsuits
involving individual claims by approximately 105 plaintiffs, as
well as one putative class action in the United States, are
currently pending against the company with respect to its
Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims") as of March
31, 2017.

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

As of March 31, 2017, all but one of the putative class actions
pending against the company was dismissed.  The remaining putative
class action pending against the company has not been certified
and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages;
(iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and
causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company.  Approximately 70 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 70 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions.  The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

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

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

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD INC: Still Defends Women's Health Product Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 5,305 plaintiffs are currently
pending against the Company as of March 31, 2017 in various
federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries
associated with the use of certain of the company's surgical
continence products for women.

These products include those manufactured by both the company and
two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to
Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the Company.
Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company
with respect to any product defect liability for products its
subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015, the Company reached
an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of
Medtronic's indemnification obligation.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or
asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions.  The foregoing
lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and
other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the
subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are
referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims".

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products.  The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

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

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

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

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD INC: Still Faces Various Filter Product Claims, Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 1,755 plaintiffs are currently
pending as of March 31, 2017 against the company in various
federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries
associated with the use of the Company's vena cava filter
products.

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona.  There are approximately 1,705 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL, including one medical monitoring class action.  The
remaining approximately 45 Filter Product Claims are pending in
various state courts.

In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against
the company in Quebec.  In April 2016 and May 2016, putative
Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia,
respectively.  In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action
was filed in Saskatchewan.

The Company said, "The approximate number of lawsuits set forth
above does not include approximately 25 claims that have been
threatened against the company but for which complaints have not
yet been filed.  In addition, the company has limited information
regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or
unknown claims.  The Company continues to receive claims and
lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information
regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits,
which could materially impact the Company's estimate of the number
of claims or lawsuits against the company.  The Company expects
that trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next
12 months.  While the Company intends to vigorously defend Filter
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation,
it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CVS PHARMACY: Lowe Moves for Certification of Three TCPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CARL LOWE and KEARBY
KAISER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., MINUTECLINIC, LLC, and WEST CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03687 (N.D. Ill.), ask the Court to certify three
classes pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

   (1) The first money-damage class, with Kearby Kaiser as
       proposed class representative, consists only of persons
       called where CVS included a message offering a coupon or
       gift card for consumer purchases at its brick-and-mortar
       stores.  The class is defined as:

       Telemarketing Class -- All persons in the United States
       whose cell phone CVS called using an unattended message on
       or after May 20, 2010, where the message played, or
       intended to be played, included reference to a gift card
       or coupon;

   (2) The second money-damage class, with Kearby Kaiser as
       proposed class representative, is defined as:

       Caller ID Class -- All persons with Illinois area code
       landline or cell phones, for whom MinuteClinic's records
       also show an Illinois address, who were called as part of
       CVS' 2013 MinuteClinic robocall campaign during which CVS
       blocked the caller ID; and

   (3) The third class is an injunctive class with Carl Lowe as
       the proposed class representative.  The injunctive class
       is defined as:

       Wrong Person Injunctive Class -- All persons in the United
       States whose cell phone CVS, or West on behalf of CVS,
       called or might call in the future, using unattended
       message technology, where such call was directed at some
       person other than the recipient.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the proposed classes,
designate them as class representatives, and appoint their
attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0g29FY7l

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.MCCUE
          1 South Ave., 3rd Floor
          Natick, MA 07160
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com


DAIKIN APPLIED: Park-Kim Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joanna Park-Kim and Maria Cecilia Ramos filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Joanna Park-Kim, et
al. v. Daikin Applied Americas, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
09523-CAS-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC600497), but was later removed
to the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Joanna Park-Kim, et al. v.
Daikin Applied Americas, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55566, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 22, 2017;

   -- Appellants Joanna Park-Kim and Maria Cecilia Ramos' opening
      brief is due on October 2, 2017;

   -- Appellees Daikin Applied Americas, Inc. and Does' answering
      brief is due on October 31, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOANNA PARK-KIM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and MARIA CECILIA RAMOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          500 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1310
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 254-4800
          Facsimile: (213) 254-4801
          E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, INC., FKA McQuay
International, is represented by:

          Frederick L. McKnight, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          E-mail: fmcknight@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 586-7244
          E-mail: lachaiten@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Theodore M. Grossman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281-1047
          Telephone: (212) 326-3480
          E-mail: tgrossman@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Charlotte S. Wasserstein, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
          E-mail: charlotte.wasserstein@kattenlaw.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Had US$130MM Liability in Rocky Flats Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that it had a liability of US$130
million at March 31, 2017 related to a class action lawsuit
involving property owners in Rocky Flats, Colorado.

The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell")
(collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs")
in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and
trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium
releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility") but operated by Dow
and Rockwell.

The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under
the Price Anderson Act ("PAA").  Dow and Rockwell litigated this
matter in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado ("District Court"), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court.

On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement for US$375 million, of which US$131 million
will be paid by Dow.  The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant
to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained
in Dow's and Rockwell's contracts.  The District Court granted
preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016.

At March 31, 2017, the Company had a liability of US$130 million
related to this matter, having already paid US$1 million towards
class notice costs, included in "Accrued and other current
liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets (US$130 million at
December 31, 2016).  A fairness hearing on the class settlement
was scheduled for April 28, 2017.

On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract
Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay
the amounts stipulated in the settlement agreement.

On January 17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment
of US$131 million from the United States government for Dow's
share of the class settlement.

On January 26, 2017, the Company funded an escrow account for the
settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs, which will remain in
escrow until the settlement is approved and finalized by the
District Court.

At March 31, 2017, US$130 million remained in escrow and is
included in "Other current assets" in the consolidated balance
sheets (US$131 million at December 31, 2016 and included in
"Accounts and notes receivable - Other" in the consolidated
balance sheets).

The Dow Chemical Company manufactures and supplies products that
are used as raw materials in the manufacture of customer's
products and services worldwide.  It operates in five segments:
Agricultural Sciences, Consumer Solutions, Infrastructure
Solutions, Performance Materials & Chemicals, and Performance
Plastics segments.  The Company was founded in 1897 and is based
in Midland, Michigan.


DOW CHEMICAL: Levine Suit in Mich. District Court Has Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that Stephen Levine's lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan related to urethanes antitrust class action litigation,
among other things, "is now concluded."

In April 2016, Stephen Levine, purportedly in the name of and on
behalf of the Company, served the Company with a complaint filed
with the Eastern Michigan District Court against certain officers
and directors of the Company (the "Defendants") alleging, among
other things, that Defendants breached certain fiduciary
obligations with respect to the urethanes antitrust class action
litigation and the underlying conduct alleged therein, and the use
of corporate assets.

Defendants and the Company moved to dismiss the complaint on July
13, 2016, arguing that Levine had not alleged sufficient facts to
establish his ability to assert claims on the Company's behalf and
that the allegations were not sufficient to state a legal claim.

On October 19, 2016, the Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and entering judgment for the
Defendants.

In November 2016, the shareholder appealed the Court's judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Levine
voluntarily withdrew the appeal in connection with a resolution of
the shareholders request to inspect certain corporate books and
records.  This matter is now concluded.

The Dow Chemical Company manufactures and supplies products that
are used as raw materials in the manufacture of customer's
products and services worldwide.  It operates in five segments:
Agricultural Sciences, Consumer Solutions, Infrastructure
Solutions, Performance Materials & Chemicals, and Performance
Plastics segments.  The Company was founded in 1897 and is based
in Midland, Michigan.


EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Adkins" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant EQT Production Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled EVA MAE ADKINS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case
No. 1:10-cv-00041-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia at Abingdon.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28,
2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class
certification and the action is certified as a class action with
respect to these claims:

   a. The claims for conversion, excluding the issue of the
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule; and

   b. The claims for breach of contract, excluding the issues of
      the Defendant's allegedly improper deductions and
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule, and
      conditional upon a motion being filed within 30 days
      requesting the substitution of an appropriate class
      representative and an order thereafter being duly entered
      by the Court granting such substitution.

Two subclasses are also certified as to: (1) the claims for
conversion (the "Conversion Class"), and (2) the claims for breach
of contract (the "Breach of Contract Class").

The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v. Eva
Adkins, Case No. 17-211, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent EVA MAE ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North
          One Nashville Place
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-0000
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq.
          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com
                  dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, PC
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095-0000
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          DON BARRETT PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq.
          P. O. Box 2032
          Abingdon, VA 24212
          Telephone: (276) 525-1103

               - and -

          Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 286
          Abingdon, VA 24212-0000
          Telephone: (276) 619-3831

Defendant-Petitioner EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY is represented by:

          Mark Edward Frye, Esq.
          PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
          804 Anderson Street
          Bristol, TN 37620-2009
          Telephone: (423) 793-4815
          E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com

               - and -

          Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq.
          Seth Michael Land, Esq.
          Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq.
          PENNSTUART
          208 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 2288
          Abingdon, VA 24212-2288
          Telephone: (276) 628-5151
          Facsimile: (276) 628-4918
          E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com
                  sland@pennstuart.com
                  wmassie@pennstuart.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Can't Arbitrate Employees' Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a property
management company can't arbitrate a proposed class action
alleging that it didn't pay employees for off-the-clock work, a
New York federal judge ruled, saying the company lost its chance
when it refused the lead plaintiff's pre-suit attempt to abide by
the terms of an arbitration agreement.

U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti rejected a motion by
Equity Residential Properties Management Corp. to compel
arbitration in a proposed class action brought by Janice Nadeau
alleging that she and other ERPM employees were not paid for off-
the-clock work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Although Ms. Nadeau had signed a mandatory arbitration agreement
when she was hired that required her to resolve any disputes
related to her employment before the American Arbitration
Association, Judge Briccetti said that agreement was broken by
ERPM when it refused to pay the cost of the proceeding as required
after Nadeau tried to initiate such a proceeding.

"Under New York law, when a party to a contract materially
breaches that contract, it cannot then enforce that contract
against a nonbreaching party," the judge said.  "The court agrees
defendant materially breached the arbitration agreement and
therefore cannot use the agreement to compel arbitration. To hold
otherwise 'would set up a perverse incentive scheme,' contrary to
the [Federal Arbitration Act] and common sense."

Citing precedent from a 2005 Ninth Circuit ruling known as Brown
v. Dillard's Inc., Judge Briccetti said that incentive would be
for businesses to refuse to arbitrate claims brought by employees
in the hope that those frustrated workers would simply abandon
their claims.

Ms. Nadeau worked for ERPM as a customer support assistant for
about 16 months beginning in February 2015.  The arbitration
agreement she signed when she was hired required the company to
pay for any proceeding before the AAA.

In her October complaint, Ms. Nadeau claimed that her employer
regularly required her to respond to text messages and phone calls
both before and after her scheduled shift without recording or
properly compensating her for that time.

In May 2016, Ms. Nadeau alleged that her supervisor sent her a
text telling her to attend a company event off-the-clock.

To express her dissatisfaction about having to attend without pay,
she replied using vulgar language, which in turn prompted ERPM to
write her up for purportedly violating company policy, according
to court documents.

Ms. Nadeau then filed an arbitration demand with the American
Arbitration Association as required under the arbitration
agreement.

In June 2016, however, AAA informed Nadeau that it hadn't received
ERPM's filing fees for the arbitration.  About a week later, the
company fired Nadeau, according to court documents.

About three days after she was fired, Ms. Nadeau spoke with Lisa
Leib, a vice president in ERPM's legal department, and discussed
the arbitration demand.

Ms. Nadeau ultimately rejected several offers from Leib to settle
the case, asking instead that the case be sent to arbitration and
that ERPM pay the required fees.  In July 2016, Ms. Nadeau
received a letter from AAA saying that because ERPM didn't pay the
fees, the arbitration case file would have to be closed, according
to court documents.

Ms. Nadeau's October complaint alleged violation of FLSA and
various New York state laws and included claims that the company
retaliated against her for seeking arbitration. She sought to
represent all nonexempt ERPM employees during the class period who
received or responded to off-the-clock messages from the company.

In response, ERPM asked the court to compel arbitration of the
lawsuit.

In rejecting that request, Judge Briccetti turned aside ERPM's
argument that it didn't breach the arbitration agreement since
Nadeau's arbitration demand itself was flawed.  The company had
argued that she failed to sign and date the arbitration and that
she didn't check a box regarding whether her claims involved
statutorily protected rights.

"Defendant provides no authority for the proposition that
plaintiff was required to satisfy various technical pleading
conditions to initiate arbitration," the judge said.  "Further,
the court is not aware of anything in the arbitration agreement,
defendant's employee handbook, the AAA's Employment Arbitration
Rules and Mediation Procedures, the FAA or any other law imposing
such requirements.  Indeed, to the extent these sources address
the requirements of pleadings in arbitration demands, these
sources suggest the opposite conclusion."

Moreover, Judge Briccetti rejected ERPM's argument that
Ms. Nadeau's claims either weren't arbitrable or fell outside the
scope of the arbitration agreement, saying the agreement's
"expansive definition" of arbitrable disputes "unambiguously
encompasses" Ms. Nadeau's claims regarding discipline for
complaining about the terms and conditions of her employment.

As a result of the ruling, the parties were ordered to attend
mediation sessions.

"Ms. Nadeau is pleased with Judge Briccetti's decision that Equity
cannot use arbitration as a sword and a shield," said Jeremiah
Frei-Pearson, counsel for the plaintiff. "She looks forward to
vindicating her rights and the rights of other workers who were
victimized by Equity's unlawful wage practices."

Counsel for the employer was not immediately available for comment
late on May 8.

Ms. Nadeau is represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, D. Greg
Blankinship, John D. Sardesai-Grant and Difie M. Osborne of
Finkelstein Blankinship Frei- Pearson & Garber LLP.

ERPM is represented by Amy J. Traub -- atraub@bakerlaw.com -- and
John C. McIlwee -- jmcilwee@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler.

The case is Janice Nadeau v. Equity Residential Properties
Management Corp., case number 7:16-cv-07986, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]


EXPEDIA INC: Hotels Consolidate Bait-and-Switch Scheme Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, Dorothy Atkins, Cara Bayles and Melissa Daniels,
writing for Law360, report that a group of hotels consolidated
their suit against several Expedia Inc. travel-booking websites in
California federal court, reasserting their claim that the sites
lure in consumers with false advertisements and then divert them
to reservations at hotels where they get a cut of the booking.

The proposed class action that now includes California-based
Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn LLC and The Mansion on
O Street in Washington, D.C., slams Expedia's sites for allegedly
running "a classic bait and switch marketing scheme" worldwide
that offers rooms at hotels unaffiliated with the sites or at
affiliated hotels where there are no more vacancies in Expedia's
allotment of rooms.

"Expedia baits consumers with online deals for vacation and hotel
stays at the plaintiffs' and other class members' hotels, even
though these hotels are not affiliated with Expedia or do not
reveal their vacancy rate to Expedia.  In fact, Expedia has no way
to book these hotels," the hotels said.

In making their case that Expedia's deception is worldwide, the
hotels on May 5 cited European proceedings from 2011 in which the
French Directorate General for Competition, Consumption and
Repression of Fraud found the company had used unfair business
practices on its Expedia.fr site.

"Expedia is well aware of the deceptive nature of its marketing
practices," the hotels said.  "In 2011, Expedia was fined
EUR367,000 . . . for engaging in misleading marketing practices
related to a French hotel and restaurant association. The entities
sued Expedia, alleging that the company advertised reduced rates
at hotels without their consent, showed available rooms as booked
and drove traffic to third-party bookers."

On March 15, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that another
case, 2020 O Street Mansion Corp. v. Expedia, is related to the
Buckeye Tree Lodge case and ordered that the case should be
reassigned to him.  Judge Chhabria's order followed a March 9
request by Expedia entities Expedia Inc., Hotels.com LP,
Hotels.com GP LLC, Orbitz LLC, Venere Net S.r.l., and Expedia
Australia Investments Pty Ltd. to consider whether the cases
should be related.

Judge Chhabria on Jan. 12 said he would give the proposed class of
hotels one more chance to preserve some claims that Expedia cost
them business by erroneously listing them as having no vacancies,
saying lead plaintiff Buckeye Tree Lodge based in Three Rivers,
California, must offer evidence Expedia prevented a customer from
booking there.

The judge granted Expedia's Nov. 10 motion to dismiss in an order
trimming claims of unjust enrichment as well as intentional and
negligent interference with prospective economic advantage from
the suit, but gave the class leave to amend, which he said at a
hearing earlier on Jan. 12 was the hotels' "last chance" to
preserve the claims.  The suit can still proceed on violations of
the Lanham Act and California business profession code, and claims
of unfair competition, false advertising, false affiliation and
trademark infringement.

The original complaint filed in August and amended on Sept. 16
alleges that Expedia and associated travel sites lure customers in
through social media and search engines by advertising the
plaintiffs' properties, then telling site visitors the hotels are
booked, diverting them to reservations at Expedia member hotels,
which give the company a 10 percent cut of the booking.

Expedia -- whose network of online services includes Hotels.com,
Orbitz, Trivago, Venere and Wotif -- targets social media
advertisements for hotels it cannot book to those consumers and
then diverts them to class member hotels, Buckeye Tree Lodge
alleges.

Buckeye Tree Lodge seeks an injunction, disgorgement of income,
damages and restitution of income, saying that it and other hotels
have had their reputations damaged by Expedia's actions and
misrepresentations in violation of the Lanham Act.

The suit doesn't specify exactly how large the class could be, but
the suit estimates it comprises a national class of more than 100
hotels, motels and overnight accommodations.

Legal counsel for Buckeye Tree Lodge and Expedia did not
immediately respond on May 8 to requests for comment.

Buckeye Tree Lodge is represented by James R. Patterson, Allison
H. Goddard and Elizabeth A. Mitchell of Patterson Law Group.

Expedia is represented by Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com --
Megan L. Rodgers -- mrodgers@cov.com -- Simon J. Frankel and
Cortlin H. Lannin of Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn LLC v.
Expedia Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-04721, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern California. [GN]


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Faces Firefighters Hearing Loss Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation remains a defendant in complaints filed
by firefighters alleging hearing impairment due to the Company's
sirens, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.  There were
33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.  In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.  During 2013, another case
was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009.  Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine.  The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling US$0.4 million.  The
Company appealed this verdict.  On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal.  The Company
thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois
Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.  The
Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.  On May
29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case.  On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011.  The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.  The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.  On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition.  On June 8, 2012,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company
that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial
in this matter.  Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012.  Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed.  On December 17,
2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.  Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013.  The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court.  Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class.
During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.  On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.  On March 11, 2015, the trial court
granted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints.  Plaintiffs
have indicated that they will now file motions to certify classes
in these cases.  On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to
Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class
certification issues.

Federal Signal stated, "The Company intends to continue its
objections to any attempt at certification."

The Company has also filed motions to dismiss cases involving
firefighters who worked for fire departments located outside of
the state of Illinois based on improper venue.  On February 24,
2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered orders dismissing
the cases of 1,770 such firefighter plaintiffs from the
jurisdiction of the state of Illinois.  These cases may be refiled
in jurisdictions where these firefighters are located.


FIELD & TECHNICAL: "Close" Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Close, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Field & Technical Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00556, (W.D. Pa., April 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages owed under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Field & Technical Services, LLC provides nationwide environmental
technical services where Plaintiff worked as an Operation
Maintenance and Monitoring Technician to provide light
construction work, including installation of equipment or
driving/operating equipment for Defendant's customers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 790-45 50
      Fax: (215) 875-7733
      Email: dsenoff@anapo1weiss.com

             - and -

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Email: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that an auto loan
financier was hit in Pennsylvania federal court with a proposed
class action that claims more than $5 million in damages and
alleges the company used an automatic telephone dialing system to
illegally "bombard" unsuspecting consumers with unwanted robocalls
and prerecorded messages.

Lead plaintiff Robert Ward of College Park, Georgia, accused
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania-based Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC of
knowingly and willfully placing automated calls to his cell phone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
claiming that he is not a company customer and did not give his
prior consent for the calls.

"Flagship is an automobile loan financier which specializes in the
acquisition, issuance and servicing of prime to subprime
automotive retail installment contracts," Mr. Ward said.  "As part
of its acquisition and servicing of automotive retail installment
contracts, it uses robo-dialing systems to bombard unsuspecting
consumers who have no relationship with it with robocalls and
prerecorded messages."

The TCPA prohibits any call using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular phone
without prior express consent by the person being called, unless
the call is for emergency purposes, according to Mr. Ward.  But
Flagship has repeatedly placed ATDS calls to his cell phone from
four different company numbers, he said.

When Ward answered the calls from Flagship, which were looking for
a man named "Charles Walker," he heard an extended period of
silence before the calls were routed to a live agent, a practice
that Ward alleges is indicative of Flagship's use of a "predictive
dialer," an autodialer under the TCPA.

"When plaintiff answered the Flagship call, the autodialer played
a prerecorded and/or artificial message which said, 'Please wait
for the next available agent,'" Mr. Ward alleged.  "After a period
of time, the call was then routed to a live agent.  This . . . is
indicative of a predictive dialer which is waiting for a live
agent to become available to whom the call can be routed."

When Mr. Ward did speak with a live Flagship agent after waiting
on the line, he advised the agent that he wasn't Charles Walker
and that he wanted Flagship to stop calling him, according to the
suit. On multiple occasions the agent said no further calls would
occur, but the calls didn't cease, the suit said.

Mr. Ward seeks up to $500 in damages for each violation of the
TCPA, which when aggregated among the proposed class of more than
1,000 members exceeds the $5 million threshold for federal court
jurisdiction. He also alleges a national class that will result in
at least one class member residing in a different state.

Legal counsel for Mr. Ward declined to comment on May 8.

Representatives for Flagship declined to comment.

Mr. Ward is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC.

Legal counsel information for Flagship was unavailable.

The case is Ward v. Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC, case number
2:17-cv-02069, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. [GN]


FLETCHER BUILDING: Faces Probe Over Non-Compliant Steel Mesh
------------------------------------------------------------
Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn says that the Commerce Commission's
latest investigation into the supply of allegedly non-compliant
steel by Fletcher Building shows that problems with the importing
of poor quality steel into New Zealand are greater than previously
suspected.

Adina Thorn Lawyers is putting together a class action against
Steel and Tube Limited and other steel manufacturers and
suppliers, after a previous investigation by the Commission raised
concerns about the ability of some steel mesh to comply with
earthquake standards.  Adina says the issue emerged in March last
year when it was reported that a significant number of potentially
non-compliant steel mesh sheets had been supplied to builders
throughout Canterbury from mid-2012.

The Commission's further investigation, revealed by Radio New
Zealand, relates to rectangular hollow steel (RHS) that was
imported and sold by Fletcher subsidiary, Easysteel, in the year
to March 2016.  RHS is thought to be widely used in construction
in this country.

The unnamed complainant is reported as saying that its independent
testing found that samples of the Australian-sourced steel
differed markedly from the certification tests undertaken by the
Tonghua Iron and Steel Testing Centre in China.

Adina Thorn says that it is critical that steel used in
construction complies with the relevant standards -- particularly
in regards to its performance in the event of an earthquake.

Adina says that people who have concerns about the steel in their
buildings (including RHS) should register their interest at
www.steelclassaction.co.nz, where they will be asked to complete a
simple no-obligation form for evaluation purposes.

"We are having a steady level of response to our work on a funded
steel mesh class action, details of which are on our website.
There is also a list of question and answers there."

A funded class action would not cost the participants anything; in
return, the funder receives a share of any proceeds.

Adina Thorn Lawyers is also leading the NZ$200 million plus funded
class "faulty cladding" action against the James Hardie Group of
companies.  This separate action involves more than 1,000 separate
properties and the owners have allegedly suffered significant
losses and health issues arising from the use of non-performing
cladding materials.  That action is funded by the UK's largest
litigation funder. [GN]


FMS INC: Vega Moves for Class Certification Under Campbell-Ewald
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vega moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled AMY VEGA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMS, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-00567-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.  More than one defendant has already attempted the scheme
contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa denied the
defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a class
certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in "Agrawal" Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that it plans to file a response to an
appeal pending in the Supreme Court of Ohio related to a class
certification ruling in the case Ford Motor Credit Company v.
Sudesh Agrawal.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in
a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.  Class
claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges.
Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit in
determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is different
than the standard set forth in claimants' leases.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed
nationwide class certification and certification of an Ohio
subclass.  The Company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded
the case for further proceedings.

On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On September 28, 2015, the trial court re-certified a nationwide
class action with an Ohio subclass. The Company appealed, and on
September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On April 24, 2017, the claimant filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Ohio.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides
various automotive financing products to and through automotive
dealers worldwide.  It offers retail financing products, such as
retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles, as
well as direct financing leases for new vehicles to retail and
commercial customers, including leasing companies, government
entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers.  The
Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.  Ford Motor Credit Company LLC is a subsidiary of Ford
Holdings LLC.


FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees' Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend against the case, Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management,
and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

The Company said, "At present, it is not possible for us to
predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential
effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial
litigation and the fact that the District Court has not yet ruled
upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In
particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss."

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970.  Its public
mission is to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to
the U.S. housing market. It purchases residential mortgage loans
originated by lenders.  In most instances, it packages these loans
into mortgage-related securities, which are guaranteed by Freddie
Mac and sold in the global capital markets.  It also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.  It does not
originate loans or lend money directly to borrowers.


FREDDIE MAC: Appeals Court Wants Response to Panel Rehearing Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the
case, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations, an appeals court ordered a
response to petitions for panel rehearing.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European
Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30,
2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal
National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was
also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and
Treasury. This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The
allegations and demands made by plaintiffs in this case were
generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case described above. Plaintiffs in the
Arrowood lawsuit also requested that, if injunctive relief were
not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against
the defendants in an amount to be determined including, but not
limited to, the aggregate par value of their junior preferred
stock, the total of which they stated to be approximately $42
million.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapalle and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA. This case was filed as a shareholder derivative
lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a "nominal"
defendant, on July 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that, through
the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and
FHFA breached their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac,
causing Freddie Mac to suffer damages. The plaintiffs asked that
Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory damages and disgorgement, as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case and the other related
cases in January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same
day. In September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. In October 2014, plaintiffs in
the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case filed a notice of appeal
of the District Court's decision. The scope of this appeal
includes the American European Insurance Company shareholder
derivative lawsuit.

In October 2014, Arrowood filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision. On February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded
in part the appealed decision granting the motions to dismiss. The
Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all claims except certain
claims seeking monetary damages for breach of contract and breach
of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

On March 24, 2017, institutional plaintiffs including Arrowood
filed a petition for panel rehearing, and on March 31, 2017, the
class plaintiffs in the American European Insurance Company
litigation also filed a petition for panel rehearing with respect
to certain of the claims. On April 18, 2017, the court ordered a
response to both petitions from the Appellees.

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970.  Its public
mission is to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to
the U.S. housing market. It purchases residential mortgage loans
originated by lenders.  In most instances, it packages these loans
into mortgage-related securities, which are guaranteed by Freddie
Mac and sold in the global capital markets.  It also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.  It does not
originate loans or lend money directly to borrowers.


FREDDIE MAC: Moved to Dismiss Jacobs and Hindes Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
FHFA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Treasury each moved to dismiss
the amended complaint in the case, Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and
Treasury.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other items, that the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated applicable state law
and constituted a breach of contract, as well as a breach of
covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek
equitable and injunctive relief (including restitution of the
monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Treasury under the
net worth sweep dividend), compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses.

The case was stayed pending resolution of FHFA's motion to the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This
motion was denied on June 2, 2016, and the stay was lifted on July
13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an application for certification of a
question to the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts, which was
denied on September 12, 2016.

On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint, which the Court granted on February 24, 2017. On April
17, 2017, FHFA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Treasury each moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970.  Its public
mission is to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to
the U.S. housing market. It purchases residential mortgage loans
originated by lenders.  In most instances, it packages these loans
into mortgage-related securities, which are guaranteed by Freddie
Mac and sold in the global capital markets.  It also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.  It does not
originate loans or lend money directly to borrowers.


GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: "Delnoce" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Delnoce, Colin Russell, Brian Zimmerman and Austin Edwards,
Plaintiffs, v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., Andrew J. Leto and
Jane Doe Leto, a married couple, Michael Leto and Jane Doe Leto
II, a married couple, and Marty Sinicrope and Jane Doe Sinicrope,
a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01278 (D. Ariz.,
April 28, 2017) seeks equitable relief, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are all current and former Logistics Specialists and
Carrier Representatives who were employed by Defendants' logistics
company, GlobalTranz, headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, that
facilitates domestic transportation and functions as a broker
connecting companies that need to ship freight with carriers to
ship that freight. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Baltimore County Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs in a
Maryland lawsuit filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice with
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, which the court
entered on April 11, 2017.

Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, and Chambers were named
as defendants in various putative class action lawsuits brought by
purported Legacy Gramercy stockholders challenging the Merger. The
lawsuits were consolidated into a New York state court action, or
the New York Action, and a Maryland state court action, or the
Maryland Action.

On March 1, 2017, the court entered a Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement, awarding plaintiffs' attorney fees and
expenses, and dismissing the New York Action with prejudice. On
March 22, 2017, pursuant to the stipulation of settlement,
plaintiffs in the Maryland Action filed a notice of dismissal with
prejudice with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland,
which the court entered on April 11, 2017.

Prior to December 17, 2015, the Company was known as Chambers
Street Properties, or Chambers. On December 17, 2015, Chambers
completed a merger, or the Merger, with Gramercy Property Trust
Inc. While Chambers was the surviving legal entity, immediately
following consummation of the Merger, the Company changed its name
to "Gramercy Property Trust" and its New York Stock Exchange, or
NYSE, trading symbol to "GPT."


GT ADVANCED: Must Face Shareholders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bob Sanders, writing for NH Business Review, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge in Concord has refused to dismiss
shareholders' class action lawsuit against tech giant Apple and
the former executives and board members of GT Advanced
Technologies, though underwriters of GTAT stock offerings have
settled with them.

This increases the likelihood that the lawsuit -- which charges
that both companies misled investors that GTAT's deal to supply
Apple with sapphire for its iPhone was intact when it was actually
falling apart -- will go to trial, if it's not settled beforehand.

It also mean that assets of the world's wealthiest company are
still in play, but just barely.

U.S. District Court Joseph N. Laplante ruled May 4 that Apple
could be on the hook because it might have controlled GTAT, even
though he said such allegations are "thin."

The allegations, he said "are just barely sufficient to withstand
Apple's motion to dismiss," he wrote.

The class action suit is a consolidation of 13 shareholder suits
filed after GTAT's disastrous deal with Apple collapsed, resulting
in Merrimack-based company going bankrupt in October 2014 with
$1.3 billion in debt about a year after it was signed.

The suit names former CEO Thomas Gutierrez, the ex-chief operating
officer, Daniel W. Squiller, ex-CFOs Richard J. Gaynor and Raja
Bal, ex-general counsel Hoil Kim, Apple and three underwriters,
Canaccord Genuity Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC.

Judge Laplante said that the parties asked him not to rule on the
underwriters because they have reached a settlement, the details
of which were not released.  Judge Laplante dismissed most, but
not all, of the charges against Mr. Kim.  But he upheld all the
charges against the other executives

Although GTAT has since sold off most of its assets to private
investors who are now running the downsized legacy company, the
bankruptcy trustee is sorting out $50 million in leftover assets
to distribute to creditors, and trying to collect more through
litigation.

Bankruptcy trustee's suit

Just two weeks ago, the bankruptcy trustee launched a lawsuit
against Messrs. Gutierrez and Squiller, echoing many of the same
charges as the class action.  Indeed, the federal judge proposed a
consolidation of both lawsuits.

But in the trustee suit, the board members -- defendants in the
shareholders' suit -- are considered duped by the executives, and
the trustee suit cites CFO Gaynor, a securities suit defendant, as
having tried to warn his superiors about the Apple deal, even
resigning because of it.

But both lawsuits describe the same situation.  GTAT, which
started out manufacture equipment to make material for solar
panels and cellphones, agreed to produce sapphire to toughen
Apple's iPhone screen in a deal financed by Apple.  The suits
claim officials did this even though they were warned by their own
employees that GTAT was not even close to developing the
technology to do so.

Officials said they felt the deal was "onerously and massively
one-sided," since GTAT was a supplier, with production,
exclusivity and non-confidentiality agreements, that swallowed all
the risk.  Meanwhile, the officials presented an optimistic front
to investors, saying that the deal was on track when it was coming
off the rails, both lawsuits claim.

Mr. Laplante seemed to back up some of the suits' allegations, but
he was more skeptical about claims against Apple, which had urged
the judge to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against it, arguing that
they "represent an unprecedented, unwarranted and unsupportable
expansion of liability under the federal securities laws."

Even so, this was good news for investors like Tom Ragatz, who had
taken $146,000 -- nearly all his 401(k) and his children's college
savings -- while working at a factory outside of Wichita, Kan., to
buy GTAT stock.  He said h made the purchase because he believed
in the assurance from company officials that everything was
proceeding well.

"It hadn't occurred to me that that people would be dishonest, and
I didn't think it would be so abrupt," said Mr. Ragatz.

He had to take a second mortgage on his home to get his kids
through college, and he has slowly been rebuilding his retirement.
He doesn't expect to get all his money back, "but even a penny on
the dollar is something. To hear the judge say that it's plausible
-- that is an exciting development." [GN]


HERTZ GLOBAL: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
on April 27, 2017, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative
securities fraud class action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
and certain of its executives, in which plaintiffs alleged that
the company knew or consciously disregarded that statements made
in multiple financial reports between 2011 and 2013 were false, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").  In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1536223 (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2017).  The Court
had already dismissed this case twice without prejudice.  This
time the Court dismissed the claims with prejudice.

Hertz operates a global car and equipment rental business.  In
March 2014, the company disclosed that it had identified
accounting errors in the amount of $46.3 million that might
require adjustments to its 2011-2013 results.  Over the ensuing
years, the magnitude of the adjustments increased.  In July 2015,
after two internal investigations, the company issued a final
restatement of financials for portions of the 2011-2014 periods.
According to the restatement, Hertz had overstated its 2011-13 net
income by approximately $132 million.  Based on Hertz's
investigations and restatement, Plaintiffs asserted that Hertz had
made a series of false historical and forward-looking statements
during ten quarters leading up to the July 2015 disclosure.

The Court first held that many of the allegedly false statements
were non-actionable puffery.  Plaintiffs alleged that statements
about the company's "strong" and "record" results and growth were
false.  The Court concluded that these were not determinate,
verifiable statements upon which reasonable investors could rely.

The Court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims because
plaintiffs failed to adequately plead fraudulent intent.  While
the Court agreed with plaintiffs that a restatement of financial
results can be probative of scienter, the fact of a restatement
was not alone sufficient.  Here, the Court found that Hertz
executives may not have known the challenged statements were false
due to the diffuse nature of the company's accounting problems.
There was no one precipitous error in Hertz's accounting; rather,
the restatements identified a combination of errors in over
fifteen areas of the company that resulted in the misstated
financials.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegation that management's
admittedly "inappropriate tone at the top" led to material
weakness in the company's internal controls and supported a strong
inference of scienter.  The Court found that allegations of
mismanagement, without more, cannot support a strong inference of
fraudulent intent.  For that, plaintiffs needed to provide
additional allegations of wrongdoing -- such as specific red flags
that management ignored.  Here, they did not.

This case serves as a reminder that a strong inference of
fraudulent intent is not established by financial restatements
(even large ones) or mismanagement alone. [GN]


HONGLI CLEAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Hongli Clean Energy Technologies Corp. securities
(NASDAQ:CETC) from October 13, 2015 through April 7, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Hongli investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Hongli class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1121.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) Hongli did not properly record the impairment of its
assets; and (2) as a result, Hongli's public statements were
materially false and misleading 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
July 7, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1121.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


IDAHO: Correction Dep't Sued Over Failure to Provide Kosher Meals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Journal reports that the ACLU of Idaho and Boise civil
rights law firm Ferguson Durham PLLC have filed a class action
lawsuit seeking a kosher diet for Jewish prisoners incarcerated in
Idaho.  The lawsuit comes after the ACLU's unsuccessful efforts to
obtain religious accommodations for Jewish prisoners without the
need for litigation.  Filed in federal court in Idaho, the case
asks for a ruling, called a preliminary injunction, requiring the
Idaho Department of Correction to provide kosher meals
immediately.

"We hear a lot about religious freedom in Idaho," said ACLU of
Idaho Legal Director Richard Eppink.  "Religious freedom is one of
the most fundamental rights guaranteed under the First Amendment,
whether you are incarcerated or not.  Instead of upholding the
religious freedoms of all in Idaho, the State is forcing Jewish
prisoners to defile themselves every time they eat, compelling
them to choose between starvation and violating their core
religious beliefs."

The class action is brought by four Jewish prisoners incarcerated
by IDOC.  The prisoners represent a variety of Jewish practice,
ranging from Orthodox to Reform, but all need kosher food to
follow the basic dietary requirements of their religion.  The case
is filed just weeks after the end of Passover, during which two of
the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit starved on only fruit and matzo
because of IDOC's refusal to provide meals that were kosher for
Passover.

"Religion is a powerful motivator towards an improved life, and it
is especially important to many prisoners in their path to
rehabilitation," said plaintiffs' attorney Craig Durham of
Ferguson Durham, PLLC, co-counsel with the ACLU of Idaho in the
new case.  "The State of Idaho's religious discrimination is not
just unconstitutional, but counterproductive to the goal of
corrections."

The class action lawsuit claims that IDOC has violated the
prisoners' constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and
to equal protection, pointing out that IDOC provides meals that
meet the dietary requirements of all but the Jewish religion.  The
lawsuit also claims that the State is violating federal and Idaho
state laws that liberally protect religious freedom.[GN]

A copy of the complaint is available online at:

                    https://is.gd/a2903E


INDEPENDENT BANK GROUP: Unit Still Defends BOH-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. (IBG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that its subsidiary
continues to defend itself in a class action complaint related to
Bank of Houston.

IBG, through subsidiary Independent Bank, a Texas state banking
corporation (Bank) (collectively known as the Company), provides a
full range of banking services to individual and corporate
customers in the North Texas, Central Texas and Houston areas
through its various branch locations.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited in
connection with its acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Bank of Houston (BOH) that was completed on April 15,
2014.  Several entities related to R. A. Stanford including
Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL), had deposit accounts at
BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted.  The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers.

Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance
carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a
"loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by
the policies.  However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue
insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the
reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of
litigation and other means.

IBG stated: "Independent Bank believes that the claims made in
this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this
lawsuit.  This is complex litigation involving a number of
procedural matters and issues.  As such, Independent Bank is
unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the
uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential
costs or damages arising from, this case."

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking
products and services to businesses, professionals, and
individuals in the United States.  It offers various deposit
products, including checking and savings accounts, demand
accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit, as
well as individual retirement accounts.  Independent Bank Group,
Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


INTEL CORP: Still Defends McAfee Shareholder Class Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class action suit related to its acquisition of McAfee common
stock, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017.

On August 19, 2010, the Company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. for US$48.00 per
share.  Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction.  The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.  The
complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other
equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of
damages in an unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be US$62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013.

In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class
certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.

In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench
trial.  In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012.

In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered
final judgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment.  Intel,
McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to
plaintiff's appeal in December 2014.

The Company said, "Because the resolution of the appeal may
materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.  We dispute the
class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, and communications platforms worldwide.  It operates
through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of
Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Intel Security
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments.  The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INVESTOR INCOME: Appeals Decision in "He" Suit to Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Assets Unlimited, LLC, IIP Ohio, LLC, Investor Income
Properties, LLC and Davor Rom filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Rui He, et al. v. Davor Rom, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-01869, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Rui He, Xiaoguang Zheng, and Zhenfen Huang represent a putative
class of investors based in China, who invested in, and claimed to
have been scammed by, American real estate investor Davor Rom and
his companies Investor Income Properties, LLC, IIP Ohio, IIP
Management, IIP Cleveland Regeneration, LLC, IIP Cleveland
Regeneration 2, LLC, Assets Unlimited, LLC, and IIP Akron, LLC.

The appellate case is captioned as Rui He, et al. v. Davor Rom, et
al., Case No. 17-3411, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RUI HE, XIAOGUANG ZHENG and ZHENFEN HUANG, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Lei Jiang, Esq.
          LEI JIANG LLC
          26943 Westwood Road
          Westlake, OH 44145
          Telephone: (440) 835-2271
          Facsimile: (440) 835-2817
          E-mail: ljiang@leijianglaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Kovach, Esq.
          LICATA & ASSOCIATES
          6480 Rockside Woods Boulevard, S., Suite 390
          Independence, OH 44131-0000
          Telephone: (216) 573-6000
          E-mail: djk@licatalaw.com

Defendants-Appellants DAVOR ROM, ASSETS UNLIMITED, LLC, INVESTOR
INCOME PROPERTIES, LLC, and IIP OHIO, LLC, are represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Krueger, Esq.
          CONDENI LAW
          19038 Stony Point Drive
          Cleveland, OH 44136
          Telephone: (216) 403-7806
          E-mail: jeffk@condenilaw.com


ITC HOLDINGS: May 25 Hearing on Preliminary Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has
scheduled a hearing on preliminary settlement approval for May 25,
2017.

On February 9, 2016, ITC Holdings entered into the Merger
Agreement with Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. On April 20, 2016,
Fortis reached a definitive agreement with GIC for GIC to acquire
an indirect 19.9% equity interest in ITC Holdings upon completion
of the Merger. On October 14, 2016, ITC Holdings and Fortis
completed the Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On the
same date, the common shares of ITC Holdings were delisted from
the NYSE and the common shares of Fortis were listed and began
trading on the NYSE. Fortis continues to have its shares listed on
the Toronto Stock Exchange. As a result of the Merger, Merger Sub
merged with and into ITC Holdings with ITC Holdings continuing as
the surviving corporation and becoming a majority owned indirect
subsidiary of FortisUS. In the Merger, ITC Holdings shareholders
received $22.57 in cash and 0.7520 Fortis common shares for each
share of common stock of ITC Holdings.

Following the announcement of the Merger, four putative state
class action lawsuits were filed by purported shareholders of ITC
Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings
shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert
Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan
Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch,
et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the
State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination
of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings
board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. The
complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC
Holdings' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger Agreement, (including, but not limited to, various
alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and
independence), (2) ITC Holdings' directors failed to take
appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that
the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions
that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a combination of ITC
Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints sought
class action certification and a variety of relief including,
among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the
Merger, unspecified damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court
entered an order directing that the related cases be consolidated
under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder
Litigation. On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to
add derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings.

On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et
al. The federal complaint named the same defendants (plus
FortisUS), asserted the same general allegations and sought the
same types of relief as in the state court cases. On March 25,
2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint
dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and added
claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in connection with the
special meeting of shareholders to approve the Merger Agreement,
was allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omitted material
facts that were necessary to render it non-misleading.
Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold
Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members
of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and
Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the
same type of relief as Guerra.

On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed
by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L.
Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint
named the same defendants and asserted the same general
allegations as the other federal complaints.

On June 8, 2016, the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of
Michigan denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC
Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of
directors. ITC Holdings voluntarily made supplemental disclosures
related to the Merger in response to certain allegations, which
are set forth in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 13, 2016.
Nothing in those supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth therein.

On July 6, 2016, the federal actions were voluntarily dismissed by
the federal plaintiffs. The federal plaintiffs reserved the right
to make certain other claims, and ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors reserved the right
to oppose any such claim.

On July 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in Poland filed a motion for class
certification. On July 13, 2016, ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors filed their
respective answers to the amended complaint in Poland. On July 19,
2016, the Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which,
among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by
March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On July
25, 2016, the Poland state court issued an order allowing a new
plaintiff, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, to
intervene in the Poland case. On January 20, 2017, the defendants
filed an additional motion for summary disposition, which was
expected to be heard by the Poland state court in March 2017. A
hearing on class certification was held on February 9, 2017.

In March 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case, subject to formal documentation and court
approval. The court stayed the matter, except for settlement-
related proceedings, and scheduled a hearing on preliminary
settlement approval for May 25, 2017. ITC Holdings does not expect
the settlement, if approved, to have a significant impact on its
financial condition or results of operations.

Through its Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, ITC operates high-
voltage systems in Michigan and portions of Iowa, Minnesota,
Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma that transmit electricity
from generating stations to local distribution facilities
connected to its systems.


JOEL CARDIS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that The Law Offices of
Joel Cardis LLC was hit with a proposed class action in Florida
federal court alleging that the debt collector bombarded cellphone
owners with unsolicited, autodialed calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Alycia A. Germond's complaint alleges that she received hundreds
of calls from the Pennsylvania-based company trying to collect on
a debt throughout 2016, even though the Saint Lucie County,
Florida, resident wasn't a customer and had asked that the calls
cease.

"Defendants caused plaintiff's telephone to ring continuously with
intent to annoy, abuse, and harass plaintiff," the complaint says.
"Defendants' conduct caused plaintiff worry, frustration,
aggravation, distress and lost time."

The suit -- which also names company owner Joel Cardis -- says Ms.
Germond has had the same phone number for at least two years.  But
in 2016, she started receiving calls from the company using an
automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice, the complaint alleges.

These calls occurred regularly over the course of the year,
averaging three to five times a week, two to three times per day,
according to the suit.  The company ultimately called her
cellphone hundreds of times last year, the complaint says.

Ms. Germond, who is not a Cardis customer and didn't agree to
receive autodialed calls from the company, repeatedly asked that
the calls stop to no avail, the complaint alleges.  The company
acted willfully and made the calls with full knowledge that its
actions were unlawful, Ms. Germond claims.

The calls caused Ms. Germond a number of injuries, including
filling up her voicemail, invading her privacy, draining her
cellphone battery, wasting her time, distracting her and causing
her aggravation and annoyance, the suit says.

The consumer is far from alone, the complaint alleges, saying the
proposed class consists of far more than 50 people.  Ms. Germond
seeks to represent all people in Florida whose cellphones the
company called using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded
voice without receiving consent over the past four years.

The suit seeks damages for the TCPA and FDCPA violations,
injunctive relief barring such conduct in the future, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Craig B. Sanders, who represents Ms. Germond, told Law360 on
May 8 that this suit raises a terrible fact pattern sometimes
found in debt-collection cases, in which a company just won't stop
calling despite being told numerous times it has the wrong number.

But this situation is particularly bad, Sanders said, adding, "I
haven't seen a case that involved a consumer receiving hundreds of
calls in years."

Representatives for the debt collector didn't immediately respond
to requests for comment on May 8.

Ms. Germond is represented by Craig B. Sanders of Barshay Sanders
PLLC.

Counsel information for the company wasn't immediately available
on May 8.

The suit is Germond v. Law Offices of Joel Cardis LLC, suit number
2:17-cv-14152, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Poonkulali Thangavelu, writing for Chief Investment Officer,
reports that an institutional investor, Laborers' Local #231
Pension Fund, has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
Lionbridge Technologies has violated the Securities Exchange Act
by misleading shareholders in order to accomplish a "going
private" merger with H.I.G. Capital.

Lionbridge has described itself as a globalization company,
providing translation, online marketing, global content
management, and application testing solutions to major brands.

According to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the plaintiff's lawyer,
the December 2016 merger called for cash payments of $5.75 per
share to Lionbridge shareholders.  The lawsuit alleges that
Lionbridge misled shareholders about "the company's prospects and
value" in a bid to get them to vote for the merger, even though
the price offered was not adequate.

Management had projected growth in the company's revenues of less
than 3.9% a year for several years, a forecast that did not match
Lionbridge's average revenue growth of about 7% per year between
2011 and 2015, and also was inconsistent with management's actual
strategic plan for the company, the lawsuit alleges. Subsequently,
most of Lionbridge's shareholders voted for the merger in February
2017, and the merger was completed.

Lionbridge CEO Rory Cowan actually had plans to grow the company
into a $1 billion brand, though the merger valued the company at
about $356 million, with acquisitions being a key growth factor.
The company announced at least one major acquisition just days
after the H.I.G deal closed, the complaint alleges.

Thus, "while the company planned a series of acquisitions that
would boost the company's growth, earnings, and ultimate value,
the defendants pitched the merger as if stockholders were being
asked to choose between accepting the $5.75 per share and holding
shares in a standalone company that would do nothing but muddle
along with no growth through acquisitions," the lawsuit alleges.

Cowan was also able to roll over a part of his Lionbridge stake
into equity in the post-merger company, allowing him to get the
benefit of the low purchase price, the lawsuit alleges.  At the
time of the merger announcement, Ms. Cowan stated, "The
acquisition will allow Lionbridge to continue to focus on
providing the most innovative language and technology solutions to
more than 800 world-leading brands, while accelerating our proven
leadership in global content and communications.  Our board of
directors believes this transaction is in the best interest of our
stockholders and affirms Lionbridge's tremendous value and market
leadership."

Other Lionbridge officers and directors, also defendants in the
lawsuit, were able to cash in on their equity awards that had not
vested, and also cash out of their illiquid Lionbridge stock
holdings, according to the lawsuit.  The complaint also states
that the Lionbridge financial advisor for the deal, Union Square
Advisors, benefited by receiving millions of dollars in fees
related to the merger.

Lionsbridge declined the opportunity to comment. [GN]


LIVING ESSENTIALS: ABC Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ABC Distributing, Inc., Elite Wholesale, Inc., and
Tonic Wholesale, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit styled ABC Distributing, Inc., et al. v. Living
Essentials, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02064-NC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 20,
2017, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to strike the expert
testimony of Dr. McDuff and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as ABC Distributing, Inc., et al.
v. Living Essentials, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-80073, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ABC DISTRIBUTING, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, ELITE WHOLESALE,
INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and TONIC WHOLESALE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, DBA Ace Wholesale, are represented by:

          Mark Poe, Esq.
          Randolph Gaw, Esq.
          Victor Meng, Esq.
          Samuel S. Song, Esq.
          GAW & POE LLP
          4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766 7451
          Facsimile: (415) 7370642
          E-mail: mpoe@gawpoe.com
                  rgaw@gawpoe.com
                  vmeng@gawpoe.com
                  ssong@gawpoe.com

Defendants-Respondents LIVING ESSENTIALS, LLC, and INNOVATION
VENTURES LLC are represented by:

          Edward C. Duckers, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES, LLP
          555 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 617-8900
          E-mail: ed.duckers@stoel.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          500 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447-0700
          E-mail: bryan.hawkins@stoel.com

               - and -

          Daryl Marc Crone, Esq.
          Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq.
          CRONE HAWXHURST LLP
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 893-5150
          E-mail: dcrone@bmchlaw.com
                  jerry@cronehawxhurst.com


LLR INC: Wins Bid to Deny Webster's Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Stewart Cercone entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled RACHAEL WEBSTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00225-DSC (W.D. Pa.):

   -- granting the Defendant's motion to deny the Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification as premature; and

   -- denying as premature the Plaintiff's motion to certify
      class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Alex M. Lacey, Esq.
          COHEN & GRIGSBY, PC
          625 Liberty Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3152
          Telephone: (412) 297-4900
          Facsimile: (412) 209-0672
          E-mail: kiverson@cohenlaw.com
                  alacey@cohenlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy P. Ryan, Esq.
          Thomas E. Sanchez, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          600 Grant St., 44th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-5990
          Facsimile: (412) 566-6099
          E-mail: tryan@eckertseamans.com
                  tsanchez@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Tiffanny Brosnan, Esq.
          Steven T. Graham, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          Plaza Tower, Suite 1400
          600 Anton Boulevard
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689
          Telephone: (714) 427-7000
          Facsimile: (714) 427-7799
          E-mail: tbrosnan@swlaw.com
                  sgraham@swlaw.com


LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Lapsed Auto Coverage Fine Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gyan Jr., writing for The Advocate, reports that a New Orleans
woman's lawsuit challenging the amount of money she had to pay the
state to reinstate her driver's license after her auto insurance
lapsed can move forward, a judge in Baton Rouge ruled.

Shawn Noell Holliday is seeking to have the suit she filed last
October certified as a class action on behalf of the hundreds of
thousands of Louisiana motorists who, like her, received
collection letters in October 2015 imposing fines for their lapsed
insurance coverage.

The state is seeking an estimated $444 million from those
motorists.  Critics have labeled the effort a money grab by the
cash-strapped state.  Some of the alleged insurance violations
date back to 1986.  Some drivers said they were being improperly
accused of expired insurance on vehicles they've sold or on
vehicles now registered in other states where they've moved.

Ms. Holliday's class certification motion is pending before state
District Judge Janice Clark.

Judge Clark decided on May 8 that Ms. Holliday's suit, which the
judge said needs some amending to add specificity, can proceed --
despite objections from the state's attorneys who argued the woman
lost her right to sue because she did not respond to three letters
sent to her by the state.

One of her attorneys told Judge Clark she did not receive the
first letter sent to her by the Office of Motor Vehicles.

Ms. Holliday's lapse in auto insurance coverage occurred prior to
June 30, 2014, and lasted between 30 and 90 days, according to her
suit.

At that time, state law provided for a reinstatement fee of $50
for a lapse in auto insurance coverage up to 30 days, $150 for a
lapse between 30 and 90 days, and $250 for a lapse of 90 days or
more.

As of July 1, 2014, those fees increased to $125 for a lapse of
coverage up to 30 days, $275 for a lapse between 31 and 90 days,
and $525 for a lapse of 91 days or more.

Ms. Holliday was expecting to have to pay $187.50, or $150 for a
pre-July 2014 lapse of 30 to 90 days plus a 25 percent
administrative fee, her suit says.  But instead, she had to pay
$656.25, or $525 plus a $131.25 administrative fee.

Ms. Holliday claims the reinstatement fine she was forced to pay
amounted to a $468.75 overpayment, which she describes in her suit
as improper and illegal.

Michael Adams, one of OMV's attorneys, argued on May 8 that
Ms. Holliday's delinquent debt is final because she did not
request an administrative hearing that was mentioned in the first
letter sent to her.  The woman failed to timely object to the
fines, he said.

"Whatever happened to the access to the court . . . for all
persons," Judge Clark said during the hearing.

"She lost the right to bring this matter forward," Mr. Adams
replied.  "She didn't do anything."

Matthew Sherman, an attorney for the state Department of Revenue
and the Office of Debt Recovery, pointed out that the first letter
sent to Ms. Holliday said she could request an administrative
hearing within 10 days of the date of the letter.

Maria Stephenson, one of Ms. Holliday's attorneys, said the
letters are not certified or sent by registered mail.

"If that's not a violation of due process, I don't know what is,"
she argued.

Mr. Adams said state law doesn't say the letters have to be sent
via certified mail.

"There were so many opportunities and ways for her to resolve this
and she failed to do so," Mr. Adams told the judge.

Ms. Stephenson said after the hearing that the state, through
either negligence or technology, has overcharged many Louisiana
motorists.

"It could be a lot of money for a lot of people," she said.

Attorneys for the defendants declined comment afterward. [GN]


LTD FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Machnik moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LTD FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00566-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tlS5QBFj


The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUSH INTERNET: Hite Appeals D. New Jersey Ruling to Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Norris Hite filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Norris Hite v. Lush Internet Inc., Case No. 1-16-
cv-01533, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Norris Hite v. Lush Internet
Inc., Case No. 17-1907, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NORRIS HITE, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gerald H. Clark, Eq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
          811 Sixteenth Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443-0333
          Facsimile: (732) 894-9647
          E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com

Defendant-Appellee LUSH INTERNET INC. is represented by:

          Geoffrey W. Castello, III, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: gcastello@kelleydrye.com


MADISON COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over "Top-Down Program"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Dreher, writing for Jackson Free Press, reports that ten
black Madison County residents joined the ACLU of Mississippi on
May 8 to announce a new federal class-action lawsuit against
Madison County and Sheriff Randall Tucker.  The sheriff's
department exposed these and other African Americans to
"unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics," the
80-plus-page lawsuit alleges.

Paloma Wu, the legal director of the ACLU of Mississippi, said the
lawsuit is a result of a year-long investigation made possible by
the help of dozens of Madison County residents who came forward to
share their stories, as well as hundreds of pages of public
records from the sheriff's department.

The lawsuit says Madison County Sheriff's Department's policing
program includes vehicular roadblocks, pedestrian checkpoints,
warrantless searches of homes and "jump-out" patrols in
predominantly black communities in the county.

Ms. Wu dismissed the idea that the case at the department is due
to a few "bad apples," and said the policies have been in place
for decades.

"When you read the complaint and you look at all of the stories .
. . you'll get a feeling . . . that the bad-apple theory is not a
theory -- it's a fantasy dreamed up by people who are afraid of
the facts and afraid of change more than they love justice," Ms.
Wu said. "We do challenge everyone in this community to open their
minds to the stories and statistics and to be ready because change
is coming."

Jonathan Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- an attorney with
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, which is serving as co-counsel on
the case, told reporters that data show that black people in
Madison County are almost five times more likely to be arrested
than their white counterparts in the county, despite African
Americans making up only 38 percent of the total county
population.

"Almost 81 percent of roadblock arrests in Madison County between
May and September of 2016 were of black individuals," the
complaint says.

Mr. Youngwood said the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction from
the federal court to stop the sheriff's department from using
roadblocks, pedestrian checkpoints and warrantless searches, as
well as establish an independent civilian complaint review board
and increase training and monitoring of officers.  The suit is
brought under 4th and 14th Amendment claims, Youngwood said.

Quinnetta Manning, a Canton resident and one of the plaintiffs,
shared part of her story with reporters on May 8.

The lawsuit states that six white male officers "forcibly entered
the family home" of Manning and her husband last summer, with no
search warrant.  The deputies "attempted to coerce Mr. Manning
(Quinnetta's husband) to write a false witness statement against a
neighbor's boyfriend," the complaint states. When he refused, "one
of the deputies handcuffed him, choked him, and beat him in the
back seat of an MCSD law enforcement vehicle."

Mrs. Manning recounted those events to reporters this morning and
said she is still afraid to this day that the sheriff's department
will come into her home and threaten to arrest her or her husband.

"I should not be treated differently just because I'm black or a
black woman -- I deserve to be treated with respect," she told
reporters this morning.

Steven Smith, another plaintiff in the class-action suit, was
arrested and at a pedestrian checkpoint outside his apartment
complex, the complaint says.  Mr. Smith was arrested and
incarcerated for 29 days, the complaint says, after officers ran
his ID and found that he owed the county overdue fines and court
fees.

"It was very difficult for my family to have me away and not being
able to work," he said at the offices of the ACLU of Mississippi
this morning.

Gov. Phil Bryant vetoed legislation last month that would have
prevented Mississippians from being thrown in jail just because
they cannot pay fines and fees, among other criminal-justice
reforms.

Beyond the injunction, plaintiffs are asking the Madison County
Sheriff's Department to update its policies, make data publicly
available and award the Mannings compensatory damages as well as
pay the plaintiffs' attorney and court fees.

Several calls to Heath Hall, whom the secretary at the Madison
County Sheriff's Department referred the Jackson Free Press to for
comment, went unanswered this morning. Secretary of State records
show that Hall is the president of a marketing group based in
Madison, Strategic Marketing Group. [GN]


MDL 2020: Aetna Still Defends Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. continues to defend the remaining claims in the Out-of-
Network Benefit Proceedings, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several
purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As
a result of this termination, we released the reserve established
in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $103 million pretax.

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to defend
ourselves vigorously against the plaintiffs' remaining claims."

Aetna is one of the nation's leading diversified health care
benefits companies, serving an estimated 44.9 million people.


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $705 Million Liability as Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of March 31, 2017,
Mastercard had accrued a liability of $705 million as a reserve
for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to
assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards,
Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge"
rule.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016,
the court of appeals vacated the class action certification,
reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the
district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals'
ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. Mastercard has executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes
these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the
court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these
matters (except for two state court actions) in front of the same
federal district court that approved the merchant class
settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for
failure to state a claim. Deposition discovery commenced in
December 2016.

As of March 31, 2017, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $705
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of March 31,
2017 and December 31, 2016, Mastercard had $543 million in a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class
litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated
balance sheet. Mastercard believes the reserve for both the
merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out
merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities
in these matters at March 31, 2017. The portion of the accrued
liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant
class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a
loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome.
Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to
occur.


MASTERCARD INC: Parties in Canadian Suit Negotiating Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in the
Canadian class action are negotiating a settlement agreement that,
if finalized, will need to be approved in each applicable
province.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's
favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard,
Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The
British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5
billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged
breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. Additional purported
class action complaints were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta
with claims that largely mirror those in the other suits.

In March 2017, Mastercard entered into a term sheet reflecting an
agreement in principle to resolve all of the Canadian class action
litigation. The parties are negotiating a settlement agreement
that, if finalized, will need to be approved in each applicable
province.

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a provision
for litigation of $15 million related to the proposed settlement.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends ATM Surcharge Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated continues to defend against the ATM Non-
Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints, Mastercard said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine
the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.
Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions
processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that
are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other
networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further
proceedings. In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM
Operators Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary
injunction enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination
rules pending the outcome of the litigation.


MASTERCARD INC: Late 2017 Trial in U.S. Liability Shift Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled for
late 2017 in the U.S. Liability Shift Litigation.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.  Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of
all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result
of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek
treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction
against future violations of governing law, and the defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification, and oral argument on that motion is scheduled for
mid-May 2017. A trial is scheduled for late 2017.


MICHIGAN: Sued Over Driver's License Suspensions Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News, reports that Michigan's
practice of suspending driver's licenses for unpaid court fees is
unconstitutional and traps low-income residents into a cycle of
poverty, citizens claim in a class action.

According to the complaint filed on May 4 in Flint federal court,
the state has collected over $40 million in "driver
responsibility" fees in the last three years and has suspended
over 100,000 licenses since 2010, in a practice the lawsuit calls
an "unconstitutional wealth-based suspension scheme."

Michigan law requires that its state department suspend the
licenses of residents who have unpaid court fees.

This practice unduly harms residents who simply cannot pay their
court costs, as being unable to drive hampers their ability to
earn a living and thus pay their fees, the lawsuit says.

"Without driver's licenses, people already facing the harsh
realities of owing court debt while living in poverty face
additional hurdles of being unable to drive to and from work, get
their children to daycare, keep medical appointments, and care for
their family members," the complaint states.

The class-action lawsuit lists Michigan Secretary of State Ruth
Johnson as the lone defendant, and seeks to have the license
suspending practice deemed unconditional.

One of the named plaintiffs, 31-year-old Adrian Fowler, owes
$2,121 to courts in Ferndale, Eastpointe and Oak Park.

Ms. Fowler says her license was suspended in 2012 for unpaid
Georgia traffic tickets that she had been unable to pay prior to
moving to Michigan.

The next year, Ms. Fowler was cited for driving on a suspended
license after being pulled over by an officer while she was trying
to rush her young daughter to the hospital during inclement
weather, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that the officer was sympathetic to Ms.
Fowler's plight and let her continue to the hospital despite her
suspended license, but not before writing a $600 ticket.

"When Ms. Fowler went to the Ferndale courthouse to tell them that
she would not be able to pay the $600, she was told that if she
did not return in three weeks with the full amount, a warrant
would be issued for her arrest," the complaint states.

The other named plaintiff, 25-year-old Kitia Harris, says she was
charged with a $150 traffic ticket that she can't afford to pay on
her disability income.

After she did not pay the fee, Ms. Harris' license was suspended
and she now owes the courts a total of $276, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Fowler and Ms. Harris seek to represent a class of Michigan
residents whose driver's licenses are suspended, or will be
suspended, based solely on their inability to pay court debts.

They are represented by Phil Telfeyan and other attorneys with
Equal Justice Under Law in Washington, D.C., and by John Philo
with Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice
in Detroit.

While not commenting directly on the pending litigation, Michigan
Secretary of State spokesperson Fred Woodhams told Courthouse News
that "the department does suspend a person's driver's license as
required by state law after a court notifies it that a traffic
ticket was not paid.  Traffic tickets are paid to the local court
district."

Michigan is not the only state facing such a challenge.

In Virginia, a similar lawsuit was filed last summer by the
nonprofit Legal Aid Justice Center, and also claimed that drivers
were unfairly losing their licenses due to unpaid court courts.

The United States Department of Justice weighed in on the Virginia
lawsuit in November, siding with the affected drivers.

"Suspending the driver's licenses of those who fail to pay fines
or fees without inquiring into whether that failure to pay was
willful or instead the result of an inability to pay may result in
penalizing indigent individuals solely because of their poverty,
in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment," the DOJ wrote in a statement of
interest in the case.

However, despite the vote of confidence from the federal
government, the Virginia case is mired in court proceedings after
U.S. District Judge Norman Moon dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction in March.  According to the Richmond-Times Dispatch,
the plaintiffs appealed Judge Moon's dismissal in April. [GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suit in British Columbia Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A six-month oral hearing in an antitrust class action proceeding
in British Columbia against Microsoft Corporation is set to start
in September 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada.  All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian
indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating
system software and/or productivity application software between
1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims.  A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in
September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness
affidavits.

The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive.

Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses,
and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide.
The Company markets and distributes its products through original
equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as
well as through online and Microsoft retail stores.  Microsoft
Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond,
Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017 that a Canadian cell phone class action has
been dormant for more than two years.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors.

Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been
substituted for the Nokia defendants.

Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses,
and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide.
The Company markets and distributes its products through original
equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as
well as through online and Microsoft retail stores.  Microsoft
Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond,
Washington.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Small Claims Court Case Waived Arbitration Right
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Kramer, Esq. -- liz.kramer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that it is not
uncommon for lenders to exempt small claims actions from their
arbitration provisions. The question confronted by the Court of
Appeals of Maryland in a recent case was: when a lender opts for
small claims court, does that waive any later right to enforce the
arbitration clause? The court's answer was yes, if the claims are
related.

In Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, __ A.3d__, 2017 WL 1101804 (Md.
Mar. 24, 2017), the lender pursued its collection action against
the credit card holder in small claims court in 2009.  It obtained
a default judgment for $4,520.  In 2013, that same credit card
holder filed a class action complaint against the lender, arguing
the lender had been an unlicensed collection agency.  The lender
moved to compel arbitration.  The trial court compelled
arbitration, finding the lender had not waived its right to
arbitrate by bringing the 2009 case, and the intermediate
appellate court agreed.

A five-member majority of Maryland's highest court applied a de
novo standard of review and reversed on the issue of waiver (two
judges dissented).  It applied Maryland case law that holds
participating in a judicial proceeding only constitutes a waiver
of the right to arbitrate issues raised in that proceeding, but
not "unrelated issues."  Therefore, the court looked at whether
the lender could have arbitrated its collection action, and if so,
whether that was related to the licensing issue raised in 2013.

The arbitration agreement at issue states that "claims filed in a
small claims court are not subject to arbitration, so long as the
matter remains in such court and advances only an individual. . .
Claim."  The court found that language, along with the broad
language that "all Claims . . . are subject to arbitration," gave
the lender the choice to litigate or arbitrate the collection
issue.

The court also found the 2009 and 2013 claims were sufficiently
related to apply the waiver doctrine.  "Put simply, if Midland had
not pursued its 2009 collection action, Cain's current claims
would not exist."  The majority noted that 2016 cases from both
Nevada and Utah had reached similar conclusions.  Finally, the
court refused to require a showing of prejudice: "Cain does not
have to demonstrate that he will suffer prejudice if the
arbitration clause is enforced."

This issue is an important one for lending institutions. If the
small claims court option is generally efficient, it may be
worthwhile adding a clause to those arbitration provisions that
pursuit of a claim in small claims court does not waive the right
to raise arbitration as a defense in any later action.

Maryland did not make my list of 5 states most hostile to
arbitration last summer (and still wouldn't) . BUT, some of the
states on that list have recently issued surprisingly pro
arbitration decisions. Check these out:

WEST VIRGINIA recently reversed a lower court's refusal to enforce
arbitration. It found the employee had failed to show the
arbitration provision was unconscionable.  It wasn't all sunshine
and arbitration butterflies, though.  One justice wrote a
concurring opinion asking Congress to take action.  "We can only
hope that . . . Congress will implement better safeguards to the
FAA to ensure that the legal rights of unsophisticated employees
are protected." Employee Resource Group, LLC v. Harless, 2017 WL
1371287 (W.Va. April 13, 2017).

WEST VIRGINIA also enforced an arbitration clause waiving class
actions in Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. Sheridan, 2017 WL
1457006 (W.Va April 20, 2017).  In that case, the class action
waiver had been added via notice to all consumers pursuant to a
modification clause in the original terms of the agreement.
Because the new terms and conditions were distributed with a paper
billing statement and "accepted" via continued use of the internet
service, the court found they were a valid unilateral contract,
just like an employee handbook.  Therefore, the court enforced
individual arbitration of the claims.

HAWAII confirmed an arbitration award in RT Import v. Torres, 2017
WL 1366999 (Ha. April 13, 2017), although reversed the trial
court's additional award of additional costs above the award.  The
court did get a jab in at arbitration in a footnote, though.  It
noted that the arbitrator awarded damages for emotional distress
to a corporation.  After commenting that there is no legal
authority allowing such damages, the opinion states: "parties who
submit their claims to binding arbitration assume all the hazards
of the arbitration process, including the risk that the arbitrator
may make mistakes in the application of law and in their findings
of fact."

ALABAMA found the arbitration agreement between a family and a
funeral home was not unconscionable in Newell v. SCI Alabama
Funeral Services, LLC, 2017 WL 1034469 (March 17, 2017).
[GN]


NATIONAL BOARD: Hutton Appeals From Md. Ct. Ruling to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rhonda L. Hutton and Tawny P. Kaeochinda filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Rhonda Hutton
v. National Board of Examiners, Case No. 1:16-cv-03025-JKB, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 7,
2017, Judge James K. Bredar granted dismissal of the cases
captioned, RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D., et al. v. NAT'L BD. OF EXAM'RS
IN OPTOMETRY, INC., and NICOLE MIZRAHI v. NAT'L BD. OF EXAM'RS IN
OPTOMETRY, INC., Case Nos. JKB-16-3025, JKB-16-3146 (D. Md.).

Two cases before the Court rest upon similar allegations by
different Plaintiffs, and they are the subjects of nearly
identical defense motions.  Both cases seek to represent the same
class of similarly situated individuals.  The causes of action
overlap between the cases, with some differences in state-law
theories of recovery.  Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action
for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied
contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Rhonda Hutton v. National Board
of Examiners, Case No. 17-1506, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D., and TAWNY P.
KAEOCHINDA, O.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett Jay Vahle, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          460 Nichols Road
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, INC.,
is represented by:

          Cynthia Maskol, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          500 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 962-5285
          Facsimile: (410) 962-8758
          E-mail: cynthia.maskol@wilsonelser.com


NATIONAL BOARD: Mizrahi Appeals From D. Md. Ruling to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicole Mizrahi filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Nicole Mizrahi v. National Board of
Examiners, Case No. 1:16-cv-03146-JKB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 7,
2017, Judge James K. Bredar granted dismissal of the cases
captioned, RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D., et al. v. NAT'L BD. OF EXAM'RS
IN OPTOMETRY, INC., and NICOLE MIZRAHI v. NAT'L BD. OF EXAM'RS IN
OPTOMETRY, INC., Case Nos. JKB-16-3025, JKB-16-3146 (D. Md.).

Two cases before the Court rest upon similar allegations by
different Plaintiffs, and they are the subjects of nearly
identical defense motions.  Both cases seek to represent the same
class of similarly situated individuals.  The causes of action
overlap between the cases, with some differences in state-law
theories of recovery.  Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action
for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied
contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Nicole Mizrahi v. National
Board of Examiners, Case No. 17-1508, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NICOLE MIZRAHI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Donald James Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
          E-mail: liskow@whafh.com

               - and -

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, INC.,
is represented by:

          Cynthia Maskol, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          500 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 962-5285
          Facsimile: (410) 962-8758
          E-mail: cynthia.maskol@wilsonelser.com


NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS: Consolidated Securities Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that it has filed an answer on
February 17, 2017, to a consolidated securities class action
complaint.

In January 2016, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and its top executives.  On March
29, 2016, the court consolidated these actions, appointed two Lead
Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm
and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported
class.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 29,
2016.

The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between March 6, 2015 and March 15, 2016 under (i)
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder against Natural Health Trends Corp.,
Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S. Davidson, and (ii) Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Chris T. Sharng,
Timothy S. Davidson, and George K. Broady.

The consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
legality of its business operations in China, including running an
allegedly illegal multi-level marketing business.  The
consolidated complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages,
plus interest and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on June 15, 2016 and a reply in support of its motion to dismiss
on August 22, 2016.  On December 5, 2016, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss.

Natural Health Trends stated, "The Company believes that these
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
them."

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand in North America, Greater China, South
Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Europe, Russia, and Kazakhstan.
The Company sells its products directly to consumers through an e-
commerce retail platform.  Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Rolling Hills Estates, California.


NAVIENT CORP: Student Loan Borrower Class Action Settled in 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that it has agreed to a settlement in principle in
the fourth quarter of 2016 that would resolve a class action filed
by a student loan provider against the Company.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against an old SLM Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al.
The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a putative class
consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice
of charging late fees that were proportional to the amount of
missed payments constituted liquidated damages in violation of
California law and that Old SLM engaged in unfair business
practices by charging daily interest on private educational loans.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include usury
claims under California state law and to seek restitution of late
charges and interest paid by members of the putative class,
injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest payments,
treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees, among other relief.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties reached a settlement in
principle that would resolve the Ubaldi matter, as well as the
related lawsuit of Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation, et al.

The Company states: "While we cannot provide any assurances that
we will be able to finalize the proposed settlement on terms that
are acceptable to the Company or if the Court will ultimately
approve of the proposed settlement, we do not believe that the
financial impact of the final settlement, if any, will be
material."

The Company agreed to settle these matters to avoid the burden,
expense, risk, and uncertainty of continued litigation.  A reserve
was established for this matter as of December 31, 2016.

Navient Corporation provides asset management and business
processing services to education, health care, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels in the United
States.  The Company operates in three segments: Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private Education Loans, and
Business Services.  Navient Corporation is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Lawsuit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

During the first quarter of 2016, the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient
securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware.  These three cases were consolidated by the District
Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.  The
caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund,
Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.  The plaintiffs filed
their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit, and filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in November 2016.
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition in December 2016.

The Company said: "At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable
to anticipate the timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if
any, that the legal proceedings may have on the consolidated
financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows
of Navient and its affiliates.  As a result, it is not possible at
this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for
amounts that may be payable in connection with these matters and
reserves have not been established.  It is possible that an
adverse ruling or rulings may have a material adverse impact on
the Company."

Navient Corporation provides asset management and business
processing services to education, health care, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels in the United
States.  The Company operates in three segments: Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private Education Loans, and
Business Services.  Navient Corporation is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: TCPA Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set for July
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that court hearing on the approval of an agreement
to settle a class action regarding Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") violations is scheduled for July 2017.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and
federal consumer protection laws.  One of these putative class
action suits is Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").

On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnson filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

During the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement and, on December 23, 2016, filed a Motion to
Approve the Class Action Settlement with the Court.  The Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on January 26, 2017.

NSI denied all claims asserted, but agreed to settle the case to
avoid the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continued
litigation.  A reserve was established for this matter as of
December 31, 2016.  The proposed settlement is subject to Court
approval with a hearing currently scheduled for July 2017.

Navient Corporation provides asset management and business
processing services to education, health care, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels in the United
States.  The Company operates in three segments: Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, Private Education Loans, and
Business Services.  Navient Corporation is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


NOVOCURE LTD: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Limited is facing a consolidated class action lawsuit on
alleged violation of the federal securities laws, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.  The
plaintiffs will be filing a consolidated complaint on May 31,
2017.

In January 2017, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers, as
well as the underwriters in the Company's October 2015 initial
public offering.  The complaints, which purport to be brought on
behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired ordinary shares of the Company pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering, allege
material misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's initial
public offering materials in alleged violation of the federal
securities laws and seek compensatory damages, among other
remedies.

The two actions have been consolidated.

NovoCure stated, "The Company believes that the actions are
without merit and plans to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  The
Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits,
as a liability is not probable and the amount of any potential
liability cannot be reasonably estimated."

NovoCure Limited engages in the development, manufacture, and
commercialization of tumor treating fields (TTFields) for the
treatment of solid tumors.  The Company markets its proprietary
therapy, TTFields delivery system under the Optune name for use as
a monotherapy treatment for adult patients with glioblastoma brain
cancer.  It is also involved in conducting clinical trials for the
use of TTFields in brain metastases, non-small cell lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma.  The company
markets its products in the United States, Germany, Switzerland,
Japan, and other countries.  NovoCure Limited was founded in 2000
and is based in Saint Helier, the Channel Islands.


NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs in the
Natural Gas Litigation have petitioned the Ninth Circuit for
interlocutory review of the order denying class certification.

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

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the
District Court.

GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision and the U.S. Supreme
Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme
Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state
antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal
Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted
on the basis of conflict preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court
directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to
class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24,
2016.

On March 30, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs petitioned
the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review of the court's order
denying class certification.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Class Certification Hearings on June 19 and Aug. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Class certification
hearings are scheduled on August 21, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action lawsuits in New
Jersey and California cases respectively.

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

On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of
NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on
August 16, 2016. Class certification hearings are scheduled on
August 21, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the New Jersey and California
cases respectively.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Opposition to Demurrers Due June 15 in "Braun" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, Braun v.
NRG Yield, Inc., plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' demurrers
and motion challenging jurisdiction is due on June 15, 2017.

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

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

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

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Set for June 20 in "Ahmed" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that oral argument is
scheduled for June 20, 2017, in the case, Ahmed v. NRG Energy,
Inc. and the NRG Yield Board of Directors.

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

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December
21, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their objection to the motion to
dismiss on February 15, 2017.

The Defendants' reply was filed on March 24, 2017. Oral argument
is scheduled for June 20, 2017.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Unit Defending Against "Griffoul" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
defending against the case, Griffoul v. NRG Residential Solar
Solutions.

On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey
residential solar customers, filed a purported class action
lawsuit in New Jersey state court.  Plaintiffs allege violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer
Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain
provisions of their residential solar contracts.  The plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of
the solar renewable energy credits.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Defending Against "Rice" Suit in W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. is defending against the case, Rice v. NRG, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On April 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against NRG, First Energy Corporation and Matt
Canastrale Contracting, Inc.  Plaintiffs generally claim personal
injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage related to the
disposal of coal ash from the Elrama Power Plant and First
Energy's Mitchell and Hatfield Power Plants. Plaintiffs generally
seek monetary damages, medical monitoring and remediation of their
property.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


OASIS LEGAL: "Davis" Usury Case Removed to S.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lizzie Davis, Pamela Davis, Dennis Green,
Johnny Moody, John Suber, And Shirley Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oasis
Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC; Oasis Legal Finance, LLC;
Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC; and THL Credit, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2017-CG-0061, (Ga. Sup., February 2, 2017),
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia on April 28, 2017, and assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-00022.

Plaintiffs entered into loan agreements with Oasis. They claim
that said agreements are void because they are deemed usurious
under Georgia Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Bartley Turner, Esq.
      SAVAGE, TURNER, PINCKNEY & SAVAGE
      P.O. Box 10600
      102 East Liberty Street, 8th Floor
      Savannah, GA 31401
      Tel:(912) 231-1140
      Toll Free: (800) 626-1975
      Fax: (912) 232-4212
      Email: bturner@savagelawfirm.net

             - and -

      Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq.
      C. Dorian Britt. Esq.
      KARSMAN, MCKENZIE & HART
      Tel: (912) 335-4977
           (912) 289-0166
      21 West Park Avenue
      Savannah, GA 31401
      Email: jeremy@kmtrial.com
             dorian@kmtrial.com

Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC, Oasis Legal Finance,
LLC, and Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC represented by:

      Abby Vineyard, Esq.
      BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
      3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1700
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 264-4085
      Facsimile: (404) 265-4033
      E-mail: abby.vineyard@btlaw.com

              - and -

      William M. McErlean, Esq.
      Christine Skoczylas, Esq.
      BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
      One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 357-1313
      Facsimile: (312) 759-5646
      E-mail: william.mcerlean@btlaw.com
              christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com

THL Credit, Inc. is represented by:

      Timothy Mungovan, Esq.
      PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
      One International Place
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 526-9412
      Fax: (617) 526-9899
      Email: tmungovan@proskauer.com


OHIO, USA: Palladeno's Certification Bid Denied; May Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson entered an opinion and order adopting
and affirming Magistrate Judge Jolson's report and recommendation
in the lawsuit entitled Ted Palladeno v. Gary C. Mohr, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01126-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

Gary C. Mohr is director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction.

Ted Palladeno brings the prisoner civil rights case pro se.  He
moves the Court to certify the case as a class action, and for
preliminary injunction and prisoner release orders.  The Complaint
deplores numerous conditions in various protective control units
in various institutions. The Complaint asks the Court to enjoin
certain practices with respect to those protective control units,
to require an overhaul of the prison grievance procedure, and to
overhaul the ODRC parole procedures.

Upon initial screen, Magistrate Judge Jolson issued a report and
recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss all claims
brought on behalf of all putative plaintiffs other than the
Plaintiff, deny the Plaintiff's motion to certify, and deny the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and prisoner relief
orders.  The R&R concluded that the Plaintiff cannot represent,
pro se, other prisoners in federal court.  The R&R also found that
the Complaint, as filed, was pervaded by class allegations to the
point that it was impossible to decipher the Plaintiff's
individual claims.

Mr. Palladeno objects to the R&R's recommendation that the Court
deny his motion to certify a class, dismiss all class allegations,
and deny his motion for a preliminary injunction and for prisoner
release orders.  He also objects to Magistrate Judge Jolson's
denial of his motion to appoint class counsel.

Several putative class members have written the Court in what
Plaintiff calls "supplemental objections" to the R&R.  The
Plaintiff moves the Court to file these letters under seal for the
protection of the putative class members.

Judge Watson also denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal because as
non-parties to the case, the putative class members had no right
to object to the R&R.  Judge Watson, however, allows the Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9djpy0hl


PARKLANCE FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Approves Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Justice E. Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has approved the settlement agreement dated March 17,
2017, entered into between Michael Cannon and the defendants
Parklane Financial Group Limited, Trafalgar Associates Limited,
Trafalgar Trading Limited, and Appleby Services Bermuda Ltd., as
trustee for the Bermuda Longtail Trust nka Estera Services
(Bermuda) Limited as trustee for the Bermuda Longtrail Trust.  All
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and Third Party Claims have
been dismissed.

The settlement provides for the payment of $17.5 million.  After
payment of legal fees, the class proceedings Fund levy and
administrative costs, the balance will be distributed to all class
members who submit a valid claim form by July 31, 2017, which is
the claim deadline.  claims submitted after that date will not be
accepted.

A notice respecting the settlement approval, and explaining how to
make a claim will be sent to the last known addresses for all
class members.  Prepopulated claim forms will be accessible by
internet using a unique identifier which the claims administrator
will include with the notice.  Blank claim forms will be posted on
the administrator's website at parklanesettlement.ca.

Questions about how to make a claim or the claims process should
be directed to the claims administrator at
parklane@nptricepoint.com or 1-888-663-7194.

Details of the settlement including a long form notice settlement,
the settlement agreement, and court order approving the settlement
can be accessed on the websites of class counsel at
http://www.parklaneclassaction.comor
http://www.thetorontolawyers.ca/class_actions.htm.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Putative Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative
securities class action regarding alleged deception or unfair
practices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

On December 28, 2016, the putative securities class action
captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.  3:16-cv-
07371 (the "Securities Case"), was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court").  The
Securities Case asserts claims relating to the Company's
disclosure in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, the Company
received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC as part of its
investigation to determine whether it, through its Venmo service,
have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Securities Case purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers
of eBay's stock on or after December 19, 2013 who subsequently
received the Company's stock pursuant to eBay's spin-off of the
Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or purchasers of the
Company's stock between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, and
asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and
former interim Chief Financial Officer, and eBay and certain of
its former officers, including the Chairman of the Company's Board
of Directors.

The Securities Case alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the
failure to disclose that the Company was purportedly engaging in
unfair trade practices through its Venmo service and that as a
result of alleged false and misleading statements or omissions,
the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices.  The
Securities Case seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf
of the putative class members.

On March 23, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel to represent the putative class.  Pursuant to the Court's
scheduling order, lead plaintiff was given until May 12, 2017 to
file an amended complaint.

The Amended Complaint against Patrick L.A. Dupuis, PayPal
Holdings, Inc., John D. Rainey, Daniel H. Schulman was filed on
May 11.

The Company stated: "We believe the claims and allegations in the
Securities Case are without merit and intend to defend the action
vigorously."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform company
that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers
and merchants worldwide.  It enables businesses of various sizes
to accept payments from merchant Websites, mobile devices, and
applications, as well as at offline retail locations through a
range of payment solutions, including PayPal, PayPal Credit,
Braintree, Venmo, Xoom, and Paydiant products.  The Company's
platform allows consumers to shop by sending payments, withdraw
funds to their bank accounts, and hold balances in their PayPal
accounts in various currencies.  PayPal Holdings, Inc. was founded
in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


PENNSYLVANIA, USA: Long Appeals Decision in Class Suit vs. SEPTA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Frank Long, Joseph Shipley and Michael White filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Frank Long,
et al. v. SEPTA, Case No. 2-16-cv-01991, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) "willfully" violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act and state laws when conducting criminal background
checks on job applicants.

The complaint alleges that SEPTA violated the federal FCRA during
procurement of background checks for employment purposes by
failing to provide job applicants with a required "clear and
conspicuous" or "stand alone" written disclosure that SEPTA may
obtain background checks to ensure accuracy and prevent job
applicants from being distracted by unrelated information.

The appellate case is captioned as Frank Long, et al. v. SEPTA,
Case No. 17-1889, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants FRANK LONG, JOSEPH SHIPLEY and MICHAEL
WHITE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Cheryl-Lyn D. Bentley, Esq.
          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Lewis M. Steel, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: cbentley@outtengolden.com
                  atk@outtengolden.com
                  cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
                  om@outtengolden.com
                  lms@outtengolden.com

Defendant-Appellee SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY is represented by:

          Michael A. Cognetti, Esq.
          Candidus K. Dougherty, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. McCarron, Esq.
          SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
          50 South 16th Street
          Two Liberty Place, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-5190
          Facsimile: (215) 299-4301
          E-mail: mcognetti@swartzcampbell.com
                  cdougherty@swartzcampbell.com
                  jmccarron@swartzcampbell.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Malloy, Esq.
          Samantha L. Southall, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 South 16th Street
          Two Liberty Place, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665-8700
          Facsimile: (215) 665-8760
          E-mail: elizabeth.malloy@bipc.com
                  samantha.southall@bipc.com


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Alfred" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pepperidge Farm Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Alfred, et al. v. Pepperidge Farm
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07086-JAK-SK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Alfred, et al. v.
Pepperidge Farm Inc., Case No. 17-80074, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents RAYMOND ALFRED and MARVIN BARRISH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Valerie Brender, Esq.
          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
          E-mail: vbrender@rhdtlaw.com
                  peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com

               - and -

          Wilmer J. Harris, Esq.
          Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman
          & Harrison, LLP
          715 Fremont Avenue, Suite A
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (626) 441-4129
          Facsimile: (626) 283-5770
          E-mail: wharris@sdshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Urmy, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, GRACE, HABER & URMY
          75 State Street
          Boston, MA 2109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: turmy@shulaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner PEPPERIDGE FARM INC. is represented by:

          Galen Bascom, Esq.
          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: galen.bascom@kirkland.com
                  paul.clement@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Evans, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5431
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: pevans@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (212) 752-5378
          E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John David Hayashi, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7124
          E-mail: john.hayashi@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Allyson Newton Ho, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1717 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466-4180
          Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: allyson.ho@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Judd E. Stone, II, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2020 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 739-5531
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: judd.stone@morganlewis.com


PESEK INC: Hagaman Moves for Certification of Servers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SCOTT HAGAMAN, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. PESEK, INC.,
NICKOLIVIA, LLC and GEORGE PESEK, Case No. 3:17-cv-00289-JD-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), moves for conditional certification and for notice to
potential plaintiffs.

In his complaint, Mr. Hagaman seeks payment of alleged unpaid
minimum wages owed to him and others similarly situated due to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He seeks conditional
certification of his collective action and authorization to send
initial and subsequent Court-supervised Notices to all of the
Defendants' current and former servers (or their functional
equivalents) who worked for the Defendants at Corndance Tavern
and/or Evil Czech Brewery during the three-year time period prior
to the date the Court approves the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KDXRL7cC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
          Indianapolis, IN46280
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Securities Class Action in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. continues to defend itself in a securities
class action lawsuit relating to certain of its off-road vehicle
(ORV) products and product recalls, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In September and October 2016, investors filed two purported class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of its executive
officers as defendants.

On December 12, 2016, the District Court consolidated the two
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

In a later order, the court set a date of March 14, 2017, for the
lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint or to
designate one of the filed complaints as the operative pleading.
On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and six current or former executives
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased or acquired Polaris securities during the time period
from February 20, 2015 through September 11, 2016.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the proposed class
period, defendants made materially false or misleading public
statements about the Company's business, operations, forecasts,
and compliance policies relating to certain of its ORV products
and product recalls. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Polaris Industries said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
the action."

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide.  It operates through four
segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles,
Global Adjacent Markets, and Other.  Polaris Industries Inc. was
founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: July 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:PBYI) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 17-cv-03455, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Puma securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Puma securities between
February 29, 2016 and May 4, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 7, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is a development-stage pharmaceutical
company that is primarily focused on acquiring and developing drug
products.  At all relevant times, Puma's primary focus has been
the development of the drug PB272 ("neratinib").  Neratinib was
initially developed by the pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and
Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer"), and Puma acquired the rights to license
the drug in 2011.

Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company did not
anticipate that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA")
would ultimately approve neratinib for the treatment of breast
cancer; (ii) as such, Puma had overstated the drug's approval
prospects and/or commercial viability; and (iii) as a result,
Puma's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On May 4, 2017, post-market, Puma disclosed the resignation of Dr.
Robert Charnas, the Company's Senior Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, citing "health reasons."  Dr. Charnas' resignation will
be effective as of May 15, 2017, nine days before the FDA
scheduled review of Puma's breast cancer drug neratinib on May 24.
On this news, Puma's share price fell $5.85, or 16.01%, to close
at $30.70 on May 5, 2017.
On May 5, 2017, Fox Business published an online article entitled
"Why Puma Biotechnology Shares are Crashing 18.2% Today."

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


RICHARD FEARON: Graham Appeals Ruling; Mediation Call Today
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Todd Graham, Paul Johnson and Russ Poptanycz filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Todd Graham, et
al. v. Richard Fearon, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02366, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

The appellate case is captioned as Todd Graham, et al. v. Richard
Fearon, et al., Case No. 17-3407, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11,
2017, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case.

Eaton Corporation PLC is an Ireland-based manufacturer of
engineered products marketed to customers in the industrial,
agricultural, construction, aerospace, and vehicle markets.
Eaton's stock shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange Inc.
Defendants Richard Fearon, Ken D. Semelsberger, Trent Meyerhoefer,
and Mark McGuire are officers of Eaton and fiduciaries of the
Eaton Savings Plan.

Plaintiffs Todd Graham, Paul Johnson, and Russ Poptanycz are
former employees of Eaton, and are participants in the Eaton
Savings Plan and in particular, the Eaton Company Stock Fund, an
employee stock ownership plan that invests primarily in Eaton
common stock.

The Plaintiffs allege that they each purchased and held shares of
Eaton stock through the Eaton Stock Fund in their plan retirement
savings account from November 13, 2013, through July 28, 2014, the
class period.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Company's stock
became artificially inflated as a result of Eaton executives'
false and misleading representations.  The Plaintiffs claim that
plan participants, who chose to purchase the Eaton Stock Fund paid
fraudulent, excessive prices for the stock during the class period
and suffered financial harm to their retirement savings by over-
paying for Eaton stock.

A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for today,
May 18, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (ET) with Paul Calico.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TODD GRAHAM, PAUL JOHNSON and RUSS
POPTANYCZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com

               - and -

          David R. Grant, Esq.
          SMITH & CONDENI
          1801 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
          Cleveland, OH 44114-0000
          Telephone: (216) 771-1760

Defendants-Appellees RICHARD FEARON, KEN D. SEMELSBERGER, TRENT
MEYERHOEFER and MARK MCGUIRE are represented by:

          Joseph A. Castrodale, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
          2300 BP Tower
          200 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 363-4500
          Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
          E-mail: jcastrodale@beneschlaw.com


RE GAS DEVELOPMENT: Pa. Sup. Ct. Ruling in "Cardinale" Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants R.E. Gas Development, LLC, and Rex Energy Corporation
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit
entitled Lucinda A. Cardinale and Iola Hugney, on behalf of
themselves and onbehalfof all those similarly situated v. R.E. Gas
Development, LLC, and Rex Energy Corporation, Case No. 2011-1791-
CD, in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas.

The appellate case is captioned as Cardinale v. R.E. Gas
Development, LLC, Case No. 150-WAL-2017, in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.[BN]


RS&H INC: Class of Terminated Workers Certified in "Jones" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification filed in the
lawsuit styled BRADLEY JONES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. RS&H, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-00054-SCB-JSS
(M.D. Fla.).

On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an age discrimination
complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
Florida Civil Rights Act.  In his complaint, Mr. Jones states that
he worked for the Defendant from August 1991 through June 2015,
when he was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force.  He
believes that he was terminated due to his age.  He was 53 years
old at the time of his termination.

The Motion is granted to the extent that the Court conditionally
certifies a class consisting of the five individuals, who were
over 40 years old at the time of their termination and were
terminated from the Tampa location during the June 2015 RIF.
Otherwise, the Plaintiff's motion is denied.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=asHrORW2


RWDT FOODS: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Bottley" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Latanya Bottley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RWDT Foods, Inc. d/b/a Denny's
Restaurants, Ronald Wooten and Donnell Thompson, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01516 (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2017), seeks minimum wage
and overtime compensation, monetary and liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RWDT owns and operates 11 "Denny's" restaurants with principal
office located at 2160 Scenic Highway N, Snellville, GA, 30078.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server and shift lead from
July 2016 to October 2016 at Denny's located at 2925 Lawrenceville
Suwanee Rd., Suwanee, GA 30024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
      ORLANDO LAW FIRM PC
      315 W Ponce de Leon Ave #400
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Phone: (404) 373-1800
      Fax: (404) 373-6999

             - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Zijian Guan, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Phone: (877) 561-0000
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Overheating Phone Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles and Kyle Jahner, writing for Law360, report that
Samsung Electronics America Inc. asked a New York federal judge on
May 5 to dismiss a putative class action over overheating Galaxy
phones, arguing consumers agreed to terms and conditions that
dictate such disputes must go to arbitration on an individual
basis.

The cellphone maker said in a motion to dismiss that named
plaintiff Claire Gilligan didn't opt out of the arbitration
agreement in spite of several labels and documents putting her on
notice of its existence.  A warning on the phone's box told her
the device was "subject to additional Samsung terms and
conditions."  Its health and safety warranty booklet warned
customers on the first page that they had 30 days to opt out of
the arbitration agreement contained in those terms.

The booklet also included the terms of the arbitration agreement,
which said disputes over the sale, condition or performance of the
phone would be resolved out of court, and that claims couldn't be
consolidated into a class action.  The arbitration agreement was
also available on the phones themselves, on Samsung's website and
in the phone's user manual.

Ms. Gilligan -- who filed suit in December saying her S7 and three
of her four replacement phones overheated and broke -- lives in
Pennsylvania and filed suit in New York. But neither state
requires a party's signature on a consumer contract, since using
the phone was "sufficient to manifest assent," Samsung's motion
said, and both states find such shrink-wrapped terms valid.

"It does not matter whether plaintiff in fact read the guidebooks
and saw the arbitration language," the motion said. "Plaintiff
cannot reasonably claim that she never noticed the guidebook and
its terms and conditions, given that she received it five separate
times (with each of her original and replacement phones), alleges
that she experienced repeated problems and actually brings a
breach of express warranty claim in this case."

Ms. Gilligan seeks to represent a nationwide class of cellphone
users who allege Samsung has ignored overheating dangers in models
other than the Galaxy Note 7, which was recalled after dozens
burst into flames.  She is suing Samsung for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment, as well as a Pennsylvania consumer
protection law claim for a subclass from that state.

But Samsung's May 5 motion said its terms expressly forbid
customers' claims from being combined and that such contractual
class waivers have been found to be enforceable in the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2011 Concepcion and 2013 Italian Colors Restaurant
decisions.

Samsung also argued that the arbitration agreement's scope and
applicability to Ms. Gilligan's case should be determined by an
arbitrator, not the court.  But it also set forth arguments for
why the suit fell under the arbitration clause, pointing out that
the contract is compliant with the American Arbitration
Association, and it has a broad reach, applying to disputes
"arising in any way" from Samsung's limited warranty on the "sale,
condition or performance" of its phones.

Nor could the putative class prove that the arbitration agreement
was inapplicable or invalid, Samsung said.  The provision of the
contract that assigned questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator covered issues of unconscionability as well.  And
Samsung argued the contract was "extremely fair and consumer-
friendly," since it included a penalty-free opt out, limited fees
for customers and a provision that only allowed customers -- not
Samsung -- to pursue attorneys' fees.

Samsung also anticipated Gilligan would cite the Ninth Circuit's
Norcia decision and the Third Circuit's Noble ruling, both of
which found earlier this year that Samsung arbitration contracts
on older devices were unenforceable.  In Norcia, the court found
California law hadn't changed since Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc., a
Seventh Circuit decision that found shrink-wrapped agreements are
binding, Samsung said, but New York and Pennsylvania do recognize
such contracts.  The company also pointed out the arbitration
notices in those cases weren't as conspicuous as the labeling for
the phones at issue in Gilligan's suit.

Attorneys and representatives for Samsung and the class were not
immediately available for comment on May 8.

Kenneth L. Chernof, Robert J. Katerberg, Elisabeth S. Theodore,
Daniel F. Jacobson and Ingo W. Sprie of Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP.

Ms. Gilligan is represented by Lori G. Feldman and Courtney E.
Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Janine L. Pollack of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The case is Gilligan v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., case
number 1:16-cv-09803, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. [GN]


SAN JOSE, CA: Class of Firefighters Certified in "Wallace" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit styled DARREN
WALLACE, et al. v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Case No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL
(N.D. Cal.).  The FLSA collective class is defined as:

     All current and former employees (a) employed as a fire
     recruit, firefighter, fire engineer, fire captain, fire
     prevention inspector, arson investigator or battalion chief
     at any time on or after March 11, 2013 (for willful FLSA
     violations) or March 11, 2014 (generally) and (b) who have
     opted-in or will opt-in on or before April 25, 2017.

The lawsuit is brought as a putative collective action for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as California
Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs are San Jose firefighters, who allege
that the City of San Jose has not correctly calculated overtime
for Fire Department employees.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=66a41F43

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol Lynn Koenig, Esq.
          Christopher Eugene Platten, Esq.
          WYLIE, MCBRIDE, PLATTEN & RENNER
          2125 Canoas Garden Avenue, Suite 120
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 979-2920
          Facsimile: (408) 979-2934
          E-mail: ckoenig@wmprlaw.com
                  cplatten@wmprlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathryn Jennifer Zoglin, Esq.
          SAN JOSE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          200 E Santa Clara St., 16th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 535-1900
          E-mail: Katie.Zoglin@sanjoseca.gov


SCOTTRADE INC: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that discount brokerage
firm Scottrade Inc. failed to take appropriate steps to protect
customers' sensitive data, opening the door to a data breach that
compromised more than 4.6 million people's personal information,
according to a proposed class action that landed in Florida
federal court on May 5.

Angela Lynn Martin's complaint alleges that Scottrade's lax data
security practices made its databases an easy target for hackers
who accessed millions of customers' personally identifiable
information -- including Social Security numbers and contact
information -- from September 2013 to around February 2014 without
detection, using the data for a variety of schemes that resulted
in the loss of millions of dollars.

"Scottrade owed a legal duty to plaintiff and the other class
members to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard the personal information stored on
its network," the complaint says.  "Scottrade breached that duty
by failing to design and implement appropriate firewalls and
computer systems, failing to properly and adequately encrypt data,
and unnecessarily storing and retaining plaintiff's and the other
class members' personal information on its inadequately protected
network."

Ms. Martin alleges that Scottrade promises to use "industry
leading security technologies" to protect the personal and
financial information it requires customers to provide, including
employment information, credit history and investment experience.

In reality, Scottrade's security practices were far from adequate,
Martin claims, saying the breach that forms the basis of her suit
wasn't the first time the firm discovered that its cybersecurity
was insufficient.

Previously, the firm's network was hacked by criminals who used
customer account information to conduct fraudulent stock trades,
according to the complaint.  Government regulators had even fined
Scottrade because of its inadequate cybersecurity procedures and
oversight, the suit alleges.

Nonetheless, Ms. Martin says, Scottrade failed to take reasonable
measures to safeguard customers' personally identifiable
information, leading a hacker to correctly predict that the firm's
databases would be "a simple hit."

After scoring the login credentials for one account, the hackers
were able to access and export the data without detection for
several months, according to the complaint.  The hackers used the
information for a number of schemes, including a stock price
manipulation plot that amassed millions of dollars, the suit
alleges.

The firm's cybersecurity measures were so lacking that it didn't
realize the theft had occurred until the Federal Bureau of
Investigation notified Scottrade in August 2015, the suit alleges.

Scottrade finally informed affected customers in October of that
year, offering one year of credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance, the complaint says.  However, this was far from
sufficient, Ms.  Martin says, claiming that the notice was
materially misleading and the mitigation services offered weren't
enough -- especially considering the breach had happened years
earlier.

The following month, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed two
indictments revealing that the Scottrade data breach was part of
an "orchestrated massive" scheme to hack the firm and other
financial institutions with large customer databases, the
complaint says.

Ms. Martin seeks to represent all Florida residents whose personal
or financial information was compromised as a result of the breach
first disclosed by Scottrade on Oct. 2, 2015.  She brings claims
for breach of contract -- or, in the alternative, breach of
implied contract -- unjust enrichment, declaratory relief and
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

The consumer originally filed her complaint in March in Pasco
County court, and Scottrade removed the action to federal court on
May 5.  According to the firm, Ms. Martin had first filed suit in
Florida federal court in December 2015, making the same
allegations she makes now.

She agreed to transfer her case to Missouri federal court, where
it was consolidated with several similar actions, according to
Scottrade.  The consolidated complaint was dismissed in July 2016,
and one of her co-plaintiffs appealed to the Eighth Circuit, the
firm said.

Ms. Martin didn't join the appeal and later filed the present
action in state court, according to Scottrade.

Representatives for Ms. Martin and Scottrade didn't immediately
return requests for comment on May 8.

Ms. Martin is represented by the Dogali Law Group PA, Blood Hurst
& O'Reardon LLP, Siprut PC, Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Spreter
Law Firm APC.

Scottrade is represented by Niels P. Murphy --
nmurphy@murphyandersonlaw.com -- and Lawton R. Graves --
lgraves@murphyandersonlaw.com -- of Murphy & Anderson PA and
Thomas E. Douglass -- tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com -- Chris Hohn -
- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Brandi L. Burke --
bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn LLP.

The suit is Angela Lynn Martin v. Scottrade Inc., suit number
8:17-cv-01042, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida. [GN]


SERVICE CORP: Vasquez Lawsuit on Units' Labor Practices Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International's subsidiaries still defend
themselves in the lawsuit captioned Adrian Mercedes Vasquez, an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, et al; Case No.
BC58837, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.  The claims have been ordered to arbitration, with
the arbitrator to determine whether the claims will proceed as a
class or individual claims.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles in July 2015 against SCI
subsidiaries and purports to be brought on behalf of current and
former non-exempt California employees of defendants during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage
and hour pay violations.  The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
interest, and injunctive relief.

In addition, the plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge
against defendants with the National Labor Relations Board
alleging that by enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision,
defendants allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs have filed
documents indicating that they are appealing the dismissal of the
class action filed in connection with the Company's proposed
acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others ; Case No.  2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class
action in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI.  The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.

The Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that
were granted in June 2014.  Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no
longer be party to the suit.

The case has continued against the Company's subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors.  However, in
October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims.

The Company stated, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Class Action Alleging TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Service Corporation International continues to defend itself in
a class action lawsuit related to Telephone Consumer Protection
Act violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

The case, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; In the
United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, was
filed in June 2016 as a class action.

Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that
were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeks
actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

The Company stated, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, in this lawsuit."

Service Corporation International, together with its subsidiaries,
provides deathcare products and services in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates through Funeral and Cemetery
segments.  The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeals Ruling in PERS of MS Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P., AP Sprouts
Holdings, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Donna Berlinski, Shon Boney,
Joseph Fortunato, Andrew S. Jhawar, Amin N. Maredia, Lawrence P.
Molloy, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J. Douglas Sanders, Sprouts
Farmers Market Inc. and Steven H. Townsend filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled PERS of MS v. Sprouts Farmers
Market Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00815-ROS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as PERS of MS v. Sprouts Farmers
Market Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15818, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening brief of Appellants AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas),
      L.P., AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc.,
      Donna Berlinski, Shon Boney, Joseph Fortunato, Andrew S.
      Jhawar, Amin N. Maredia, Lawrence P. Molloy, Morgan Stanley
      & Co. LLC, J. Douglas Sanders, Sprouts Farmers Market Inc.
      and Steven H. Townsend is due on July 31, 2017;

   -- Appellee Public Employees' Retirement System of
      Mississippi's answering brief is due on August 29, 2017;
      and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
MISSISSIPPI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, is represented by:

          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 648-6415
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellants SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET INC., J. DOUGLAS
SANDERS, AMIN N. MAREDIA, DONNA BERLINSKI, ANDREW S. JHAWAR, SHON
BONEY, JOSEPH FORTUNATO, LAWRENCE P. MOLLOY and STEVEN H. TOWNSEND
are represented by:

          Maureen Beyers, Esq.
          BEYERS FARRELL PLLC
          99 East Virginia Avenue, Suite 220
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-1195
          Telephone: (602) 603-1521
          Facsimile: (602) 664-2053
          E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Felice DiCicco, Esq.
          Brian Andrew Herman, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 752-5378
          E-mail: susan.dicicco@morganlewis.com

Defendants-Appellants AP SPROUTS HOLDINGS, LLC, and AP SPROUTS
HOLDINGS (OVERSEAS), L.P., are represented by:

          Seth Alben Aronson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-7486
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: saronson@omm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
          Abby F. Rudzin, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Seven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com
                  arudzin@omm.com

               - and -

          Maureen Beyers, Esq.
          BEYERS FARRELL PLLC
          99 East Virginia Avenue, Suite 220
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-1195
          Telephone: (602) 603-1521
          Facsimile: (602) 664-2053
          E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC. and MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC are represented by:

          Agnes Dunogue, Esq.
          Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 848-5257
          E-mail: Agnes.Dunogue@Shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com

               - and -

          Jesse B. Simpson, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-5387
          Facsimile: (602) 734-3741
          E-mail: jsimpson@lrlaw.com


ST. CHARLES: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bannow, writing for The Bulletin, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge has issued preliminary approval of a $9.5
million class-action settlement in a case that alleged St. Charles
Health System has not paid employees for mandatory training.

Carol Lynn Giles, a registered nurse at what was then Pioneer
Memorial Hospital in Prineville, filed the lawsuit in January
2013.  The complaint alleged St. Charles violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to reimburse Giles and other hourly
nurses and respiratory therapists for mandatory training.

The settlement means neither party concedes the merit of its case.
Anyone entitled to settlement compensation will be notified.
According to court documents, there are 50 named plaintiffs in the
case in addition to Giles, who maintains an active nursing
license.

The settlement includes current and former employees who worked
between Dec. 12, 2005, and the present and were required to take
certifications that covered things such as basic life support,
advanced life support, neonatal resuscitation, trauma evaluation
and management and more.  It accounts for time spent in classes,
completing assignments, reading and studying.  It includes
employees at all four hospitals managed by the health system: St.
Charles Bend, St. Charles Redmond, St. Charles Madras (formerly
Mountain View Hospital) and St. Charles Prineville (formerly
Pioneer Memorial Hospital). It also includes Air Life of Oregon.

The lawsuit said St. Charles failed to pay employees for training
time or overtime when the training pushed their work hours past 40
hours per week or 12 hours per day.

It also alleged St. Charles did not pay employees who ended their
employment their final paycheck wages within the lawful time
frame.

The settlement money is being administered by Beaverton-based Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions Inc.  Anyone who believes they may
be entitled to settlement proceeds and didn't receive notice can
call Roxanne Farra, the attorney representing current and former
St. Charles employees, at 541-385-3017.

Neither Farra nor St. Charles returned calls seeking comment on
May 5. [GN]


TILE SHOP HOLDINGS: Court to Hear Class Suit Settlement in May 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of an agreement to settle a
consolidated class action lawsuit against Tile Shop Holdings,
Inc., among other defendants, is set for May 3, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, three of its
outside directors, two of its former directors, and certain
companies affiliated with the directors, are defendants in a
consolidated class action brought under the federal securities
laws and now pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption Beaver County Employees'
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al.
Several related actions were filed in 2013 and subsequently
consolidated.

The plaintiffs are three investors who represent classes
consisting of (1) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between
August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "class period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's December 2012 registration statement,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.  Six
firms who were underwriters in the December 2012 secondary public
offering are also named as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose certain related party transactions in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases.  The plaintiffs assert
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Subsequent to December 31, 2016, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") dated January 13, 2017
to settle all claims.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, US$9.5 million
was paid on behalf of all defendants.

The Company has agreed to pay US$5.0 million of that amount and
the insurance company providing coverage for the initial tier of
the Company's directors and officers liability insurance policy
has agreed to pay US$4.5 million of that amount.  The Company and
the insurance provider subsequently deposited money into an escrow
account that had been established to hold the settlement fund.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  The court has
scheduled a hearing on whether to grant final approval of the
settlement for May 3, 2017.

Additional information on the case is available at:

           http://www.tileshopsecuritiessettlement.com/

Class Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
     Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
     Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
     Margaret E. Onasch, Esq.
     Nathan Hasiuk, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone:  (610) 667-7706
     Facsimile:   (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
             kjustice@ktmc.com
             nnewcomer@ktmc.com
             monasch@ktmc.com
             nhasiuk@ktmc.com

          - and -

     Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
     Paul A. Breucop, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
     San Francisco, CA 941904
     Telephone:  (415) 400-3000
     Facsimile:  (415) 400-3001
     E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com
             pbreucop@ktmc.com

          - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Joseph Russello, Esq.
     Francis P. Karam, Esq.
     William J. Geddish, Esq.
     Christopher T. Gilroy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone:  (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile:   (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
             fkaram@rgrdlaw.com
             wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com
             cgilroy@rdgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     JEFFREY D. LIGHT, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone:  619/231-1058
     Facsimile: 619/231-7423
     E-mail: jeffl@rgrdlaw.com


Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
     Telephone:  (612) 339-7300
     Facsimile:   (612) 336-2940
     E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
             jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
             bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of
manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance
materials, and related accessories in the United States.  It
offers approximately 4,000 products, including ceramic, porcelain,
glass, cement, wood look, and metal tiles; and marble, granite,
quartz, sandstone, travertine, slate, and onyx tiles primarily
under the Rush River and Fired Earth brand names. The Company also
manufactures setting and maintenance materials, such as thinset,
grout, and sealers under the Superior brand name.  The Company
also sells its products through its Website, tileshop.com.  Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in
Plymouth, Minnesota.


TOTAL GAS & POWER: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anastasio" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alan Harry, Levante Capital, LLC and Public Utility
District No. 1 of Clark County, Washington, filed an appeal from
the District Court's opinion and judgment, both dated March 27,
2017, entered in the lawsuit titled Anastasio v. Total Gas & Power
North America, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-9689, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, relief and attorneys' fees in connection with the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants engaged in manipulating bid-week prices to advantage
their derivative natural gas positions resulting in artificial
prices and price trends.

The appellate case is captioned as Anastasio v. Total Gas & Power
North America, Inc., Case No. 17-1199, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alan Harry, Levante Capital, LLC, and Public
Utility District No. 1 of Clark County, Washington, DBA Clark
Public Utilities, are represented by:

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 317-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com

Defendants-Appellees Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total
S.A., and Total Gas & Power Limited are represented by:

          David J. Debold, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8200
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9682
          E-mail: ddebold@gibsondunn.com



UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims in Bellermann Case Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Individual claims in a putative class action captioned Bellermann
et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company remain pending,
according to Unitil Corporation's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2017.  The
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had denied class
certification status in the case in July 2016.

In early 2009, the putative class action complaint was filed
against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court.  The Complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary
housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain
and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers
in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice
storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying
class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending.

Unitil stated, "The Company continues to believe that this suit is
without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously."

The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court arising
out of the December 2008 ice storm.  The Court granted the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December
2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint.  The Court's decision
remains subject to a potential motion for reconsideration and
appeal.

Unitil said, "The Company believes, based upon information
furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of
these suits will not have a material impact on its financial
position, operating results or cash flows."

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States.  It operates through three segments: Utility Gas
Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated.
Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered
in Hampton, New Hampshire.


US BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge preliminarily approved a $7 million class action settlement
between U.S. Bancorp and workers who claimed the bank stiffed them
on meal break periods and itemized wage statements, bringing the
more than three-year-old litigation closer to an end.

The preliminary approval pertains to a deal struck between the
Minneapolis, Minnesota-based parent company of U.S. Bank and
roughly 25,000 potential class members who allege meal break and
wage statement violations under the California Labor Code and
Private Attorneys General Act.

"The risk of future motions for summary judgment, for class
certification and eventual appeals weighs in favor of settlement
at this stage of the proceedings," U.S. District Judge Cynthia
Bashant wrote in her order.

Named plaintiff Monica Wert filed suit in November 2013, alleging
that U.S. Bank failed to provide wage statements to California
employees showing total hours worked or deductions from wages,
among other things, amending her suit a year later to tack on the
claim that she and other non-exempt workers were forced to work
more than five hours without meal breaks.

The proposed settlement establishes four various subclasses that
relate to alleged paystub violations spanning the time frame of
Nov. 13, 2012 to July through December 2014; alleged meal period
premium payment violations spanning November 2012 to December 2016
and alleged meal period pay computation violations spanning
November 2009 and December 2016, according to the order.

Class counsel will request 30 percent of the settlement, or $2.1
million, as well as costs not to exceed $25,000.  That on top of
payments to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency at 75
percent of the fund means the net settlement will be $4.2 million,
according to the order.

In defense of the allegations, U.S. Bank argued that employees had
access to required information under an electronic system and that
the omission of any information in wage statements resulted in no
injury.

Nevertheless, the bank, which declined comment on May 8, has
agreed to make changes to its payroll system.

Judge Bashant held in her preliminary approval that common
questions in the suit include whether itemized wage statements
omitted or misreported information and whether U.S. Bank had a
policy of not providing meal periods to class members.

She set a final approval hearing for September 25.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew S. Dente and Diane E.
Richard of Dente Richard LLP, George C. Aguilar and Brian Robbins
of Robbins Arroyo LLP and London D. Meservy of Meservy Law PC.

U.S. Bancorp is represented by Joan B. Tucker Fife of Winston &
Strawn LLP and Emilie C. Woodhead of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is Monica R. Wert v. U.S. Bancorp et al., case number
3:13-cv-03130 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. [GN]


US STEEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of United States Steel Corporation securities (NYSE:X)
from November 1, 2016 through April 25, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for U.S.
Steel investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the U.S. Steel class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1123.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.

The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) while U.S. Steel was implementing its Carnegie Way
program, it was focused on cutting costs and was not making
investments necessary to position U.S. Steel so that it could
respond to improved market conditions; (2) defendants' failure to
invest in improving capital assets during the industry downturn,
in order to report apparent financial improvements, meant that
U.S. Steel had higher production costs than its competitors, even
in the face of improved pricing, which would negatively impact its
financial results; and (3) defendants were forestalling expensive
capital equipment upgrades in order to boost U.S. Steel's short-
term financial results at the expense of long-term financial
performance, leaving U.S. Steel in need of accelerated, costly
equipment upgrades that would leave U.S. Steel years away from
generating improved financial performance.  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
July 3, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1123.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


USG CORP: Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation continues to defend itself in litigations,
including a class action in Canada, related to a conspiracy in
fixing wallboard prices, according to Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

In the first quarter of 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company,
L&W Supply Corporation, and 7 other wallboard manufacturers were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by 12 homebuilders alleging that since at least
September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and
raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and
to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of
providing job quotes on wallboard.

The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy
in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward.

The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have
not been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims.  USG
is retaining the liability with respect to L&W Supply Corporation.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits
making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of
purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation,
United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard
manufacturers as defendants.

The Company stated, "We believe that the cost, if any, of
resolving the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action
litigation will not have a material effect on our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
building materials worldwide.  The Company distributes its
products through building material dealers, home improvement
centers and other retailers, specialty wallboard distributors, and
contractors.  USG Corporation was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Investors' Class Action Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Koons and Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that when Bill Ackman unceremoniously dumped his Valeant
stock in March, it looked like he was done with the formerly high-
flying drugmaker.

Now, a common foe may turn the sudden breakup into a drawn-out,
messy divorce. Ackman and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc. are co-defendants in a $2 billion lawsuit brought in December
2014 by former investors in Botox-maker Allergan Inc. The
plaintiffs allege they were conned by Ackman when they sold him
their Allergan shares in 2014, not knowing that the billionaire
was teaming up with Valeant in a hostile takeover bid that would
send Allergan's stock soaring.

For Valeant, which carries about $30 billion in debt, a legal
judgment that could total hundreds of millions of dollars would
dent the company's already shaky finances.  Ackman, meanwhile,
could face further tarnishing of his reputation.  The 50-year-old
head of Pershing Square Capital Management has already apologized
to his investors after losing $4 billion on his Valeant bet,
calling it a "huge mistake."

One way to make the case go away -- and quickly -- is for Ackman
and Valeant to reach a settlement with the former shareholders,
who allege that both parties knew their deal would trigger a
bidding war for Allergan.  Should the case progress, the
defendants face the unappealing option of eventually going to
trial.

"As you get closer and closer to trial, I suspect the settlement
value of the case goes up somewhat," said Lawrence Hamermesh, a
professor at Widener University's Delaware Law School.  Ackman's
wealth and fame might make him "not an appealing figure to a
jury," he said.

The case is moving forward.  In March, a federal judge in Santa
Ana, California, denied a request from Ackman and Valeant to
dismiss the suit and allowed it to proceed as a class action. That
gives the shareholders added leverage to either secure a
settlement or bring their allegations to trial.

Read more: Ackman must face Allergan shareholders as class action

The defendants may be emboldened by the fact that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission hasn't filed any case against
Ackman for securities violations.  That leaves the shareholders to
prove what the SEC hasn't pursued.  The SEC declined to comment.

"If it were really egregious, you'd have to wonder why they didn't
devote some of their budget to an enforcement case," Hamermesh
said of the SEC.  Still, he said, "It's not at all uncommon to
have a private case when there's no public-enforcement case."

Ackman might be tempted to settle before November, when a deal
with Valeant that would restrict his potential losses is set to
expire.  The drugmaker said in a February filing that it had
agreed to pay 60 percent of any settlement so long as both the
company and the activist investor agree to the terms. Valeant
declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did a spokesman for
Pershing Square.

Pershing Square has set aside $75 million for the case, according
to its annual report.  If that's intended to cover about 40
percent of a settlement, it suggests the defendants believe they
can settle for less than $200 million. That might not cut it with
the shareholders.

"I wouldn't settle for 10 cents on the dollar," said Reed Kathrein
-- reed@hbsslaw.com -- a lawyer with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP who represents investors in securities-fraud lawsuits.
Kathrein isn't involved in the case.

Bitter Pill

Because the plaintiffs' claim that Ackman's insider trades cost
them $2 billion, a settlement totaling about $500 million would be
more plausible, according to Mr. Kathrein.

That wouldn't be easy to swallow for Valeant, which was set to
release its first-quarter earnings on May 9.  The drugmaker's
fortunes have been declining, and its cash position was $542
million at the end of 2016, down from $928 million four years
earlier.  The stock has fallen by more than 90 percent over the
past 18 months following scandals related to Valeant jacking up
the price of old drugs and its relationship with a mail-order
pharmacy that allegedly boosted the company's sales.  The company
is also the subject of federal investigations and shareholder
lawsuits unrelated to Allergan.

With it high debt load and no legal reserves as of the end of
2016, Valeant doesn't have much room to maneuver.

"Just like the government investigations, it's a bit of a black
hole, it is something that should give one pause when looking at
the stock," said David Amsellem, a Piper Jaffray analyst.

Ackman and Valeant have turned to a federal appeals court to
overturn the designation as a class action, saying the
shareholders' claims are unprecedented. In their March 28
petition, they said the suit, should it be successful, would
"revolutionize" insider-trading law and the regulation of tender
offers.

Lawyers with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP who
represent the Allergan shareholders declined to comment.

Takeover Attempt

The case stems from a period in early 2014 when Pershing Square
was quietly accumulating a 9.7 percent stake in Allergan. On April
21, Valeant and Pershing Square disclosed that they were
partnering on a $42.4 billion bid to merge Valeant with Allergan.
The next day, Allergan shares rose to $163.65, up from $125.54 on
Feb. 25, when Ackman began his buying spree.

Allergan resisted the bid, calling the price "grossly inadequate"
and saying it had concerns about Valeant's business model.  In
June 2014, Valeant filed a $54 billion tender offer, saying
Allergan was refusing to act in the interest of its shareholders.

The takeover battle ended in November of that year when Actavis
Plc stepped in as a so-called white knight to buy Allergan for
$219 a share, topping Valeant's bid of about $180 a share.
According to the plaintiffs, Ackman walked away with a $2.2
billion profit on his Allergan shares, while Valeant netted around
$400 million.

Tender Offer

Ackman, famous for his public battle with Herbalife Ltd., was able
to generate such outsized profits only by "taking advantage of
insider information provided by Valeant and acquiring a very
significant stake in Allergan ahead of the broader market,"
according to one plaintiff who said in the lawsuit that he sold
his shares before Valeant announced its takeover bid.

A similar lawsuit was filed by Allergan, which dropped the case in
2015 after its takeover by Actavis.  The shareholder suit hinges
on an obscure part of the law.  To win, shareholders must prove
that Ackman and Valeant were taking "substantial steps" toward a
tender offer -- rather than a merger -- before the investor
amassed his stake, said Stavros Gadinis, a law professor at the
University of California, Berkeley.  The law under which the
shareholders are suing specifically pertains to trading on
material nonpublic information in the context of a tender offer.

The defendants argue that a Feb. 25, 2014, relationship agreement
between Valeant and Pershing Square made clear that neither party
had taken any steps toward a tender offer.  Ackman's lawyer,
Mark Holscher -- mark.holscher@kirkland.com -- said at a Feb. 14
court hearing in Santa Ana, California, that what the plaintiffs
believe is their "smoking gun" on a tender offer is actually a
document that shows otherwise.

The case is In re: Allergan Inc. Proxy Violation Securities
Litigation, 14-cv-02004, U.S. District Court, Central District of
California (Santa Ana). [GN]


VINCE HOLDINGS: July 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on May 8 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against Vince Holdings Corp. ("Vince" or the
"Company") (NYSE: VNCE).  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between December 8, 2016 and April 27, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
in advance of the July 5, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Vince made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
during the transition from legacy Kellwood systems, the Company
experienced issues related to integrating its new enterprise
resource planning systems; and thus, Vince's statements about its
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When this information was released to the public, Vince shares
dropped in value materially, which harmed investors according to
the Complaint.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com. [GN]


WASHINGTON: Settles State Patrol Troopers' Class Action for $15MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Outten & Golden LLP disclosed that a historic class action
settlement was reached between the State of Washington and
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit that will benefit at least
887 Washington State Patrol Troopers and applicants who served in
the military but were denied a veterans' preference, lawyers for
the troopers from four law firms said on May 8.

This settlement, consisting of $13 million in cash and an
estimated $2 million worth of retirement benefits, is the largest
settlement in the history of the federal veterans' employment
rights law, which is known as the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

This class action challenges the Washington State Patrol's (WSP)
failure to give qualified veterans hiring and promotion preference
as required by state law, RCW 41.04.010.  The plaintiffs who
represent the class are current and former troopers Christina
Martin, Jason Longoria, Charles Arnold, John Sager, Darrel Nash,
Erick Thomas, Darin Foster, and Luis Gonzalez.

These troopers and the class are represented by Peter Romer-
Friedman of Outten & Golden LLP, and R. Joseph Barton of Block &
Leviton LLP, prominent class action employment lawyers based in
Washington, D.C.; and the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard PLLC,
and Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, Spokane-based firms that are owned
and operated by veterans who focus their practices on assisting
veterans and service members.

Under the settlement, the State of Washington will pay $13 million
dollars to compensate WSP employees and applicants who were denied
veterans' preference in the hiring and promotion process.  Out of
the $13 million, current and former troopers will receive back pay
and benefits for the time they were denied employment.  Payments
also will be made to veterans who applied but were not hired by
WSP.  Additionally, hiring and seniority dates will be corrected
for numerous current and former troopers. Plaintiffs' expert
estimates that correcting the seniority dates will increase the
collective retirement benefits of current and former troopers by
an estimated $2 million.  Finally, the WSP has agreed to institute
procedures to ensure that the veterans' preference is available at
the time of promotion for troopers who are called to military
service and return to the WSP.

Tina Martin, a lead plaintiff, said, "I am excited about this
settlement and I appreciate that the State has corrected this
problem. I believe that in the future all veterans' preference
points will be properly handled."

Thomas G. Jarrard -- tjarrard@att.net -- plaintiffs' counsel and a
retired U.S. Marine, said, "These men and women served their
country with honor and distinction, so it was an honor for me to
serve those veterans in this case."

Matthew Z. Crotty -- matt@crottyandson.com -- a veteran, said, "I
appreciate the courage that Tina Martin showed in coming forward
with this case and inspiring others to do the same. It is not easy
to sue your current employer. But Tina Martin, Charles Arnold,
Darrel Nash, Luis Gonzalez, Erick Thomas, Jason Longoria, John
Sager, and Darin Foster banded together to do just that. Nearly
900 veterans will be better off because of it."

Peter Romer-Friedman -- prf@outtengolden.com -- counsel at Outten
& Golden LLP, said, "We are excited to announce the largest
settlement in the history of USERRA. Federal law prohibits
workplace discrimination against veterans. We will not rest until
all employers treat our veterans with the respect and dignity they
deserve."

R. Joseph Barton -- joe@blockesq.com -- a partner at Block &
Leviton, said, "I am honored to have represented these veterans in
their efforts in obtaining a favorable resolution of these claims
on behalf of their fellow veterans. I commend Washington State for
resolving these claims and correcting these issues."

The case is Tina Martin v. State of Washington, Case No. 2014-02-
000016-7, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington,
Spokane County. [GN]


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Stony Hollow Landfill Fined Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Blizzard, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that
the Ohio EPA has issued a $16,000 fine to a Dayton landfill as one
of several orders the site must comply with stemming from odor
complaints from several surrounding communities in the past year.

The civil penalty, documents show, is among 19 orders the Stony
Hollow Landfill must follow in seeking to resolve odor issues that
have led to hundreds of complaints from Trotwood to Miami Twp. and
several cities in between since April 2016.

Operations at the Waste Management Inc.-owned landfill have also
led to the city of Dayton barring Stony Hollow from discharging
waste into its system, a class-action lawsuit and Montgomery
County investigating alternative sites for solid waste disposal.

The landfill on South Gettysburg Avenue plans to comply with the
guidelines established by the Ohio EPA, according to Waste
Management officials.

"We agree with these orders and will continue to work closely with
the Ohio EPA and other regulators to make sure Stony Hollow
Landfill completes all action items on schedule and adheres to the
standards outlined in the plan," Waste Management Senior Public
Affairs Manager Kathy Trent said via email. [GN]


WESTERN UNION: Awaits Final Approval of "Douglas" Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties await
final approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit by
Jason Douglas.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement.

The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


WESTERN UNION: "Pincus" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action
lawsuit by Caryn Pincus is in a preliminary stage.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed
an answer to the amended complaint.

On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that
revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On
December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended
complaint.

On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal
Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus
filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the
motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class
certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class
consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay,
Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services
(iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action through the present." Pincus also filed a
motion to file her motion under seal.

On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class
certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her
to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private
information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of
the motion.

On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment
on Pincus' remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed
an opposition to Pincus' class certification motion. The same day,
Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's summary judgment motion
and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims.

On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its
summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her
class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted
Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus'
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO
claims. As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


WESTERN UNION: Bids to Consolidate 3 Suits Filed
------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the
Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust, and UA Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed
motions to consolidate the three cases and to be appointed lead
plaintiff.

On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The
complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
effectiveness of the Company's fraud prevention program and the
program's compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2)
the development and enhancement of the Company's global compliance
policies and AML program; and (3) the Company's compliance with
regulatory requirements.

On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue
of the case to the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado. The Court granted that motion on March 30, 2017, and
transferred the case. This action is in a preliminary stage and
the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this
action. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously
defend themselves in this matter.

On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne
Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the
same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by
Martin Herman described above. This action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On February 22, 2017, UA Local 13 Pension Fund filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The alleged factual bases are
similar to and the defendants, class period and claims are the
same as those in the purported class action complaints filed by
Martin Herman and Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust described above, except that the
plaintiff's claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is
against all of the defendants. On March 10, 2017, the defendants
filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted the
motion and transferred the case. This action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry
Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust, and UA
Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed motions to consolidate the
three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


WHITE OAK: Class of Abattoir Workers Certified in "Taylor" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Leslie J. Abrams granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional certification of
collective action and issuance of court-approved notice submitted
in the lawsuit titled TRAVIS TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WHITE OAK PASTURES, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-00156-LJA (M.D. Ga.).

Mr. Taylor alleged violations of the overtime compensation
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  Specifically,
the Plaintiff alleged that: (1) he was formerly employed as a meat
cutter by Defendant from October 2010 through October 2014; (2) he
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week; and (3) he "was
not paid the overtime wage differential."

Judge Abrams conditionally certifies a 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
class of plaintiffs who: (1) are or were employed by Defendant
White Oak Pastures, Inc. from April __ 2014 [three years prior to
the mailing date of the notice] to April ___ 2017 [the mailing
date]; 1 (2) worked in the Red Meat Abattoir or in support of the
Red Meat Abattoir, specifically on the kill floor, in the cut
room, in the grinding room, in order fulfillment, or on the
loading docks of the Red Meat Abattoir; (3) were paid an hourly
rate; and (4) worked more than forty hours in a work week without
being paid overtime compensation.

The Court appoints Travis Taylor as class representative.  The
Court directs the Defendant to disclose to the Plaintiff the
names, last known addresses, and job titles of all potential class
members employed by the Defendant during the three years preceding
the Order in electronic, importable, and searchable format.

The Court approves the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Opt-in
form.  The Court also approves a second Notice of the lawsuit to
be sent to those potential class members whose notices are
returned as undeliverable.

The Plaintiff's request to post the Notice at the workplace is
denied.

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


WW GRAINGER: Davies Complaint on TCPA Violations Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by David
Davies related to violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought certification
of a class of persons who may have received one or more of
approximately 400,000 faxes Grainger sent in connection with a
2009 marketing campaign.  The TCPA provides for penalties of
US$500 to US$1,500 for each noncompliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court").

On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that Davies was not an
adequate class representative.  The United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for immediate
review of the ruling.

Davies subsequently moved the District Court for reconsideration
of its ruling and his motion was denied on September 28, 2016.
Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the ruling at the
conclusion of the District Court proceeding.

On April 4, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss Davies' individual claims and subsequently the parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The District Court
entered judgment for Grainger on Davies' common law claim for
conversion while granting partial summary judgment for Grainger on
Davies' TCPA claim.

On November 21, 2016, the District Court denied Grainger's motion
for summary judgment which argued that Davies lacks standing to
bring his TCPA claim and held that the issue of whether Grainger's
opt-out notice is clear and conspicuous was a contested issue of
fact to be resolved by a jury at trial.

Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018.

Grainger stated, "The Company believes it has strong legal and
factual defenses and intends to continue defending itself
vigorously in the pending lawsuit.  While the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that
the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."

W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating
(MRO) supplies; and other related products and services that are
used by businesses and institutions in the United States, Canada,
Europe, Asia, and Latin America.  It operates through two
segments, U.S. and Canada.  W.W. Grainger, Inc. was founded in
1927 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


* NC General Assembly Enacts Class Action Appeals Amendment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dowdy, Esq. -- JDowdy@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Phillip
Harris Jr., Esq. -- PHarris@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that on April 26, 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly
overrode a gubernatorial veto to enact N.C. Session Law ch. 2017-7
(formerly HB-239) (the "Act").  The Act arose from a power
struggle between the state's democratic governor and its
republican legislature regarding who should make judicial
appointments.  The legislature sought to revoke the governor's
longstanding power to fill pre-election judicial vacancies by
eliminating seats on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  To
prevent opposition from the business community, the legislature
included in the Act a potentially beneficial reform of state class
action procedural law.

The Class Action Appeals Amendment. The Act amends N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sec. 7A-27 by adding a new subsection (subsection (a)(4)), which
provides: "[an] [a]ppeal lies of right directly to the Supreme
Court in any of the following cases: Any trial court's decision
regarding class action certification under . . . Rule 23 [of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure]."  This short amendment
implements at least four significant changes to North Carolina
class action practice.

First, the Act grants to a class action defendant the right to
appeal an order certifying a class.  Prior to the Act, a plaintiff
could appeal from the denial of class certification, but a
defendant could not appeal a grant of class certification. Fisher
v. Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp., 794 S.E.2d 699,
705 (N.C. 2016). North Carolina's appellate courts had concluded
that, although either ruling was interlocutory, a denial of class
certification affected a substantial right "because it determines
the action as to the unnamed plaintiffs," whereas the allowance of
certification does not. Frost v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 540
S.E.2d 324, 327 (N.C. 2000). Thus, an unsuccessful defendant
seeking immediate review had to petition for certiorari in the
North Carolina Court of Appeals or otherwise show a substantial
right beyond the certification decision itself. Now, plaintiffs
and defendants stand on equal footing in terms of their right to
appeal an adverse decision.

Second, the Act specifies that the direct appeal is directly to
the North Carolina Supreme Court.  Under prior law, a party
appealing from a class certification decision was required to
first seek review in the Court of Appeals, pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. Secs. 7A-27(b). If the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous
decision, that decision generally was subject only to
discretionary review in the Supreme Court, and an appeal of right
existed only when a Court of Appeals judge issued a dissenting
opinion. N.C. Gen. Stat. Secs. 7A-30 & 31.  As the Supreme Court
seldom granted discretionary review and dissents were somewhat
rare, review in the Supreme Court as a practical matter was
unlikely.  Further, the Supreme Court had the right, but not the
obligation, to take an appeal under N.C. Rule of Appellate
Procedure 15.  Now all class certification decisions will receive
a full, direct appeal in the state's highest court.

Third, the Act potentially broadens the types of orders that a
party can appeal.  By its terms the Act applies not only to the
denial or allowance of certification, but to "[a]ny trial court's
decision regarding class action certification."  In most
instances, parties probably will limit their appeals to grant and
denial orders, but it is plausible that other rulings will give
rise to appeals as well, such as an order to strike class action
allegations.

Fourth, any appeal under the Act will give rise to an automatic
stay of proceedings in the trial court.  Under North Carolina law,
the filing of a notice of appeal divests a trial court of
jurisdiction of "all matters embraced within or affected by the
order or judgment being appealed." Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.,
273 S.E.2d 247, 259 (N.C. 1981).  Under prior law, a defendant
appealing from an adverse certification decision had to persuade
the trial court to issue a discretionary stay of further
proceedings. See N.C. R. App. P. 8(a) (governing stays on appeal
generally).  Now, a stay is automatic.

As a result of this amendment, North Carolina procedural law now
provides greater appellate rights in class action cases than
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).  The federal rule allows a
party to seek permission from a circuit court to appeal "an order
granting or denying class-action certification," and in federal
court, there is no stay of proceedings unless the district court
or the appellate court so orders.

Key Takeaways. Businesses facing possible class action liability
in North Carolina now have enhanced protections under the Act.

In negotiating class action settlements, businesses should be
mindful that an adverse certification decision in state court may
have less weight than it formerly did as a result of the direct
right of appeal, at least if the order is vulnerable to attack.
In pending cases in which an arguably erroneous class
certification order has been entered, the defendant should
consider whether to move for decertification or reconsideration,
to prompt a ruling that may give rise to a direct appeal to the
North Carolina Supreme Court under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-
27(a)(4).

In class certification cases presently pending in the North
Carolina Court of Appeals, the defendant should consider whether
to make a motion to transfer the case to the North Carolina
Supreme Court if such a transfer is not otherwise ordered by the
Court of Appeals (the Act's impact on existing appeals is
unclear).

Businesses served with new class action cases should carefully
consider whether to remove the cases to federal court or whether
the Act's appeal rights make proceeding in state court more
desirable.

Businesses should consider engaging appellate counsel at the class
certification stage to ensure that they have the best chance of
obtaining appellate relief if they receive an unfavorable
decision.

Appeals of North Carolina state court class certification
decisions are more economical, given there will no longer be
proceedings in the intermediate appellate court, and any
litigation in the trial court would be subject to an automatic
stay. [GN]


                         *********


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  * * *