CAR_Public/170627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, June 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 127



                            Headlines

ADVANCED RETAIL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hutton" Suit Claims
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Pension Plan Participants to Challenge Ruling
AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Seeks People Exposed to Asbestos at Caloola
AVINGER INC: "Olberding" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California

BEALL'S OUTLET: Faces "Raymondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CANADA: Decision Pending in Balmoral Tenants' Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
CARDCONNECT: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Solicitation Statement
CENTRAL FEDERAL: Purcell Julie Investigates Potential Claims

CENTURYLINK INC: Says Remaining Funds to be Paid Soon
CHIASMA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to July 17
CHINA AGRITECH: Lane Powell Attorney Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling
CIGNA CORPORATION: Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit Pending
CIGNA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Franco" Suit in New Jersey

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Warren, et al. Case Remains Pending
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Class Suit Dismissed
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Delaware Class Action Dismissed
CU BANCORP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger

DEL TACO: Class Certification Motion Underway in Employee Suit
DEL TACO: Discovery Pending in Former Del Taco Employee Suit
DELTA NATURAL: Defends 2 Class Suits over PNG Merger
DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Litigation Deal Approved

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: "Soontjens" and "Shumake" Suits Underway
DYNEGY INC: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Gas Index Pricing Suit
EHEALTH INC: California Suits in Preliminary Stage
EL POLLO: Parties in "Olvera" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks
EL POLLO: Huston et al. Challenge Motion to Dismiss Suit

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Matt Campbell's Privacy Class Action
FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing in "Smilovits" Case Appeal Underway
FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial Scheduled in Sleep Tracking Lawsuit
FITBIT INC: Arbitration Bid in Heart Rate Tracking Suit Pending

FITBIT INC: Securities Litigation Pending in California
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Underway in Royalty Suit
ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Employee Class Action Pending in W.D. Wash.
ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Mass Action Pending
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Taps Wilmer Cutler as Counsel

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Briefing in Kleen Products Suit Underway
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture's Class Suit Underway
INVESTORS BANCORP: Faces "Fordell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Khadka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LANNETT COMPANY: Case Management Orders Expected in Summer 2017

LANNETT COMPANY: Still Defends Amended Class Action Complaint
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Data Privacy Litigation Dismissed
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion for Class Certification Pending

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suits Underway
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federal Consumer Class Action Underway
LIFE ALERT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
LOBSTERS IN MOCEAN: "Matthew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Litigation to Begin June 2018

MAINTEX INC: "Tamayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Ise" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
MENARD INC: Faces "Santti" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MESQUITE SERVICES: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer Case Venue Denied

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Suit over 2017 Offering Underway
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Merger Suits in Del. & Texas Dismissed
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Huseman" Suit Over False Company Reports
OMEGA PROTEIN: Diehl Action Still Pending, Malone Suit Nixed
OMEGA PROTEIN: "Ahern" Lawsuit Goes to S.D.N.Y.

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Paddock" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Suit Remains Pending
PAC ANCHOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mosquera" Suit Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mental Health Care
PIER A BATTERY: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PTC THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
RAYONIER INC: Insurance Carriers to Fund Settlement Payment
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Still Pending in California
RENT-A-CENTER: Hall and DePalma Suits Pending
RES-CARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT

REVLON CONSUMER: Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Pending
RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Classes Pending
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss "Parmelee" Suit Pending
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Wage-and-Hour Suit Pending in California

SNAP INC: "Simpson" Class Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif.
SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Still Defends "Ubaldi" Suit
STRADENERGY SERVICES: Tristan Partners Seeks to Discontinue Case
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: California Class Suit Still Pending

TELENAV INC: Trial in "Gergetz" Suit Set for January 2020
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Aug. 27 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Perales"
TJX COMPANIES: Defends Class Suits on Labor, Pricing Practices
TRUE FITNESS: Malaysia Gym Members Mull Class Action

TURN KEY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ortiz" Suit Claims
TYSON FOODS: Motion to Modify Judgment in "Edwards" Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Ruling on "Bouaphakeo" Lump Sum Award Still Pending

TYSON FOODS: Consolidation of Two Oklahoma Suits Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Board Discusses CEO's Fate Amid Class Actions
UGI CORPORATION: Customer Appeal Pending in Eighth Circuit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
UNITED JEWISH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Chez" Action Claims

UNIVERSAL HAIR: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
URBAN JUSTICE: Illegally Diverts Trust Funds, Suit Claims
VECTOR GROUP: Three Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
WELLS FARGO: Discovery Underway in Remanded Class Suits
WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Ongoing

WELLS FARGO: Judge Likely to Approve Phony Accounts Settlement
WESTERN DIGITAL: Suit by Union Asset and KBC Still Pending
WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Ritz Camera Suit Still Pending
WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed in SD Cards Class Action
WESTERN REFINING: Says NTI Merger Litigation in Earliest Stages

WESTERN REFINING: Tesoro Merger Litigation Dismissed
ZYNGA INC: Settlement in "Lee" Won Final Approval

* Belgium Declares New Provisions on Class Action Procedure




                            *********



ADVANCED RETAIL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hutton" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Hutton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Retail Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
01567-D (N.D. Tex., June 13, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
over 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Advanced Retail Solutions, Inc. offers a wide range of maintenance
and construction services for third party retail and commercial
business facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX  75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Pension Plan Participants to Challenge Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
sponsors of church-related pension plans are celebrating a Supreme
Court decision upholding their right to be exempt from federal
pension rules, but participant advocates vow to continue
challenging them on other legal points and in new venues,
including state courts.

The unexpectedly unanimous Supreme Court decision June 5 brought a
collective sigh of relief from religiously affiliated health-care
systems that long have operated as exempt from the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, with its detailed rules on funding
obligations, vesting, reporting, disclosure and more.

Disagreeing with plan participants, who argued that there needed
to be a direct church connection, the Supreme Court found pension
plans did not have to be established by a church to be exempt from
ERISA, as long as they are controlled by or associated with one.

For the three health-care systems consolidated into the Supreme
Court case, Dignity Health, Advocate Health Care and Saint Peter's
Healthcare System, an opposite conclusion by the justices would
have left the sponsors and other health-care systems in related
cases staring at a combined $4 billion funding shortfall for
roughly 300,000 plan participants.

The Supreme Court's view of the matter, which was limited to
interpreting what Congress intended when it created the exemption
in 1980, is in sharp contrast to conclusions reached by three
federal appellate courts in 2015 and 2016, upholding District
Court rulings that only churches can set up church plans and
disallowing the health systems' ERISA exemption.  The trend of
courts siding with plan participants led to several multimillion-
dollar settlements in recent years, including the Franciscan
Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Baton Rouge, La., in May
and from Providence Health & Services, Renton, Wash.; Saint
Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Hartford, Conn.; and Trinity
Health Corp., Livonia, Mich., all in 2016.

A 'ringing endorsement'

In the Supreme Court opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that a
strict reading of the 1980 law that created the exemption allows
it if a pension plan is set up for a "principal-purpose
organization," such as a board overseeing a benefit plan, that is
associated with a church.

The Supreme Court decision "is a ringing endorsement of the
judicial precedent that has existed since 1980, and the regulatory
pronouncements" from the IRS, Department of Labor and the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corp., all of which filed an amicus brief
supporting the plan sponsors, said Howard Shapiro, a New Orleans
attorney with Proskauer Rose who is defending many Catholic
health-care entities in stayed class actions and who submitted a
Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of eight clients.

"It is not often in our lifetime that we see a scenario like
this," he said.

Pension plans run by church-affiliated organizations can choose to
be covered by ERISA, but it's not required.  Those not wanting
ERISA coverage get an IRS private-letter ruling allowing the
exemption, a practice that also has been challenged in many of the
100 or so participant class-action lawsuits against church-
affiliated plans that have sprung up since 2013.

Advocates for plan participants, devastated by the decision, say
they now will focus on what the Supreme Court did not address.

"The court did not decide whether the plans involved in the cases
before it are maintained by the type of organization envisioned by
Congress when it enacted the law," said Karen Ferguson, director
of the Pension Rights Center in Washington.  Ms. Kagan's opinion
held a footnote that the question of direct association with a
church was not before the court.

Vows to continue

Plan participants will continue filing these cases "to ensure that
the 'church plan' exemption is claimed only in appropriate
circumstances," promised Karen L. Handorf, partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-counsel for many of the plaintiffs.

"It's going to be a long road but we are optimistic," said Ms.
Ferguson.  "It was only the first round.  We are optimistic that
the courts will realize that the only organizations intended by
Congress were these church pension boards and that there is
nothing in the legislative history that they intended to exempt a
freestanding pension plan established by a hospital," she added.
She worries that the Supreme Court decision could wind up hurting
millions of workers if other non-profits associated with churches,
such as social services agencies and universities, also seek
church-plan status.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised that question in a
concurring opinion.  While the decision correctly interprets the
statutory text, she wrote, "I am nonetheless troubled by the
outcome of these cases," which she said were spurred by the
failure of unregulated church plans.  "It is not at all clear that
Congress would take the same action today with respect to some of
the largest health-care providers in the country" that compete
with companies subject to ERISA, she wrote.

Answering those questions is likely to be the focus of the next
wave of plaintiff lawsuits, which legal experts on both sides see
taking place increasingly in state courts under laws covering
contractual promises, fiduciary standards and the right to bring
claims, all of which would not be preempted by ERISA.

"There are a lot of other things that are often significant. Those
questions were not before the court and the court did not answer
them," said Ronald Cluett -- rcluett@capdale.com -- of counsel to
tax law firm Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, who specializes in
employee benefits compliance.  "I think that the people who did
not prevail will seek other ways," including scrutinizing how
closely plan sponsors are affiliated with churches, and how the
benefits committees are structured, he said.

Brian Netter -- bnetter@mayerbrown.com -- co-leader of law firm
Mayer Brown's Supreme Court and appellate practice in Washington,
agreed.  "Participants will have to be a lot more careful of how
they connect these hospital plans to ERISA, and most will not
succeed. Whenever one door closes another window somewhere opens
up. There's too much for people to give up," he said.

Mr. Shapiro of Proskauer Rose also expects plan participants and
their lawyers to continue to put pressure on church plan sponsors,
but he said the Supreme Court ruling "very much strengthens the
positions of the church-plan community.  It will give the (plan
sponsor) defendants an upper hand." [GN]


AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick Wingfield, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Amazon's warehouses have a reputation as often grueling
environments for the workers who pick, pack and load orders there.
Managers are pushed hard, too, according to the plaintiff in a new
lawsuit against the internet retailer.

The lawsuit, filed this month by Michael Ortiz, a former shift
manager for Amazon in several warehouses in the San Francisco Bay
Area, accuses Amazon of failing to pay him overtime wages.

The suit, filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, says that
Amazon improperly classified Mr. Ortiz as exempt from overtime in
violation of California labor regulations. Mr. Ortiz's lawyer,
Scott Cole, said he would seek class-action status for the suit
with the addition of other plaintiffs.

Kristen Kish, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the company would not
comment on pending litigation.

While most of the entry-level workers at Amazon's warehouses,
known as associates, are eligible for overtime pay, salaried
managers are not under Amazon policy.  In an interview, Mr. Ortiz,
34, said he and other managers had been promised when they were
hired that their jobs would consist mostly of supervisory work.

Instead, most of his job ended up being manual labor, some of it
dangerous, he said.

"When we were hired, we were told we would be managers working on
high-end things," Mr. Ortiz said.  "In reality, the bulk of the
managers got stuck doing very tedious work which ultimately caused
me to be injured."

There have been other cases in which workers have argued that
Amazon improperly denied them overtime.  In 2014, the United
States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Amazon warehouse
workers were not entitled to overtime pay for the time they spent
waiting to pass through security screenings, which are used to
deter theft.

Cases such as Mr. Ortiz's are more common and could have a better
chance of success, especially in California, which is among the
states regarded as having the most employee-friendly labor laws in
the country.

In California, the burden of proof is on employers to show that
workers should not receive overtime pay, which they can do by
demonstrating that more than half of a manager's job consisted of
managerial responsibilities, labor lawyers said.

"Amazon faces a heavy burden to show that the workers truly fit
within the narrow exemption to overtime pay that the California
Legislature established," said Jahan Sagafi, a lawyer at Outten &
Golden in San Francisco who represents workers in lawsuits against
employers, but is not involved in Mr. Ortiz's case.  "Just
assigning them managerial-sounding work may not be enough,
depending on how much they do and what it entails, exactly."

Mr. Ortiz was working as a shift manager at an Amazon delivery
station in Richmond, Calif.  He said he had worked for Amazon for
about 11 months until he was terminated last December after he
slipped and cut his eye while climbing on a conveyor belt to free
up a jam of packages.

Standing on a conveyor belt is a violation of Amazon policy.
Mr. Ortiz said his supervisor encouraged him to report that he had
fallen on the stairs and that he had later been fired by Amazon
when witness accounts conflicted with his version of events.

Mr. Ortiz first spoke to a reporter for The New York Times early
this year, not long after his injury.  At the time, Mr. Ortiz said
a friend and colleague in the same facility at Amazon had
sustained the injury, not him.

In a phone interview after filing the suit, Mr. Ortiz apologized
for the deception, saying that at the time of his first contact he
was appealing his termination at the company.

"There was a small chance that I would be able to keep my job, so
that is why I had to distance myself from the story," he said.
[GN]


AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Seeks People Exposed to Asbestos at Caloola
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Kennedy, writing for Sunbury Leader, reports that
one of Australia's foremost class action law firms has begun a
search for people who may have been exposed to asbestos at the
former Caloola site in Sunbury.

Maurice Blackburn has advertised for potentially affected people
who worked at the site between 1971 and 1993 to come forward, with
senior associate Victoria Keays confirming to the Leader the
search followed the diagnosis of a former resident with a terminal
asbestos-related disease.

"Maurice Blackburn is in the early stages of investigating a
potential asbestos exposure claim for a former resident at
Caloola," she said.

"Since the ad was published, we have been contacted by a number of
former workers at Caloola who have shared with us their
recollections of asbestos at the site.

"This information will form an important part of our investigation
into the options available for our client.

"Exposure to asbestos fibres can be deadly, but symptoms often
don't emerge for decades, so historical research like this is
critical to any asbestos investigation."

The Caloola asylum operated at Jacksons Hill.

The site later became home to Victoria University from 1994 to
2011.

It is now largely unoccupied, however several community groups
used buildings on the site.

A search for a tenant of the heritage-listed site stretches
several years with rising maintenance costs caused by vandalism
and irregular upkeep cited as a growing impediment in the search.
[GN]


AVINGER INC: "Olberding" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kyle Olberding, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avinger, Inc.;
Jeffrey M. Soinski; John B. Simpson; Matthew B. Ferguson; Donald
A. Lucas; James B. McElwee; James G. Cullen; Canaccord Genuity,
Inc.; Cowen and Company LLC; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; BTIG, LLC;
and Stephens, Inc., Case No. 17CIV02307, filed on May 25, 2017,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-
03398-CW to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

Avinger, Inc. operates a commercial-stage medical device company
in Redwood City, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
      Doru Gavril, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Tolman, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      Professional Corporation
      650 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
      Telephone: (650) 493-9300
      Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
      E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com
              dgavril@wsgr.com
              btolman@wsgr.com


BEALL'S OUTLET: Faces "Raymondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Marybeth Raymondo, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Beall's Outlet Stores, Inc., Case No.
6:17-cv-01064-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Beall's Outlet Stores, Inc. operates a retail store in Winter
Haven, in Polf County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
              rcooke@wfclaw.com


CANADA: Decision Pending in Balmoral Tenants' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press report that a city
crackdown on a notorious hotel in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
and the scores of tenants displaced as a result have galvanized
neighbourhood residents and advocates, who say they'll fight to
maintain the Balmoral Hotel as social housing.

"I really hope by having this community block party that we come
together and stop what the landlords are doing -- not only the
Sahotas, but other landlords, too," Jack Gates, a resident of the
Regent Hotel, a single-room occupancy hotel across the street from
the Balmoral, said on June 11.

Mr. Gates was referring to members of Vancouver's Sahota family,
owners of several SROs in the neighbourhood, including the
Balmoral and the Regent.

As Mr. Gates spoke, the block was barricaded at both ends by
police cruisers for a street party that featured speeches, music,
posters and food.  Many attendees carried signs criticizing the
city government or Mayor Gregor Robertson.

Earlier this month, the city found the Balmoral Hotel was unsafe
and gave tenants a deadline of June 12 to leave the building.
Since then, housing providers have scrambled to find new homes for
about 140 Balmoral tenants, many of whom are on social or
disability assistance and some who have lived in the building for
decades.

In an update on June 11, the city said it had found housing for
all registered tenants for the Balmoral, amounting to more than
140 units.  Those units are in both privately owned and non-profit
buildings, deputy city manager Paul Mochrie said in a statement,
adding that, "there have also been extraordinary efforts to
expedite the turnaround of recently vacated units and make them
available for tenants being evacuated from the Balmoral."

While that came as a relief to tenants and advocates, questions
remained about what would happen to the Balmoral, which is more
than a century old and among a shrinking pool of SROs that provide
what the city calls "housing of last resort:" the last stop before
homelessness.

"Why has this happened -- that's the burning question -- why has
this happened and how do we go forward?" community organizer Wendy
Pedersen said from a stage set up mid-block.

"We don't disagree that this building should be shut down but we
want to know -- why has it taken the city so long [to act] . . .
There are dozens of hotels like this in the city that are on the
edge of being condemned," Ms. Pedersen said.

She and other advocates say the city could -- and should -- do
more to ensure safety and upkeep in privately owned SROs,
including conducting necessary repairs and then billing the owner.

City bylaws would allow for that approach but, so far, the city
has been reluctant to pursue it, possibly because of legal
concerns, advocates say.

"Every city in the world has problem landlords," Judy Graves, who
retired as the city's homeless advocate in 2013, said at the
demonstration.

"And you just have to come up with the legislation and the
enforcement to deal with it," she added.

The city has said it prefers to use the courts and other
enforcement strategies to hold owners accountable.

The Sahotas have not responded to messages seeking comment about
the situation at the Balmoral or its other properties.

The mayor has also said the city planned to take the Sahota family
to court for more than 150 bylaw infractions.

With help from community organizers, tenants of the Balmoral and
the Regent last year launched proposed class-action suits against
the Sahotas.  The City of Vancouver is also a defendant in the
proposed class actions.

The Sahotas have challenged those actions on jurisdictional
grounds, saying the Residential Tenancy Branch is the proper venue
for landlord-tenant disputes.

The B.C. Court of Appeal heard arguments on that issue on June 8.
A decision is pending. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the availability of autodialing technology is not lost on the
banking industry, competitive as it is.  And while disgruntled
plaintiffs line up over Comenity Bank TCPA violations, as an
example, Comenity is not the only bank accused of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

To that end, Capital One NA is facing a proposed class action in
the Sunshine state after a Florida man became fed up with auto-
dialed calls -- often referred to as robocalls -- to his
cellphone.  Plaintiff Darrell Pickett asserts that he's never been
a customer of Capital One, and that the calls appear to be
directed to someone other than him.  Court records show that
Mr. Pickett has attempted to explain this fact on numerous
occasions to Capital One, but to no avail.

The Capital One robocalls keep coming, chewing up his mobile phone
minutes and driving him to distraction.

The proposed class action was filed on February 14 of this year
-- Valentine's Day.  While Pickett did not reveal his motivation
for choosing that particular day to file -- if, indeed it was a
coincidence -- there remains little doubt that the proposed
Capital One TCPA violation class action is decidedly not a
valentine to Capital One.

According to court documents the Capital One telemarketing
violations began after he obtained a new cell phone number.
Pickett, who hails from Orlando, alleges that he received "a slew"
of calls from a number assigned to Capital One from at least April
through July of last year -- including at least one voicemail
asking for someone who was not the plaintiff, and with whom Mr.
Pickett was never acquainted.

Mr. Pickett asserts he contacted Capital One on at least one
occasion, explained the situation with regard to the wrong number
and asked for the calls to stop.

According to his Capital One TCPA violation lawsuit, the calls
kept coming.  Mr. Pickett asserts in his Capital One telemarketing
lawsuit that Capital One violates the TCPA "by using an automatic
telephone dialing system to place nonemergency calls to numbers
assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express
consent -- in that it calls wrong or reassigned cellular telephone
numbers that do not belong to its customers," his lawsuit says.

Mr. Pickett alleges invasion of privacy, intrusion and private
nuisance.  Not only did the robocalls deplete his cellphone
minutes -- which represented a cost to the plaintiff out of pocket
-- but the telemarketing calls also tied up his phone line
unnecessarily.

He seeks to represent a class of individuals having been
robocalled by Capital One NA without express or prior consent,
during the last four years.

The Capital One Telemarketing violation lawsuit is Darrell Pickett
v. Capital One NA, Case No. 6:17-cv-00260, in the US District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
[GN]


CARDCONNECT: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Solicitation Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CardConnect Corp., Jeffrey Shanahan, Richard Garman,
Christopher Winship, Peter Burns, Toos N. Daruvala, Ronald L.
Taylor, First Data Corporation, and Minglewood Merger Sub Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02677-MMB (E.D. Penn., June 13, 2017), stems from
a proposed transaction pursuant to which CardConnect Corp. will be
acquired by First Data Corporation for $15.00 per stockholders'
share in cash.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading, says the complaint. Specifically,
the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) the selected
merger and acquisition transactions observed by FT Partners and
(ii) the premiums in such transactions.

CardConnect Corp. is a provider of payment processing and
technology solutions, helping more than 67,000 organizations --
from independent coffee shops to iconic global brands -- accept
billions of dollars in card transactions each year. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

         - and -

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


CENTRAL FEDERAL: Purcell Julie Investigates Potential Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated
to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a
potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of
directors of Central Federal Corporation (NASDAQ: CFBK).

If you are a shareholder of Central Federal Corporation and are
interested in obtaining additional information regarding this
investigation, free of charge, please visit us at:
http://pjlfirm.com/central-federal-corporation/

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://pjlfirm.com-- is a law
firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide
who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty
and other types of corporate misconduct. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Says Remaining Funds to be Paid Soon
-----------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, William
Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., the vast
majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims
administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in
the next few months.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million).

Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its
Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator
of certain of its benefits plans.  Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.

The court certified classes on the claims for vested benefits and
age discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims
for breach of fiduciary duty.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue
in Fulghum.

After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an
interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age
discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested
benefits. The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted
judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits
claims, and in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members
could appeal this ruling.

No appeal was taken, and all claims for vested benefits thus have
lapsed.

On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle
on all remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. Since then, a
settlement agreement has been finalized and, per its terms, the
vast majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims
administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in
the next few months. The amount of the settlement is not material
to our consolidated financial statements.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to residential and
business customers.


CHIASMA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to July 17
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc. et al., Case No.
16-cv-11082 (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper on June 7 entered
an order resetting the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss an Amended
Class Action Complaint.  The hearing is now set for July 17, 2017
at 3:00 p.m.

Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of
our current and former officers were named as defendants in a
purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges
our public statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial
methodology for octreotide capsules and our ability to obtain FDA
approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules."

"In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An
amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10,
2017 similarly challenging our statements regarding the Phase 3
clinical trial methodology and results, and our ability to obtain
FDA approval for octreotide capsules, in violation of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint adds
as defendants current and former members of the Company's board of
directors, as well as the investment banks that underwrote our
initial public offering ("IPO") on July 15, 2015.

"The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all purchasers
of our stock in the Company's IPO. Plaintiff is seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of himself
and members of a putative shareholder class, including interest
and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating the
action, and any other relief the court determines is appropriate.

"The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 27, 2017.

"We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously
defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us."

Chiasma, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
incorporated in 2001 under the laws of the State of Delaware.
Chiasma, Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts and has two wholly
owned subsidiaries; Chiasma (Israel) Ltd., and Chiasma Securities
Corp.


CHINA AGRITECH: Lane Powell Attorney Discusses 9th Circuit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hawkes, Esq. -- hawkesp@lanepowell.com -- of Lane Powell PC,
in an article for Lexology, wrote that overruling (or, at least,
creatively re-characterizing) its own precedent, the Ninth Circuit
held in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., F.3d, 2017 WL 2261024 (9th
Cir. May 24, 2017), that the pendency of an earlier uncertified
class action tolls the statute of limitations not only for later-
filed individual claims, but for subsequent class actions as well.
The Ninth Circuit's decision opens the door to the possibility of
serial, successive attempts to certify a class in securities (and
other) cases, potentially exposing defendants to an almost never-
ending series of class action lawsuits.

Under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538
(1974), and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983),
the pendency of a putative class action tolls the statute of
limitations applicable to the individual claims of the putative
class members.  Thus, if the putative class action is timely
brought, but class certification is later denied after the statute
of limitations would have otherwise expired, putative class
members would still be able to bring individual claims on their
own behalf.  The question in Resh was whether American Pipe
tolling should apply to subsequent class actions as well.

The facts of Resh are relatively straightforward.  In February
2011, a market research company raised questions about the
accuracy of China Agritech's financial reporting.  Its stock price
fell substantially.  A few days later, a China Agritech
shareholder filed a putative securities fraud class action
complaint against the company and several of its managers and
directors in the Central District of California.  The court denied
class certification, finding that, because plaintiffs had failed
to establish the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance,
issues common to the proposed class did not predominate over
individual issues.  Five months after that denial, and one year
and eight months after the initial adverse press report, another
shareholder filed a second putative securities class action in the
District of Delaware.  The case was transferred to the same judge
in the Central District of California, who again denied class
certification, this time on grounds of typicality and adequacy of
the named plaintiffs.

Nine months later -- and more than three years after the initial
adverse press report -- plaintiff Michael Resh filed yet another
putative class action complaint alleging securities fraud against
China Agritech and several individual defendants.  A claim for
securities fraud under the Exchange Act is subject to a two-year
statute of limitations.  Thus, if American Pipe tolling applied,
the putative class action would be timely -- only about 14 months
had passed since the initial press report during which a putative
class action was not pending.  But if American Pipe tolling did
not apply, the class action complaint was plainly time-barred.

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by discarding one of its
prior precedents.  In Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th
Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit had held that American Pipe tolling
did not apply to a subsequent class action following a definitive
determination of the inappropriateness of class certification. The
Ninth Circuit dismissed Robbin as "a short opinion published 30
years ago" that had been "modified" in Catholic Social Services,
Inc. v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 2017 WL
2261024, at *6.

In Catholic Social Services, the district court had certified a
class, but had lost subject matter jurisdiction due to an
intervening change in the law. See id. The Ninth Circuit held that
American Pipe tolling applied to a subsequent class action in
those circumstances. See id. But it also stated, "If class action
certification had been denied in [an earlier case], and if
plaintiffs in this action were seeking to relitigate the
correctness of that denial, we would not permit plaintiffs to
bring a class action." Id. (quoting Catholic Social Services, 232
F.3d at 1147).

The Resh court found that interpreting that statement as
forbidding the application of American Pipe tolling to subsequent
class actions when class certification had previously been denied
would be a "misreading" of Catholic Social Services. Id. at *6-*7.
The court explained that it was not talking about American Pipe
tolling at all.  What it was actually talking about was issue
preclusion -- all it meant was that, if the same plaintiffs sought
to bring a subsequent class action after certification had
previously been denied, issue preclusion would bar them from doing
so. Id. at *7.

That is, to say the least, an odd reading of Catholic Social
Services. Other than the reference to "relitigat[ion]," nothing in
Catholic Social Services' analysis suggests that the court was
thinking of issue preclusion.  In particular, nothing in the
quoted sentence indicates that, to be barred from "relitigat[ing]"
class certification, the plaintiffs in the subsequent class action
had to be the same plaintiffs who unsuccessfully litigated the
first class action -- a critical requirement for issue preclusion.
In fact, the court actually cited Robbin in support of its
statement, which was plainly made in the context of a discussion
of the applicability of American Pipe tolling to subsequent class
actions. See Catholic Social Services, 232 F.3d at 1145-49.
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit expressly dealt with issue preclusion on
a different issue in a separate portion of its opinion. Id. at
1151-53.

In any event, having reinterpreted Catholic Social Services as
applying American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions --
regardless of the reason for the dismissal of the earlier class
action -- the Ninth Circuit went on to find support for its
position in three recent Supreme Court precedents:

In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance
Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), the Supreme Court held that Rule 23
empowers a federal court to certify a class in any type of case,
not only those "made eligible for class treatment by some other"
Id. at 399 (emphasis in original).  The Ninth Circuit concluded
that to deny American Pipe tolling to subsequent class actions
would essentially import "certification criteria" into Rule 23
from "some other law," which Shady Grove forbids. 2017 WL 2261024,
at *7.

In Smith v. Beyer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), the Supreme Court
held that, after denying class certification, a federal court
could not enjoin a state court from certifying a class under the
"relitigation exception" to the Anti-Injunction Act because the
state court action had different named plaintiffs who were not
subject to claim or issue preclusion.  The Court acknowledged the
risk of "serial relitigation of class certification," but found
that risk was mitigated by principles of stare decisis and comity,
as well as the possibility of removal under the Class Action
Fairness Act (for state court actions) or MDL consolidation (for
other federal actions). Id. at 316-18.  The Ninth Circuit found
that those considerations similarly ameliorated the unfairness of
serial class certification litigation due to American Pipe 2017 WL
2261024, at *9.
Finally, in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 126 S.Ct. 1036
(2016), the Supreme Court noted that "use of the class device
cannot 'abridge . . . any substantive right.'" Id. at 1046
(quoting 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)).  While acknowledging that Tyson Foods
did not directly control, given that "statutes of limitation
occupy a no-man's land between substance and procedure," the Ninth
Circuit found that it "nonetheless reinforces our conclusion that
the statute of limitations does not bar a class action brought by
plaintiffs whose individual actions are not barred." 2017 WL
2261024, at *8.

Despite the court's insistence to the contrary, Resh represents a
sharp break from prior law in the Ninth Circuit.  Given that the
court radically reinterpreted the en banc decision in Catholic
Social Services, it will be interesting to see whether the Ninth
Circuit elects to reconsider the Resh decision en banc.

In the meantime, Resh increases the pressure on defendants in
putative class actions pending in the Ninth Circuit to settle,
lest they be saddled with the costs of serially re-litigating
class certification even after prevailing.  The Resh court's
suggestion that plaintiffs' counsel, whose fees are usually
contingent on the outcome of the case, "at some point will be
unwilling to assume the financial risk in bringing successive
suits," id. at *9, is sure to be cold comfort to class action
defendants, for whom the cost of litigation is frequently the
driving factor in deciding to settle a case.

Some relief may be forthcoming soon from the Supreme Court,
however.  The Court is currently considering whether American Pipe
tolling applies to statutes of repose, in addition to statutes of
limitations. See California Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. ANZ
Securities, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 811 (2017) (granting writ of
certiorari).  If the Supreme Court affirms that American Pipe
tolling does not apply to statutes of repose, that would at least
put a hard backstop on serial re-litigation of class
certification.  And given that there is a clear circuit split on
whether American Pipe tolling applies to subsequent class actions,
see, e.g., Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (1987), the Supreme
Court may eventually take up that issue as well. [GN]


CIGNA CORPORATION: Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company and the
Cigna Pension Plan are defendants in a class action lawsuit that
has yet to be resolved.  When the parties agree on a final plan
amendment, the pension benefit obligation will be updated to
reflect additional benefits resulting from this litigation.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash
balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the
conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion
accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that
the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate
disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.  From 2008 through the present, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method
for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class
members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation.  During 2016, the
Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the
plaintiffs filed various objections.  On January 10, 2017, the
District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain
aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits.  The
Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March
31, 2017 based on calculations consistent with the Company's
interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court.  However,
certain aspects of the ruling will need further clarification from
the Court before final plan benefits can be determined.  As a
result, the timing of the resolution of this matter remains
uncertain.  Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with
the final interpretation of the District Court's order and the
benefits will begin to be paid.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a global
health services organization.


CIGNA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Franco" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position in the case captioned
as, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.  In
January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs'
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July 2014,
the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in
favor of the Company, including the class certification decision,
to the Third Circuit.

On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by
members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual
plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust
claims.  However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier
dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims.  The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a global
health services organization.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Warren, et al. Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Cassandra
Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank, remains pending.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.
The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No.
1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and
consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been
similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending the final
outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made in favor
of the bank defendant.

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any
appeals in the similar case have run their course.  The Company
believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing
in the case, In re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On September 10, 2014, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company, our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In
re Commvault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No.
3:14-cv-05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that we made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding our financial results, business, operations and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class
period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that
period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as
well as equitable or other relief."

"Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the
defendant's motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case
dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file their
claim, which they did on February 5, 2016.

"Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016,
which was denied by the court on September 30, 2016. Discovery has
commenced in this action and is ongoing.

"Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation will have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of March 31,
2017, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter as we have
concluded that the probability of a loss is remote."

Commvault is a provider of data and information management
software applications and related services.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina has been
voluntarily dismissed.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its
directors.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement,
are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin us from consummating the
merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively,
to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger,
in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs."

"On March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin FairPoint's special meeting of stockholders
to approve the proposed Merger.  On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to his
individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the
putative class.  No payment, promise of payment, or other
consideration has been offered or made to the plaintiff or his
attorneys."

Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is an integrated
communications services company that operates as both an Incumbent
Local Exchange Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange
Carrier ("CLEC") dependent upon the territory served.   It
provides an array of services in consumer, commercial and carrier
channels in 11 states, including local and long-distance service,
high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, Voice over
Internet Protocol ("VoIP"), custom calling features, private line
services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services
over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, data center and
managed services, directory publishing, equipment sales, and cloud
services.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Delaware Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware has been dismissed.

On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of the Company in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No.
2017-0157) against the members of the Company's board of
directors. The lawsuit related to our Merger Agreement with
FairPoint.  Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with soliciting approval of the
Company's stockholders of the issuance of the Company's common
stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the merger (the "Merger")
contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Stockholder Vote")
because Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed by the Company on February 24, 2017 failed to disclose
allegedly material information relating to the retention,
compensation and financial incentives of a financial advisor to
the Company in connection with the proposed Merger.  The plaintiff
sought, among other relief, to enjoin the Stockholder Vote.

On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Stockholder Vote until such time as
certain information concerning the financial interests of the
Company's financial advisor in the proposed Merger were fully
disclosed.

On March 22, 2017, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued a letter decision stating that it would preliminarily
enjoin the Stockholder Vote (the "Injunction") until five days
after such time as the Company had supplemented its disclosures to
include a clear and direct explanation of the amount of financing-
related fees that the Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, or any of its affiliates stands to receive in
connection with the Merger if the Merger is consummated.

In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and
direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to
receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company supplemented the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
Merger Agreement as described in the Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 22, 2017 at a time and in a manner that
would not cause any delay of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which was scheduled to held on March 28, 2017, or
the Merger.

Subsequently on March 22, 2017, the Injunction was vacated, and
the lawsuit was dismissed in a timely manner that did not cause
any delay of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders,
which was held on March 28, 2017, as scheduled.

Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is an integrated
communications services company that operates as both an Incumbent
Local Exchange Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange
Carrier ("CLEC") dependent upon the territory served.   It
provides an array of services in consumer, commercial and carrier
channels in 11 states, including local and long-distance service,
high-speed broadband Internet access, video services, Voice over
Internet Protocol ("VoIP"), custom calling features, private line
services, carrier grade access services, network capacity services
over the Company's regional fiber optic networks, data center and
managed services, directory publishing, equipment sales, and cloud
services.


CU BANCORP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CU Bancorp, Roberto E. Barragan, Charles R.
Beauregard, Kenneth J. Cosgrove, David C. Holman, K. Brian Horton,
Eric S. Kentor, Jeffrey Leitzinger, David I. Rainer, Roy A.
Salter, Daniel F. Selleck, Charles H. Sweetman, Kaveh Varjavand,
Eric S. Kentor, and Pacwest Bancorp, Case No. 2:17-cv-04353 (C.D.
Cal., June 12, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of CU Bancorp, to enjoin the proposed transaction
announced on April 5, 2017, pursuant to which CU Bancorp will be
acquired by PacWest Bancorp for $12.00 per share in cash and
0.5308 of a share of PacWest common stock.

According to the complaint, CU Bancorp filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that CU Bancorp stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the
Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the estimated excess cash
flows that CU Bancorp could generate from 2017 to 2021; (ii) the
implied terminal value of CU Bancorp; (iii) the assumed long-term
earnings and asset growth rates of CU Bancorp; and (iv) the inputs
and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to
13.0%.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.  It
further notes that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Neustar's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy
defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
problems are remedied.

CU Bancorp is the holding company for California United Bank, a
leading edge community-based commercial bank, focusing on products
and services to customers located throughout the metropolitan Los
Angeles, Ventura, Orange, and San Bernardino County markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
              gegleston@gme-law.com


DEL TACO: Class Certification Motion Underway in Employee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2017, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit by a former Del Taco employee are preparing their
motions for and opposition to class certification.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime
wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its
California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the
parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class
certification.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco
has not recorded any amount for the claim as of March 28, 2017.

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DEL TACO: Discovery Pending in Former Del Taco Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2017, that discovery is in
process in a class action lawsuit by a former Del Taco employee.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual
claims.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter.

However, based on management's current understanding of the
relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco
has not recorded any amount for the claim as of March 28, 2017.

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DELTA NATURAL: Defends 2 Class Suits over PNG Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. continues to defend two class
suits related to merger, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On February 20, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") with PNG Companies, LLC
("PNG").

On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit related to the Merger was filed,
Halberstam v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in state
circuit court in Clark County, Kentucky ("Halberstam Complaint").
On April 28, 2017, a lawsuit related to the Merger was filed,
Parshall v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ("Parshall
Complaint").

The Halberstam Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in
relation to the Merger, including breaching its fiduciary duty of
disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC.

The Parshall Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's Board of Directors violated certain laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with the filing of a preliminary
proxy statement containing materially false and misleading
statements.

Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a class
action on behalf of all Company shareholders similarly situated
and to enjoin the consummation of the Merger until the breaches
are cured.

Although the complaints do not specify the amount of damages
sought, Delta is insured for such litigation, subject to a $1
million deductible.

"We intend to vigorously defend the complaints and believe they
are without merit," the Company said.

Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. distributes or transports natural
gas to approximately 36,000 customers.


DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc., and Domtnick
D'alonzo, Case No. cv17-3519 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc. is in the business of providing a variety of
lawn and garden services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Litigation Deal Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has
approved the settlement of the case, In re Dynavax Technologies
Securities Litigation, and entered a Final Order and Judgment
dismissing the case with prejudice.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation.

On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements related to the Company's product,
HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The
consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On September 7, 2016, the parties signed the Stipulation of
Settlement, which provides for a payment of $4.5 million by the
defendants, of which the Company is responsible for $4.1 million,
and results in the dismissal and release of all claims against the
defendants in connection with the securities class action, upon
final court approval. The settlement will be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers.  On February 6, 2017, the Court
approved the settlement and entered a Final Order and Judgment
dismissing the case with prejudice.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and
adaptive immune response through toll-like receptor ("TLR")
stimulation.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: "Soontjens" and "Shumake" Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated "Soontjens" and "Shumake"
complaints remains pending.

On November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and two of its
executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies
Corporation et. al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax
Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake").

The Soontjens complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and
November 11, 2016, the Company and certain of its executive
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements
related to HEPLISAV-B.

The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same statutes
related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016 and
November 11, 2016.

The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 17, 2017,
these two actions and all related actions that subsequently may be
filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated
into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities
Litigation.

On January 31, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 17, 2017. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2017. Following the
completion of briefing by the parties, the court will conduct a
hearing on the motion and render a decision.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and
adaptive immune response through toll-like receptor ("TLR")
stimulation.


DYNEGY INC: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Gas Index Pricing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the court has denied Plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class action in the Gas Index Pricing Litigation.

The Company said, "We, through our subsidiaries, and other energy
companies are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming
damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false
reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications from
2000-2002. The cases allege that the defendants engaged in an
antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices in three states
(Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin) during the relevant time period.
The cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation
proceeding pending in the United States District Court for
Nevada."

"On March 30, 2017, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class action, which may be subject to an interlocutory appeal
requested by the plaintiffs on April 14, 2017.  At this time we
cannot reasonably estimate a potential loss."

Dynegy sells electric energy, capacity and ancillary services
primarily on a wholesale basis from our power generation
facilities.


EHEALTH INC: California Suits in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that class action lawsuits
in California are in the preliminary stage.

The Company said, "On January 26, 2017, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara.  The complaint alleges that we
negligently failed to take necessary precautions required to
protect from unauthorized disclosure personally identifiable
information contained on 2016 Form W-2s for current and former
employees.  The complaint purports to allege causes of action
against us for negligence, violation of Section 17200 et seq. of
the California Business & Professions Code, declaratory relief and
breach of implied contract.  The complaint seeks actual damages,
punitive damages, statutory damages, costs, including experts'
fees and attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as prescribed by law and equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief as appropriate."

"In April 2017, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, relating to the same circumstances.  The
second complaint purports to allege causes of action against us
for negligence, violation of California Customer Records Act
(California Civil Code Section 1798.80 et seq.), violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (California
Civil Code Section 56 et seq.), invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts, breach of confidentiality and
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.).

"The second complaint seeks actual damages, statutory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief, costs, including experts' fees and attorneys' fees and
costs of prosecuting the action, and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest as prescribed by law.  Because the cases are at
a preliminary stage, we cannot estimate the likelihood of
liability or the amount of potential damages."

eHealth, Inc. is a private health insurance exchange for
individuals, families and small businesses in the United States.
Through its website addresses (www.eHealth.com,
www.eHealthInsurance.com,  www.eHealthMedicare.com,
www.Medicare.com and www.PlanPrescriber.com), consumers can get
quotes from leading health insurance carriers, compare plans side-
by-side, and apply for and purchase Medicare-related, individual
and family, small business and ancillary health insurance plans.
The Company actively markets the availability of Medicare-related
insurance plans and offer Medicare plan comparison tools and
educational materials for Medicare-related insurance plans,
including Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement and Medicare
Part D prescription drug plans.


EL POLLO: Parties in "Olvera" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2017, that the parties in the
case, Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al., are
once again engaged in settlement discussion with the putative lead
plaintiff.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release
which the court recently refused to approve on the grounds that it
did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class
members.

The parties are now once again engaged in settlement discussion
with the putative lead plaintiff proposing to limit the class to
those hourly employees who worked as cooks at the time a
corporate-owned restaurant closed.

"Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers, and we fully expect
to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future," the
Company said.

The Company's activities are conducted principally through its
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which
develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one
operating segment. At March 29, 2017, the Company operated 204 and
franchised 263 El Pollo Loco restaurants.


EL POLLO: Huston et al. Challenge Motion to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.), pending before Judge David O
Carter, Movants Ron Huston, Robert W. Kegley, Sr., Peter Kim, Dr.
Richard Levy, and Samuel Tanner filed on June 16 a Memorandum in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the consolidated third amended
complaint in the securities class action lawsuit.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2017, that Daniel Turocy, et
al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-
01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston,
et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-
01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on October 22, 2015.

The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed on January
29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put
options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran
Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the
"Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

The Company said, "Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in
2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor
costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of
such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations."

In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages,
as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and
granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017.
Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims
asserted and intend to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on or about May 17, 2017.

The Company's activities are conducted principally through its
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which
develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one
operating segment. At March 29, 2017, the Company operated 204 and
franchised 263 El Pollo Loco restaurants.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: "Sponn" Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit by William Sponn filed an opposition brief to
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or Sponn, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016,
inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the
Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements about the
government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the
Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services would be renewed and
omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified
damages, including legal costs.

On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.

On December 27, 2016 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that cites the same class period, names the same defendants and
makes similar allegations to the original complaint.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The
Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017.

The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
those claims. As of the date of this filing, the range of
potential loss cannot be determined or estimated.

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats. Our company is focused on developing, manufacturing and
commercializing medical countermeasures, or MCM, that address
public health threats, or PHTs.


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Matt Campbell's Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jan Cottingham , writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a
lawsuit filed by Little Rock lawyer Matt Campbell, who blogs at
Blue Hog Report, against Facebook over alleged privacy violations
has been settled.

A lawsuit filed by Little Rock lawyer Matt Campbell against
Facebook over alleged privacy violations has been settled.

Mr. Campbell, author of the Blue Hog Report blog, was the lead
named plaintiff in the class-action suit filed in 2013 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
lawsuit claims that Facebook violated users' privacy by reading
their private messages without their consent.

Facebook said it had ended the practice of sharing information in
private messages to target advertising to Facebook users.

The settlement brings no monetary awards, covering only claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief. As part of the settlement
Campbell and Michael Hurley, the second named plaintiff, will
receive $5,000 as class representatives.

Carney Bates & Pulliam represented Campbell and Hurley. Also
representing the plaintiffs were Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP of San Francisco.  Facebook has agreed not to take a
position on the plaintiffs' attorneys' application for fees and
costs of almost $3.9 million. [GN]


FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing in "Smilovits" Case Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that merits briefing on the
appeal in the "Smilovits" class action lawsuit is ongoing.


The Company said, "On March 15, 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court")
against the Company and certain of our current and former
directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012
(the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action."

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted
the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified
a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April
30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit").

First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the
Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion.

Merits briefing on the appeal is ongoing. The Arizona District
Court has entered a stay of the proceedings in district court
until the appeal is decided.

"Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery,
and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess
whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any.

First Solar is a global provider of comprehensive PV solar energy
solutions.


FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial Scheduled in Sleep Tracking Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that trial is currently
scheduled for July 10, 2017, in the class action lawsuit over
sleep tracking lawsuit.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available
in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification; a ruling has not yet issued.

On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment; the hearing is scheduled for May 25, 2017. Trial is
currently scheduled for July 10, 2017.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of
wearable devices.


FITBIT INC: Arbitration Bid in Heart Rate Tracking Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is awaiting
a ruling on its motion to compel arbitration in the heart rate
tracking class action lawsuit.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
that the PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not
consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs
allege common law claims as well as violations of various states'
false advertising and unfair competition statutes, and seek class
certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint.

On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration, and is currently awaiting a ruling from the courts.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of
wearable devices.


FITBIT INC: Securities Litigation Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend the securities litigation in California.

On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering ("IPO").

On May 10, 2016, the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group
(consisting of five individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and
an Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, ("the
Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's products between October 27, 2014
and November 23, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open market
between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers, and directors, the underwriters
of the IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiff alleges that
the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements
about the Company's products. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in and/or
traceable to the IPO and/or the Secondary Offering. Plaintiff
seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The cases
have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco.

On April 7, 2017, the court granted a motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and stayed the
cases.

On November 11, 2016, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty based on the same
alleged set of facts in the federal and state securities class
action litigation. On February 3, 2017, a second derivative
lawsuit was filed in the District of Delaware on the same
allegations. Both courts have ordered a stay in the cases.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these
actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result
from this matter.

Fitbit generates substantially all of its revenue from sales of
wearable devices.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Underway in Royalty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that pretrial discovery
continues in a royalty class action lawsuit.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The
case was certified as a class action in April 2012; however, on
appeal in June 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the
trial court for further proceedings. Pretrial discovery continues.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to the Chieftain lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed
the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation. As
these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position
accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement
payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain, XTO
Energy has advised the trustee that the Trust should bear its 80%
share of such settlement or judgment, including any future royalty
adjustments that would reduce net proceeds. The trustee intends to
review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the
facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment.

In light of a 2014 arbitration decision in which a three panel
tribunal decided that the settlement in Fankhouser v. XTO Energy,
Inc., including a new royalty calculation for future royalty
payments, could not be charged to the Trust, to the extent that
the claims in Chieftain are similar to those in Fankhouser the
trustee would likely object to such claimed reductions. Should
there be a disagreement as to whether the Trust should bear its
share of a settlement or judgment the matter will be resolved by
binding  arbitration through the American Arbitration Association
under the terms of the Indenture creating the Trust.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of
any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in
its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to
be material to the Trust's financial position or liquidity though
it could be material to the Trust's annual distributable income.
Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any
reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the
properties underlying the net profit interests of the case, as
applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending on the
size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds
being paid at that time, which would result in the net profits
interest being limited until such time that the revenues exceed
the costs for those net profit interests.


ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Employee Class Action Pending in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICTS International N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is defending
against an employee class action lawsuit in Washington.

As the increase in minimum wage was not paid yet to the employees,
an employee of the Company filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, in the United States District Court, Western District
of Washington. The employee alleges the Company failed to pay the
proper SeaTac minimum wage.  Plaintiffs served written discovery
to the individual defendants. Additional two lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court for King County, State of
Washington, on the same subject.

ICTS International N.V. was registered at the Department of
Justice in Amstelveen, Netherlands on October 9, 1992.  ICTS and
subsidiaries operate in three reportable segments: (a)corporate
(b) aviation security and other aviation services and (c)
technology.  The corporate segment does not generate revenue and
contains primarily non-operational expenses. The airport security
and other aviation services business provide security and other
services to airlines and airport authorities, predominantly in
Europe and the United States. The technology segment is
predominantly involved in the development and sale of identity
security software to financial and other institutions, in Europe
and the United States.


ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Mass Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a mass
action remains pending.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities
who own or owned 107 fractional interests of a total of 372
interests created in the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club
located within The St. Regis, New York (the "Club") filed suit
against ILG, certain of our subsidiaries, Marriott International
Inc. ("Marriott") and certain of its subsidiaries including
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC ("Starwood"). The case is
filed as a mass action in federal court in the Southern District
of New York, not as a class action."

"In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all
interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment
of the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold
fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged
acts by us and the other defendants breached the relevant
agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional
interests. The relief sought includes, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21,
2017.  We dispute the material allegations in the amended
complaint and intend to defend against the action vigorously.
Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."

ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation
experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R),
Sheraton(R) and Westin(R) brands in vacation ownership.


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Taps Wilmer Cutler as Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Immunocellular Therapeutics, Ltd. has engaged lawyers from Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP as its counsel in a securities
class action lawsuit.  The firm's engagement will be led by:

     Elizabeth Harper Skey, Esq.
     Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
     1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
     Washington, DC 20006

Ms. Skey on June 19 filed a Notice of Appearance in the case on
behalf of Defendants David Fractor, Andrew Gengos, ImmunoCellular
Therapeutics, Ltd., and John Y. Yu.

Also on June 19, the Defendants filed a proposed Stipulation to
extend their time to answer the Complaint.  They presently have
until July 3 to file their answer.

Immunocellular Therapeutics, Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a purported
securities class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2017, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00
v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-
03250) against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the "Company"),
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to allegedly materially
false or misleading statements made between May 1, 2012 and
December 11, 2013. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company failed to disclose that it purportedly paid for
articles to be published about ICT-107. The plaintiff seeks an
award of unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims.

It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same
or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. The
Company does not intend to file further Current Reports on Form
8-K describing the additional lawsuits, or provide updates, except
as required by law.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Briefing in Kleen Products Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the Kleen
Products litigation, briefing of the parties' dispositive motions
and expert challenges is underway.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint
alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through
November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who
purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for
use or delivery in the United States during the period February
2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified
treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.

In March 2015, the District Court certified a class of direct
purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the
defendants' petition to appeal, and in August 2016, affirmed the
District Court's decision on all counts.

In April 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for discretionary review (petition for writ of
certiorari) of the class certification decision.

The Kleen Products litigation continues to progress, and briefing
of the parties' dispositive motions and expert challenges is well
underway and expected to be completed by the end of the second
quarter of 2017.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture's Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that no class
certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee
action.

In June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v.
Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks
the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint but also
asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims.

Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees.

No class certification materials have been filed to date in the
Tennessee action.


INVESTORS BANCORP: Faces "Fordell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanmarie Fordell and Jennifer Rogers, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Investors Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a
Investors Bank, Case No. 511755/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay Assistant Branch Managers' overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Investors Bancorp, Inc. is a New Jersey chartered savings bank. It
is the largest bank headquartered in the state of New Jersey, with
current assets of approximately $23.17 billion and over 150
branches in New York and New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Michael Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (561) 447-2580
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


JUICE GENERATION: Faces "Khadka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Bhimsen Khadka, Gelu Sherpa, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Juice Generation Inc., Cooler Cleans
8 LLC, and Eric S. Helms, Case No. 708250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants specialize in fresh juice, smoothies and raw food
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Durga P. Bhurtel, Esq.
      BHIMSEN KHADKA, GELU SHERPA
      37-49 751h Street, 2nd Floor
      Jackson Heights, NY 11372
      Telephone: (718) 509-6181
      Facsimile: (917) 396-4622
      E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Case Management Orders Expected in Summer 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, In re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, it is
expected that case management orders will not be issued until
sometime in the Summer of 2017.

The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants
in a number of lawsuits filed in 2016 and 2017 alleging that the
Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have
conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin, doxycycline,
levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen.  These cases are part of a
larger group of more than 100 lawsuits generally alleging that
approximately 50 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors conspired to fix prices for at least 18 different
generic drugs in violation of the federal Sherman Act, various
state antitrust laws, and various state consumer protection
statutes.  The United States also has been granted leave to
intervene in the cases.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the cases alleging price-fixing for generic
drugs be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under the caption In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation.

An initial conference with the court was held on May 4, 2017,
although it is expected that case management orders will not be
issued until sometime in the Summer of 2017.

The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations.  Accordingly, the Company
disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions.  The
Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these
lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release
(tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished
dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic
areas.


LANNETT COMPANY: Still Defends Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

In November 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and two of its officers claiming
that the Company in its securities filings made false and
misleading statements in connection with its drug pricing
methodologies and internal controls with respect to drug pricing
methodologies causing damage to the purported class.

An amended complaint will be filed in May 2017, and at this time,
the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss.  The Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release
(tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished
dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic
areas.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal by
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit by Frank J. Fosbre, Jr.
against Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P.
Weidner, remains pending.

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

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

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

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

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

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

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was
suspended.

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

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

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March
11, 2016.

Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on
April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was
entered on January 4, 2017.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017. The
Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Data Privacy Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the data privacy
litigation against the Company has been dismissed.

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

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action.

In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into
settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who
subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

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

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

On March 31, 2017, the parties agreed to a settlement and release
of all outstanding claims and the case was dismissed with
prejudice on April 5, 2017.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned
subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc.
and Leidos Innovations Corporation.  Leidos is a global science
and technology company that provides technology and engineering
services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil and
health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the U.S.
Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence Community,
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health and
Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and state
and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers
include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located
in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal
---------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's petition
for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court has been
granted.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through
September 1, 2011.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants
made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection
with disclosures relating to the CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming
in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. In
particular, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs should be
permitted to pursue omissions claims against the Company with
respect to the annual report the Company filed on Form 10-K on
March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other
claims, including all the claims against the individual
defendants, and the case was remanded to the District Court.

On September 23, 2016, the District Court issued an order
clarifying that the applicable class period relating to the March
2011 Form 10-K ends on June 2, 2011, not September 1, 2011, as
plaintiffs argued.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. Any potential
loss relating to this matter is not reasonably estimable due to
unresolved questions of fact and law. However, the Company does
not expect any ultimate liability to have a material effect on the
Company's financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned
subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc.
and Leidos Innovations Corporation.  Leidos is a global science
and technology company that provides technology and engineering
services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil and
health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the U.S.
Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence Community,
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health and
Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and state
and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers
include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located
in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion for Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, In re
LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, is currently set
for June 2017.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, several putative class
action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws
were filed in California Superior Court, naming as defendants the
Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the
underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the
IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action
(Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300.

In August 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading
statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. The
Company filed a demurrer requesting the Court dismiss certain of
the claims alleged in the amended complaint, which was granted in
part in the fourth quarter of 2016. The plaintiffs then filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint which the Company responded
to with a new demurrer seeking to dismiss certain claims.

The Court granted in part and denied in part this new demurrer
thus setting the operative complaint.

In early April 2017 the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification which the Company will oppose; a hearing on this
issue is currently set for June 2017. Discovery is continuing.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in two
related putative securities class actions are awaiting the Court's
ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.

In mid-August 2016, the two actions were consolidated into a
single action.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
fourth quarter of 2016. The Court held a hearing on this motion in
the first quarter of 2017 and a ruling is expected imminently.

Discovery will commence if the Company does not succeed in
dismissing every claim in the complaint. The Company believes that
the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Federal Consumer Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal consumer class action remains pending, LendingClub
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans,
through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits
in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the
federal RICO statute.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual
basis, which was granted in February 2017. The Company believes
that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
defend this matter vigorously.

LendingClub is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.


LIFE ALERT: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class counsel on June 11 disclosed that, following final approval
of a $1.9 million class action settlement brought by California
class members against Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., the
settlement administrator has begun mailing settlement payments to
qualified class members.  The suit was filed on September 9, 2014,
and alleged that Life Alert -- a maker of emergency-response
devices for senior citizens -- misclassified its workers as
independent contractors, causing unlawful pay shortages.  The
court granted final approval of the settlement on March 2, 2017.
The plaintiffs and settlement class are represented by class
counsel James (JJ) Johnston and Kelly Y. Chen.  The case is
Barragan v. Life Alert Emergency Response Inc., Los Angeles
Superior Court case number BC556127. [GN]


LOBSTERS IN MOCEAN: "Matthew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Matthew (f/k/a Simon Sahmaoui), on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Lobsters In Mocean, Inc. d/b/a The
Lazy Lobster of Longboat and Robert J. Fracalossy, Case No. 8:17-
cv-01371-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant located at
5350 Gulf of Mexico Drive, Longboat Key, Florida 34228 in Sarasota
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Litigation to Begin June 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled
to begin on June 18, 2018, in the case, In Re Wilmington Trust
Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware,
Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR).

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that
Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities
filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were
consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss.
The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. Fact discovery commenced. On
April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact discovery
in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v. Wilmington
Trust Corp., et al. On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to modify the stay of discovery in this matter to allow for
additional, limited discovery. On December 19, 2016, the Court
issued an order lifting the existing stay in its entirety.


MAINTEX INC: "Tamayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Tamayo and Ricardo Vasquez, individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Maintex, Inc., Jade Professional
Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC665105 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures
chemicals and janitorial supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
              skierig@haineslawgroup.com

MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Ise" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Ise, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Mazor Robotics Ltd., Ori Hadomi, Eliyahu Zehavi and
Sharon Levita, Case No. 1:17-cv-04422 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) that the
Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to ISA
investigation; (ii) that, as such the Company was exposed to
potential liability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Mazor's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Mazor Robotics Ltd. is a medical device company that develops and
markets innovative surgical guidance systems and complementary
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail:  peretz@bgandg.com


MENARD INC: Faces "Santti" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Santti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01243 (N.D. Ohio,
June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Menard, Inc. operates a chain of home improvement stores in the
Midwestern United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
              hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


MESQUITE SERVICES: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mesquite Services, LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00117 (W.D.
Tex., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mesquite Services, LLC owns and operates a trucking company
located at 7021 Kewanee, Suite 10101, Lubbock Texas 79424. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Transfer Case Venue Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the
Company's motion to transfer a class action lawsuit.

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

NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against
the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in
part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In
the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer.

While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the
Company believes this suit is without merit, and it intends to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation.

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


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Suit over 2017 Offering Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend a securities litigation related to the
Company's 2017 offering.

On April 15, 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle,
against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive
officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's
common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering").
The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of
New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting
of all purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein,
for the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due
to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

In May 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of
removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware.

In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, related to this matter.

MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting
segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. The
Global Funds Transfer segment provides global money transfer
services and bill payment services to consumers.  The Financial
Paper Products segment provides official check outsourcing
services and money orders through financial institutions and agent
locations.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Merger Suits in Del. & Texas Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in
the Delaware and Texas merger-related litigation filed notices of
voluntary dismissal of those actions.

The Company said, "On March 13, 2017 and March 17, 2017,
respectively, putative securities class action lawsuits
challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against MoneyGram and its
directors. One of the lawsuits also named as defendants certain of
our executive officers, Alipay and other parties to the Merger."

"The plaintiffs, our stockholders, challenged the Merger and the
disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits
alleged violations of various securities laws and regulations due
to allegedly material and misleading omissions in the preliminary
proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger.

"Additionally, the lawsuits alleged that the Merger Agreement is
unfair to our stockholders, resulted from an inadequate process,
and contains terms that will supposedly deter third parties from
making alternative offers. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the
Merger and to recover damages, costs and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.

"On April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware and Texas suits, respectively, filed notices of voluntary
dismissal of those actions."

MoneyGram offers products and services under its two reporting
segments: Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. The
Global Funds Transfer segment provides global money transfer
services and bill payment services to consumers.  The Financial
Paper Products segment provides official check outsourcing
services and money orders through financial institutions and agent
locations.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Huseman" Suit Over False Company Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Huseman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ronald M. Faris, and
Michael R. Bourque, Jr., Case No. 9:17-cv-80729-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
June 13, 2013), alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Specifically, says the complainy, Defendants failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company loaded inaccurate information into its
REALServicing proprietary system; (2) that the REALServicing
system generated errors due to deficient programming; (3) that the
Company wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least
1,000 people, and wrongfully held foreclosure sales; (4) that the
Company failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous
borrowers; (5) that the Company failed to send borrowers accurate
periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were
applied, total payments received, and other information, and
failed to correct billing and payment errors; (6) that the Company
botched basic tasks in managing escrow accounts; (7) that the
Company failed to make timely insurance payments for home
insurance premiums, causing the lapse of homeowners' insurance
coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers; (8) that the Company
failed to cancel borrowers' private mortgage insurance in a timely
manner, causing consumers to overpay; (9) that the Company
enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive
solicitations and without their consent; (10) that the Company
mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a
deceased borrower; (11) that the Company routinely failed to
properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary
corrections; (12) that the Company failed to include complete and
accurate borrower information when it sold its rights to service
thousands of loans to new mortgage servicers; (13) that, as such,
the Company engaged in systematic misconduct in violation of
applicable consumer and financial laws; and (14) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Ocwen's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
services and originates loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMEGA PROTEIN: Diehl Action Still Pending, Malone Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Protein Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Malone class
action lawsuit has been dismissed while the Diehl class action
remains pending.

On March 2, 2017 and April 5, 2017, two class action lawsuits
captioned Malone v. Omega Protein Corporation and Diehl v. Omega
Protein Corporation, respectively, were filed against the Company
and two of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The Malone action was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, by
the plaintiff on March 29, 2017.

The Diehl action purports to assert claims against the Company and
two of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff in Diehl seeks to represent a proposed
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities during the period from June 4, 2013 through
March 1, 2017. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by
alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions
by the Company and two of its officers regarding the Company's
finances and business prospects, which allegedly operated to
inflate artificially the price paid for the Company's securities
during the class period. The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, attorneys' fees
and costs.


OMEGA PROTEIN: "Ahern" Lawsuit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as, Paul Ahern v. Omega Protein Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01720 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), was
transferred to the Southern District of New York, 1:17-cv-03778,
on May 19.  The California case has been terminated.

Omega Protein Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on March 3, 2017, a
class action lawsuit captioned Ahern v. Omega Protein Corporation
was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. This suit asserts claims against the Company and two
of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period from August 3, 2016
through March 1, 2017. The complaint seeks damages allegedly
caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material
omissions by the Company and two of its officers regarding the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which
allegedly operated to inflate artificially the market price of the
Company's securities during the class period. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 1, 2017, the Company filed a motion to transfer this
lawsuit from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Omega Protein Corporation (the "Company") is a nutritional
products company that develops, produces and delivers products
throughout the world to improve the nutritional integrity of
foods, dietary supplements and animal feeds. The Company operates
through two industry segments: animal nutrition and human
nutrition.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Paddock" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff has
voluntarily dismissed the action, Paddock v. OneMain Holdings,
Inc., et al., without prejudice.

On January 17, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Paddock v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, naming as defendants
the Company, certain of its officers, and Fortress. The lawsuit
alleged violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and the
named officers for allegedly making materially misleading
statements and/or omitting material information regarding the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company,
including projected net income, following the OneMain Acquisition.

The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2015 and November 7, 2016. The complaint sought an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just
and proper. On February 17, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the action without prejudice.

Defendants are represented by:

     Meredith Thornburgh White, Esq.
     Michael H. Gottschlich, Esq.
     Barnes & Thornburg LLP
     11 South Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535
     Tel: 317-231-7834
     Fax: 317-231-7433
     E-mail: Meredith.White@btlaw.com
             Michael.Gottschlich@btlaw.com

          - and -

     Abena Mainoo, Esq.
     Meredith E. Kotler, Esq.
     Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
     One Liberty Plaza
     New York, NY 10006
     Tel: 212 225 2130
     E-mail: amainoo@cgsh.com
             mkotler@cgsh.com

OMH is a financial services holding company.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: "Galestan" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Company continues to
defend against the case, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et
al.

On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and the named
officers for allegedly making materially misleading statements
and/or omitting material information regarding the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company, including
projected net income, following the OneMain Acquisition. The
action was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint seeks an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and
equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

The Company believes that the allegations specified in the
complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, the lead plaintiff
had until May 30, 2017 to file an amended complaint. As the
lawsuit is in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may
result from the lawsuit.

OMH is a financial services holding company.


PAC ANCHOR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Mosquera" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Mosquera and Juan Francisco Rodriguez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAC Anchor
Transportation, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC664927 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay for all time worked every pay
period, specifically required minimum wages and daily overtime;
failure to provide off-duty meal and rest periods to its
California drivers in accordance with California Labor Code.

PAC Anchor Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a transportation
company located at 425 Quay Avenue, Wilrrington, California,
90744. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq,
      Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 217-5000
      Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
      E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
              ck@kbklawyers.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mental Health Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Thompson, writing for The Marshall Project, reports that
a new lawsuit alleges mental health care at one of the highest
security -- and most violent -- prisons in the country is so
paltry that five-minute therapy sessions take place in the shower
and suicidal inmates are given crossword puzzles.  This story was
produced in collaboration with National Public Radio.

The class-action suit filed on June 9 takes aim at the Special
Management Unit at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg, where most
men are locked down in small solitary cells for nearly 24 hours a
day.  Inmates are often doubled up in the cells, which
psychologists say can be even more harmful than single-celled
solitary confinement.

The SMU unit holds some of the federal system's most disruptive
prisoners.  A 2016 investigation by The Marshall Project and
National Public Radio found that housing two volatile people
together in the same solitary cell has fomented violence: The
prison has an assault rate six times higher than federal prisons
overall.  Prisoners who resisted "double-celling" have been put
into hard metal restraints until they complied.

The lawsuit was filed against the Bureau of Prisons by the
Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, the Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm of
Latham & Watkins."

The conditions at Lewisburg are solitary confinement of two
people.  That causes serious problems for anyone," said Phil
Fornaci, director of the D.C. Prisoners' Project at the Washington
Lawyers' Committee.  "For a person with a serious mental health
issue, it's almost completely intolerable to be caged in that
situation indefinitely . . . [And] at Lewisburg, there is
virtually no treatment."

The Bureau of Prisons declined to comment on pending legislation.

The lawsuit alleges that mental health treatment at Lewisburg
consists of counselors walking by cell doors and asking -- in full
hearing range of cellmates and other prisoners -- how the inmate
is doing.  Those who have been flagged by the prison as mentally
ill might get a five-minute therapy session in the cellblock
shower.  Inmates considering suicide say they have been given only
a "mental health packet" containing crossword puzzles, Sudoku, and
"mindfulness activities."

Documents obtained by The Marshall Project and NPR through a
Freedom of Information Act request show at least two men killed by
their cellmates at Lewisburg were not receiving treatment for
previously diagnosed mental illnesses.

Jimmy Barker, who died after a fight with his cellmate in August
2015, was deemed fit for double-celled solitary despite multiple
prior suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations.

Gerardo Arche-Felix was allegedly strangled by his cellmate two
months after Barker died.  He, too, had been found by prison staff
at Lewisburg to have "no significant mental health issues,"
although he had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia and
put under an involuntary treatment order.  In the months before he
was killed, Arche-Felix complained in letters to his daughter that
he had abruptly stopped receiving his medication while at
Lewisburg.  His cellmate, Jose Hernandez-Vasquez, who also had a
history of mental illness, was indicted for the murder in May.

Former Lewisburg inmate Andra Gray said he didn't receive the
mental health care he needed during his nearly seven years in the
SMU. "I was getting medication until I got to Lewisburg.  And when
I asked the doctor, they said, 'Oh, we don't think you need it,'"
Mr. Gray said.  "You're already thinking suicide within the first
two or three months and then they give you a book and say, 'color
this' or 'cross this word out.' You're not thinking about
searching a word out.  You're thinking about life or death."

One of Mr. Gray's former roommates committed suicide at Lewisburg
soon after they were moved into separate cells. Gray claims his
cellmate threatened to commit suicide in front of guards but was
ignored.

One of the groups behind the lawsuit, the D.C. Prison Project, has
also sued the Bureau of Prisons over mental health care at the
supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, known as ADX.

BOP policy says seriously mentally ill inmates should not be held
at ADX and the SMU.  One of the named plaintiffs in the case,
Jusamuel Rodriguez McCreary, is being held in an "ADX cell" at
Lewisburg, where he is locked alone behind two sets of doors.  He
cannot hear any voices from his cell.  Mr. McCreary attempted
suicide at Lewisburg in May, the lawsuit says.

Last year, the BOP implemented some changes to the SMU after the
Department of Justice made recommendations. Many of them were
aimed at mental health care, such as improving the psychiatric
screening process for incoming inmates.  The new policy also
lessened the amount of time someone could be held in the unit.
Since then, some inmates have been moved out of Lewisburg,
creating more single-cells.  There are now 650 men housed in the
penitentiary, 485 of whom are in the SMU.

But attorneys and advocates claim the changes don't go far enough.
"For the people who are left there, the conditions haven't
changed," said Stacey Litner, advocacy director for the D.C.
Prison Project.  "For the most part, people are still double-
celled and there's still a complete lack of access to mental
health care or medication." [GN]


PIER A BATTERY: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Morales and Stephanie Neverson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pier A Battery Park Associates, LLC,
Harry Poulakakos, and Peter Poulakakos, Case No. 1:17-cv-04455
(S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay banquet servers and bartenders' overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Pier A banquet hall located in
Battery Park. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint remains
pending.

The Company said, "In March 2016, three purported securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11),
naming as defendants the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and
our Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuits have been consolidated
into one action captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM). A consolidated amended complaint was
filed on January 13, 2017."

"On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint. The action alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company about its business,
operations, and prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna
for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA
in December 2015. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock
between November 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs."

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


RAYONIER INC: Insurance Carriers to Fund Settlement Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has agreed
to cause certain of its directors' and officers' liability
insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment to the class of
$73 million.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

* Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395,
filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398,
filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et
al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

* Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429,
filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida; and

* Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986,
initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers
and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was
granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants'
motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated
Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile.
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued
to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and
Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20,
2016. At December 31, 2016, the case continued to be in the
discovery phase and the Company could not determine whether there
was a reasonable likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor
could the range of any such loss be estimated.

On March 13, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case and all parties executed a term sheet
memorializing such agreement. The parties executed and filed with
the Court the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on April 12,
2017 (the "Settlement Agreement"), which the Settlement Agreement
included the material terms contained in the term sheet executed
on March 13.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is
subject to Court approval and requests for exclusion by members of
the settlement class, the Company agreed to cause certain of its
directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers to fund a
settlement payment to the class of $73 million.

In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed to reimburse
one of its insurance carriers approximately $740,000 for certain
disputed pre-litigation expenses, which reimbursement is expected
to be made in the first half of 2017. The amounts agreed to on
March 13, 2017, including the realized amount to be funded by the
insurance carriers, were reflected in the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements as of March 31, 2017.

Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust ("REIT")
with assets located in some of the most productive softwood timber
growing regions in the United States and New Zealand.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Still Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against a class action lawsuit in California.

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

"On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint
was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Mr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related.

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

"On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two
actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel
were filed in the action. We intend to vigorously defend this
matter."

Regulus is a biopharmaceutical company.


RENT-A-CENTER: Hall and DePalma Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the cases, Alan Hall, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc., et. al.; James DePalma, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et.
al.

The Company said, "On December 23, 2016, a putative class action
was filed against us and certain of our former officers by Alan
Hall in federal court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting
material facts regarding our business, including implementation of
our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the
period covered by the complaint. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from July
27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, and seeks damages in
unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and expenses."

"A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas
alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the
Hall matter.

"We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that we
will be found to have no liability in this matter."

The Company's Core U.S. segment consists of company-owned rent-to-
own stores in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico that lease
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. It
also offers merchandise on an installment sales basis in certain
stores under the names "Get It Now" and "Home Choice."


RES-CARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Miller, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Res-Care, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00569 (S.D.
Tex., June 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay.

Res-Care, Inc. provides home healthcare services throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


REVLON CONSUMER: Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Revlon Consumer Products Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against a consolidated class action relating
to the Merger Agreement with Elizabeth Arden.

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

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the
Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or
other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds
for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel
advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which
superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was
ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for
relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints. Motions to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint were filed on March
28, 2017.

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

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

The Company is a global beauty company with an iconic portfolio of
brands.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the motions to dismiss
and to stay a class action lawsuit are fully briefed and under
submission to the Court.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC
(SPS) filed a putative class action against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Court), alleging common law conversion and violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax
cover sheets used by our customers when sending facsimile
transmissions over our system (Lawsuit).  SPS seeks statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection
with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages
in connection with its conversion claim."

"On July 6, 2016, we filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory
Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain portions
of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the Lawsuit
(Petition).  The Petition remains pending.

"On July 8, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the Lawsuit in its
entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay the
Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on our Petition.

"On October 7, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint.  The Court concurrently
dismissed our motion to dismiss or stay as moot.

"SPS filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging
essentially the same theories and claims.  On November 21, 2016,
we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with a
renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of
the FCC Petition.  The motions to dismiss and to stay the Lawsuit
are fully briefed and under submission to the Court.  Discovery
has not yet commenced.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the Lawsuit.
Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is too early
in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this Lawsuit.  Based
on the information known by us as of the date of this filing and
the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of our
consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide
an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may
occur."

RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of software-as-a-service (SaaS)
solutions for business communications and collaboration. The
Company was incorporated in California in 1999 and was
reincorporated in Delaware on September 26, 2013.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Classes Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs'
motion to certify proposed classes in the case, Deka Investment
GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
remains pending.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6,
2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned
Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the
Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the
Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June
2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September
2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief.

On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, and on June
13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied.

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes, on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition to
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes, and on
March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the
holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss "Parmelee" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016,
another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit).

Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the
Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.
On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.

The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges
that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and
Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other
public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the
Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance
for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior
periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting
periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Parmelee Lawsuit.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the
holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Wage-and-Hour Suit Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is
currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging
violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to accurately calculate and pay
hourly and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify
necessary expenditures; failure to timely pay wages; and unfair
competition.


SNAP INC: "Simpson" Class Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on May 23, 2017, styled Jennifer
Simpson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Andrew
Vollero, Joanna Coles, A.G. Lafley, Mitchell Lasky, Michael
Lynton, Stanley Meresman, Scott D. Miller, and Christopher Young,
Case No. BC662444, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on June 13, 2017. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04403-GW-AFM to the
proceeding.

Snap Inc. operates a technology and social media company in
Venice, Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Boris Feldman, Esq.
      Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
      Professional Corporation
      650 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
      Telephone: (650) 493-9300
      Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
      E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
              isalceda@wsgr.com


SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case captioned
as, Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper
Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper
Corporation, currently in the discovery process.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of
MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM
Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase
agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"),
and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican
Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to
supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan
Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of
the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power
Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. The
Company has filed a response denying these allegations and is
currently in the discovery process.

The Company is a majority-owned, indirect subsidiary of Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V.  The Company is an integrated producer of
copper and other minerals, and operates mining, smelting and
refining facilities in Peru and Mexico.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Still Defends "Ubaldi" Suit
----------------------------------------------
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.

On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to
amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion on June 23, 2014.

On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed
motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late
fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs'
usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave
to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie
Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.

On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based
in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf
of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.

Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for
indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if
any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the
class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii)
the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made
by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees
charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that
will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi
Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might
prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us
for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that
Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot
estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a
result of the Ubaldi Case.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company for Bank
SNB, which has been providing banking services since 1894.


STRADENERGY SERVICES: Tristan Partners Seeks to Discontinue Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. are plaintiffs
in proposed class action proceedings (the "Action") commenced in
the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (the "Court"), Action Number
1601-07269 against StradEnergy Services Ltd. and individual
members of its Board of Directors.  Tristan Partners LP and
Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd. have sought Court approval to
discontinue the Action.

The Action was filed pursuant to the Alberta Business Corporations
Act and the Class Proceedings Act.  The plaintiffs claimed damages
against the defendants for oppression and negligence in relation
to proposed buy-outs by Total Energy Services Inc. in 2014 and
2015.

There has been no admission of liability on the part of the
defendants and they deny any and all liability with respect to any
of the claims made in the action.  StradEnergy Services Ltd. has
agreed to reimburse Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund
Ltd. in the amount of $12,000.00 to defray the costs they incurred
in bringing an application to discontinue the Action.

An application by Tristan Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund
Ltd. to the Court to discontinue the Action was made April 4,
2017.  The Court ordered that Tristan Partners LP and Tristan
Offshore Fund Ltd. may discontinue the Action on June 30, 2017,
without further Court order unless another person seeks to
substitute them as plaintiff.

If you wish to pursue the Action, you may wish t consult a lawyer.
For further information, please contact counsel for Tristan
Partners LP and Tristan Offshore Fund Ltd,, Evan Dickson:

          Torys LLP
          525 - 8th Avenue S. W., 46th Floor
          Eighth Avenue Place East
          Calgary, Alberta T2P 1G1 Canada
          Telephone: (403) 776-3750


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: California Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

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

On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case
to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of
the plaintiff and the defendants.  An amended complaint was filed
on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative
class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016.

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

Supreme Industries, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Supreme Corporation, is a manufacturer of specialized commercial
vehicles including truck bodies and specialty vehicles.


TELENAV INC: Trial in "Gergetz" Suit Set for January 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled for
January 2020 in the class action lawsuit by Nathan Gergetz.

On July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of a class, and it alleges that Telenav caused unsolicited
text messages to be sent to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to
July 26, 2016. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages under
the TCPA law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an
injunction to prevent any future violations.

Telenav moved to dismiss the complaint on November 21, 2016.

On April 7, 2017, the Court entered a 90 day stay in the case at
the parties' request. Trial is currently scheduled for January
2020.

"Due to the preliminary nature of this matter and uncertainties
relating to litigation, we are unable at this time to estimate the
effects of this lawsuit on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows," the Company said.

Telenav, Inc., is a provider of connected car and location-based
platform products and services.


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the hearing for the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
was scheduled for June 1, 2017.

The Company said, "In June 2015, a securities class action
complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme,
Inc. et al., was filed against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan
Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and
former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity
and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Norfolk Securities Class Action"). The complaint
asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that
would comprise all individuals who acquired our securities (i)
between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant
and/or traceable to our public equity and debt offerings in March
2014. The complaint alleged that investors were misled by
statements made during that period about the construction
progress, development, and production capacity associated with the
production facility located in Brazil owned by SB Oils. A
consolidated complaint was filed in December 2015. In December
2016, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend."

"In February 2017, the plaintiffs in the Norfolk Securities Class
Action filed an amended complaint against the Company, its former
CEO, Jonathan Wolfson and its current CFO/COO, Tyler Painter. The
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
that would comprise all individuals who acquired our securities
between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014. The amended
complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made
during that period about the construction progress, development,
and production capacity associated with the production facility
located in Brazil owned by SB Oils.

"We filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended and restated complaint
on March 17, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed their Opposition to our
Motion to Dismiss on April 17, 2017. The hearing for the Motion to
Dismiss was scheduled for June 1, 2017. We believe the complaint
lacks merit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty
ingredients from algae.


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Aug. 27 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Perales"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James Donato will hold a hearing for Aug. 27, 2017, to
consider a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint against TerraVia Holdings, Inc.

The Motion to Dismiss was filed May 29 by Defendants Apu Mody,
Tyler W. Painter, TerraVia Holdings, Inc., and Jonathan S.
Wolfson.

TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in November 2016, a
securities class action complaint entitled Ruben Perales v.
TerraVia Holdings, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its
former CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its current CEO, Apu Mody and its
CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In December 2016, a second, related securities class action
complaint, captioned Dimitrios Daniil v. TerraVia Holdings, Inc.
et al, was filed in the same court.

The two cases were consolidated on April 7, 2017 (the "Perales
Securities Class Action") and an amended and restated complaint
was filed on April 26, 2017. The plaintiffs assert claims for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals
who acquired our securities between May 4, 2016 and November 6,
2016. The plaintiffs allege that investors were misled by
statements made during that period about our AlgaVia algae
products and as a result our statements about our business,
operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis."

"We intend to file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint by May 26,
2017. We believe the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend
ourselves vigorously."

TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty
ingredients from algae.


TJX COMPANIES: Defends Class Suits on Labor, Pricing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 29, 2017, that it is a defendant in several class
lawsuits related to its labor practices and "compare at" pricing.

The Company said, "TJX is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
federal and state courts brought as putative class or collective
actions on behalf of various groups of current and former salaried
and hourly associates in the U.S.  The lawsuits allege violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of state wage and hour and
other labor statutes, including alleged misclassification of
positions as exempt from overtime, alleged entitlement to
additional wages for alleged off-the-clock work by hourly
employees and alleged failure to pay all wages due upon
termination.  TJX is also a defendant in lawsuits filed in federal
courts brought as putative class actions on behalf of customers
relating to TJX's compare at pricing.  The lawsuits are in various
procedural stages and seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  In connection with ongoing
litigation, an immaterial amount has been accrued in the
accompanying financial statements."

The TJX Companies, Inc. operates as an off-price apparel and home
fashions retailer in the United States and internationally.  It
operates through four segments: Marmaxx, HomeGoods, TJX Canada,
and TJX International.  The TJX Companies, Inc. was founded in
1956 and is based in Framingham, Massachusetts.


TRUE FITNESS: Malaysia Gym Members Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mei Mei Chu, writing for The Star, reports that True Fitness
Malaysia members are rallying to seek legal redress before it is
too late to receive compensation due to the gym chain's abrupt
closure.

In some cases, banks are continuing to charge the monthly credit
card instalments for membership packages.

Members see an urgent need to commence legal action before the
Singapore-based company is wound up here.

A day after the fitness and wellness chain announced its closure
in Malaysia on June 9, the "True Fitness Complaints" Facebook
group was set up for "victims", including paying members and the
chain's staff, to air grievances and discuss their plan of action.

Leading efforts to demand a refund is accountant Vincent Goh, 52,
who is urging the community to file a police report against True
Fitness Malaysia and demand that the banks stop imposing monthly
instalments for membership packages.

Mr. Goh still has seven months left to pay on a 12-month
instalment plan taken for a three-year membership package costing
RM3315.05.

He said banks typically respond that they will not do anything
until the completion of their own investigations, which can take
45 days.

"Their standard reply is 'that is between you and the vendor and
we have already paid the vendor'," he said.

"Some life memberships cost RM8,000 to RM9,000 while those who
have VVIP memberships pay much more, " he said.

Mr. Goh is also compiling a list of all affected members, which he
will use to file a complaint with his assemblyman, the Malaysian
Consumers Association and the Domestic Trade, Co-operatives, and
Consumerism Ministry.

Assisting Mr. Goh with the database of affected members is a
software engineer who only wanted to be known as Chew.

Ms. Chew, 26, said she was surprised to learn that the company had
been recruiting new members days before its closure.

"Some signed up for new packages on June 9, a day before the
announcement," she said.

Two lawyers and long-time True Fitness Malaysia members Chen Yu
Szen and Alex Netto are contemplating a class-action suit against
the company and are volunteering their legal services for free.

However, legal recourse may be complicated as the holding company
True Group is based in Singapore and has multiple subsidiaries in
Malaysia including True Fitness Sdn Bhd, True Yoga Sdn Bhd,
Fitness World Sdn Bhd and Fitness Growth Sdn Bhd.

Mr. Chen highlights that action needs to be taken quickly as it
will be difficult to demand compensation if the company is wound
up.

"That would mean it would be harder for the creditors to enforce
the company's debts," the 27-year-old lawyer said.

Mr. Chen claims True Fitness Malaysia's actions "reeks of fraud"
as there is a clause in the contract stating that the management
must provide a 30-day closure notice.

On top of that, Mr. Chen said some members who visit the gym
regularly have left valuables in their gym lockers with no way of
retrieving them.

True Fitness Malaysia and Thailand's surprise closures come a week
after True Group, announced aggressive expansion plans in China.

The announcement said it has ceased all operations of its gyms and
spa facilities here as it was "no longer financially viable" due
to evolving market conditions.

The company said they will not refund customers with new or
existing memberships, and that arrangements have been made with
CHi Fitness to serve as an alternate gym for affected customers.

CHi Fitness has denied that there is an agreement with True
Fitness Malaysia to honour membership transfers to their gym
centres for its members. [GN]


TURN KEY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ortiz" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Turn Key Contractor Solutions, LLC and Cody Lawrence,
Case No. cv-17-3517 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
80 Orville Drive #100, Bohemia, NY 11716. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591


TYSON FOODS: Motion to Modify Judgment in "Edwards" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion
to modify judgment in the case, Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008,
remains pending.

The trial court in this case, which involves the Company's Perry
and Waterloo, Iowa, pork plants, decertified the state law class
and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in judgment in
the Company's favor with respect to the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify this judgment.

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with
leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R),
Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State
Fair(R).


TYSON FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the court has yet to
rule on the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints in the
case styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

The Company said, "On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc.,
acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct
purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint
against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern
District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial
complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois."

"The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes,
into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions
are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

"Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on
behalf of each putative class. The currently operative complaints
allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the
defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative
classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under
various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws,
and unjust enrichment common laws. The complaints also allege that
defendants "manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used
Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that
the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the
members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.

"We filed motions to dismiss these complaints; the court has yet
to rule on our motions."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with
leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R),
Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State
Fair(R).


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the court has yet to
rule on the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints in the
case styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on
behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased
shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and
October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson
Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central
District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things,
that our periodic filings contained materially false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has
colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler
chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation."

"Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western
District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of
those cases have now been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed. A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, (which also
named additional individual defendants). The consolidated
complaint seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss this complaint; the trial court has
yet to rule on our motion."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with
leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R),
Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State
Fair(R).


TYSON FOODS: Ruling on "Bouaphakeo" Lump Sum Award Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that in the case, Bouaphakeo
(f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6,
2007, the trial court has not yet enter a judgment on the lum sum
award.

The Company said, "A jury trial was held involving our Storm Lake,
Iowa, pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and
post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the
plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded
in the amount of $5,784,758. The plaintiffs' counsel has also
filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $2,692,145."

"We appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the
jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and we filed a
petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014, which was denied.

"We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was granted on June 8, 2015, and oral
arguments before the Supreme Court occurred on November 10, 2015.

"On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate
court's rulings and remanded to the trial court to allocate the
lump sum award among the class participants. On remand, the trial
court determined that the lump sum award should be allocated to
class participants according to the method prescribed by
plaintiffs' expert at trial. The trial court has yet to enter a
judgment."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with
leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R),
Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State
Fair(R).


TYSON FOODS: Consolidation of Two Oklahoma Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that consolidation of two
class action lawsuits in Oklahoma remains pending.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig
Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken
farmers, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of
our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-
integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels" through the use of
certain benchmarking services and an agreement "not to solicit or
recruit growers from one another" in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants
exchanged grower compensation data in violation of Section 202 of
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The
plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class. This matter is in its initial stage, and we intend to
defend against these allegations."

"On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class of broiler chicken farmers against us
and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Like
the Haff Poultry case described immediately above, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler
raising services and illegally exchanged information through the
use of certain benchmarking services. They allege these actions
violate the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as section 202 of the
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. They also
allege that certain payment practices of defendants are "unfair"
practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The plaintiffs are
seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

"The plaintiffs in this case and the Haff Poultry case are seeking
consolidation of these cases. The matter is in its initial stage,
and we intend to defend against these allegations."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies with
leading brands such as Tyson(R), Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R),
Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R), Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State
Fair(R).


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Board Discusses CEO's Fate Amid Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Ling Kent, Tim Stelloh and Alex Johnson, writing for NBC News,
report that Uber's board of executives voted on June 11 to accept
all of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's recommendations
in his internal investigation of the company's months-long crisis
over allegations of sexual harassment -- but it didn't say what
they are.

After meeting for more than six hours, the board said it voted for
Mr. Holder's recommendations unanimously.

Citing unnamed sources, Reuters and The New York Times separately
reported that Chief Executive Travis Kalanick may also temporarily
leave the company as a result of the meeting on
June 11 and Mr. Holder's report.

Mr. Holder and Arianna Huffington, an Uber board member, declined
to comment as they emerged from the meeting.

The vote comes nearly four months after a former engineer, Susan
Fowler, published a blog post alleging that a superior
propositioned her on her first day.  When she provided
documentation of the incident, she wrote, the company's human
resources department defended the manager as a "high performer."

Other women at Uber made similar claims about the same manager,
Fowler wrote.

Mr. Kalanick called the allegations "abhorrent" -- and in a
separate probe, commissioned after Fowler's post, the Perkins Coie
law firm examined 215 claims of harassment, bullying and
inappropriate behavior.

As of June 6, 20 people had been fired.  One hundred cases yielded
no action, and 57 were still under review, the company said.  Two
employees were to be given additional training, and five more were
issued final warnings.

The allegations and investigations marked just one scandal among
many at the $70 billion company.

In December, the company's former head of information security
compliance alleged in a lawsuit that thousands of employees abused
Uber's security systems to secretly track everyone from ex-spouses
to celebrities.

In April and May, class action lawsuits filed in New York and
California alleged that Uber skimmed millions of dollars from
passengers.  The latter suit was filed one day after the company
admitted that it underpaid drivers in New York City by tens of
millions more.

And in February, in an exchange captured on camera, an Uber driver
giving Kalanick a ride complained about the company's pricing
model, to which Kalanick responded: "Some people don't like to
take responsibility for their own s***.  They blame everything in
their life on somebody else."

"I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up,"
Mr. Kalanick later said in an email to employees about the
exchange.  "This is the first time I've been willing to admit that
I need leadership help and I intend to get it." [GN]


UGI CORPORATION: Customer Appeal Pending in Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an indirect customer
appeal remains pending in the Eighth Circuit.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept
that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to
retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court").

In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by
direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive
relief brought by indirect customers.

The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") and, in
August 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the direct customer's claims against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct customers filed a petition
requesting an en banc review of the Eighth Circuit, which was
granted. The rehearing occurred in April 2017.

The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the
District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims
under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the
District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.

The indirect customers appealed this decision to the Eighth
Circuit; this appeal has been stayed pending the en banc review of
the direct purchasers' claims.

On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed
an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the
Western District of Missouri.  This new indirect customer class
action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain
indirect customer plaintiffs appealed this decision, consolidating
their appeal with the indirect customer appeal still pending in
the Eighth Circuit.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.

UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, through
subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and
markets energy products and related services.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ywaidree Machin-Quirantes and similarly situated individuals vs.
United Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-22220-JEM (S.D.
Fla., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. operates a health care services
business in Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary A. Costales, Esq.
      GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
      1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 375-9510
      Facsimile: (305) 375-9511


UNITED JEWISH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Chez" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epif Ania Hi Chez, Carmen Carrasco and Seferina Acosta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant Service
Corp., Case No. 653250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant Service
Corp. is a not-for-profit domestic corporation that provides
services to the aged and infirm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Taubenfel, Esq.
      FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801

         - and -

      Laura Misumi, Esq.
      Reena Arora, Esq.
      Carmela Huang, Esq.
      URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
      123 William Street, 161h Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (646) 602-5600
      Facsimile: (212) 533-4598


UNIVERSAL HAIR: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Pinos Buendia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Universal Hair Styling & Barber Shop LLC
d/b/a Universal Barber Shop, Luis Manuel Nunez, Carlos Moronta,
and Jose Guadalupe Nunez Bernabe, Case No. 155431/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., June 14, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over
40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a barber shop located at 2252
Second Avenue, New York, New York 10029. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


URBAN JUSTICE: Illegally Diverts Trust Funds, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Melcon General Contractors, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Urban Justice Center and Harvey
Epstein, Case No. 653263/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 14, 2017),
arises from the Defendants' diversion of trust funds received from
New York City Economic Development Corp. for purposes unrelated to
the Plaintiffs' construction and improvement work at the project
known as 1080 Leggett Avenue Fit-Out, located as l080 Leggett A
venue, Bronx, NY 10474, Block 2606, Lot 3.

Urban Justice Center is a New York not-for-profit legal and social
services corporation, having a place ofbusiness at 123 William
Street, l61h Floor, New York, New York, 10038. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven E. Spada, Esq.
      REDMOND LAW PLLC
      80 Broad Street, Suite 1202
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 799-8989
      E-mail: sspada@redmondpllc.com


VECTOR GROUP: Three Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
---------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of March 31, 2017,
three actions were pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where
Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. The case has been stayed for
a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years.

The last stay was entered on March 16, 2016 and stays the case,
including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually
and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class.
The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of
the defendants.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently
declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope
of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30
plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial.

The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to
Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs
brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome
of the first phase of the trial.

On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed
against Liggett. Liggett requested that the trial court certify
the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for
review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling order was
entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings
and discovery is underway. It is estimated that Liggett could be a
defendant in approximately 90 individual cases.


WELLS FARGO: Discovery Underway in Remanded Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is
proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded class cases
related to the Interchange Litigation.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A.
and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants, separately or in
combination, in putative class actions filed on behalf of a
plaintiff class of merchants and in individual actions brought by
individual merchants with regard to the interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.

These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Visa, MasterCard and several
banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants in these
actions. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims
against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and
state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive
relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and
payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange
rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services
offered to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and
entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements,
which provide that they, along with other entities, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class actions and reached a separate settlement in principle of
the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The
class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.

The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by settlement
objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement
and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated
action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class
counsel filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court,
seeking review of the reversal of the settlement by the Second
Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27,
2017.

On November 30, 2016, the District Court appointed lead class
counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. Several
of the opt-out litigations were settled during the pendency of the
Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending. Discovery is
proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded class
cases.


WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend the RMBS Trustee Litigation.

In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (the
"Institutional Investor Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging
claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of
residential mortgage-

backed securities ("RMBS") trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint").
Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in
various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in
New York state court and in other states, by RMBS investors. The
Federal Court Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
trustee, caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action
based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to
notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers
for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify
investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate
standards of care following alleged events of default. Plaintiffs
seek money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.

In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed
four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. in the Southern District of New York, and the various cases
pending against us are proceeding before the same judge.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court dismissed
claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (the "Dismissed
Trusts").  The Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Court
Complaint was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017.

A complaint raising similar allegations to the Federal Court
Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by a
different plaintiff investor. In addition, the Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint relating to the
Dismissed Trusts and certain additional trusts in California state
court (the "California Action"). The California Action was
subsequently dismissed in September 2016.

In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a
new putative class action complaint in New York state court in
respect of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for
which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Likely to Approve Phony Accounts Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Colvin, writing for Fortune, reports that when news of the
Wells Fargo fake-accounts scandal broke this past September, the
company's stock responded as it had for much of the year: It rose.

A U.S. congressman would soon label the bank "a criminal
enterprise," late-night television hosts would bash it
mercilessly, and plaintiffs would file lawsuits that the company
recently estimated could cost it billions of dollars.  Yet on that
Thursday in September -- as one of the stranger and more
outrageous banking scandals in memory was being revealed to the
world -- Wells Fargo's share price ticked merrily upward.

Investors merely yawned at the revelation that its employees had
created as many as 2.1 million phony deposit and credit card
accounts for unwitting customers -- a "widespread illegal
practice," in the words of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, that provoked that government regulator to slam the bank
with its largest-ever penalty, a $100 million fine; the bank also
paid $85 million to settle with the Los Angeles City Attorney and
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  Wall Street
analysts were as nonplussed as investors; none of the 30-plus
sages who cover the company -- No. 25 on this year's Fortune 500 -
- issued any urgent reassessments.  Even three weeks later, with
little break in the scalding headlines, John Stumpf, then Wells
Fargo's CEO, was calmly telling a House committee that the scandal
was "absolutely immaterial."

In a narrow sense, he was right.  The company would go on to earn
$5.3 billion in the quarter following the scandal and another $5.5
billion in the most recent period, ending in March keeping intact
a prodigious earnings streak that now runs to 18 consecutive
quarters of profit above $5 billion, a feat achieved only by one
other company in recent history: Apple.  Last year, Wells Fargo
was the fourth most profitable company overall, trailing only
Apple, JPMorgan Chase, and Berkshire Hathaway.

Bank deposits are up significantly, reaching an all-time high of
$1.3 trillion.  And the company's stock has blithely followed
suit, climbing 20% from its fleeting dip in October. So, yes, with
the exception of the exit of Stumpf himself (who abruptly retired
in October), an outsider would be hard-pressed to see any signs of
"material" fallout from ghost-account-gate.

As former COO Tim Sloan, who replaced his old boss as CEO, told
Fortune in May: "If we were to dial the time machine back to the
summer of last year and say, 'This is what's going to happen to
Wells Fargo over the next six months: Could Wells Fargo continue
to generate over $5 billion of earnings [per quarter]?' I think it
would be reasonable for people to say, 'Well, that's not gonna
happen.' But look what's happened."

Indeed.

And yet, as Mr. Sloan candidly attests, there was significant
fallout from the scandal.  Wells Fargo faces a lingering cost that
the quarterly numbers don't reveal.  "From a reputational
standpoint -- how our customers feel about us, our team members,
how other stakeholders feel about us -- there was clearly some
impact," says Mr. Sloan, a soft-spoken 57-year-old Michigander
who, before joining the C-suite, worked on the business banking
side of the company.  Data backs him up. Perennially ranked by its
corporate peers as one of the World's Most Admired Companies (it
was No. 25 on Fortune's 2016 roster of all-stars), Wells Fargo
didn't make the list at all this year.  Likewise, the bank's
ranking in Harris Poll's latest survey of corporate reputations
among the general public has plunged from 70th to 99th place among
the 100 "most visible" companies, above only Takata, whose
defective airbags have been implicate d in several deaths,
according to the U.S. government.  It's "the largest drop ever
measured" in the reputation poll's 18-year history, Harris says.
Some cities, moreover, have deemed Wells Fargo so toxic these days
that they have said they'll refrain from conducting new business
with the bank.

As this story was closing in early June, a federal judge in San
Francisco was reviewing -- and looked likely to approve -- Wells
Fargo's proposed $142 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit
brought by consumers over the phony accounts.  Additional cases,
including lawsuits brought by Wells Fargo employees, shareholders,
and others, remain unresolved and could prove expensive.  The
company's latest estimates of "reasonably possible" litigation
losses range as high as $2 billion. Compounding the risk, federal
and state prosecutors have been asking the company for information
and could still decide to bring criminal charges. All of this
continues to hang over the 165-year-old stagecoach company and
could further tarnish its once-wholesome reputation.

One measure of that concern--hollow though it may seem--was the
shareholder vote at the company's annual meeting in April, where
several directors barely managed reelection despite the bank's
enviable profit streak.  Chairman Steve Sanger received only 56%
of the vote.  "When you get just over half the vote and you're
running unopposed, something is wrong," says Charles Elson, a
Wells Fargo shareholder and director of the University of
Delaware's John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.  "The
board needs to be refreshed. Everybody who's been there more than
five or 10 years should go."

Mr. Sloan, to his credit, has taken on the challenge with gravity
and even some urgency.  "We're focused on remediating and fixing
everything that we've broken, and then also building a better
company over time," he tells Fortune, emphasizing that the first
task on that list is to rebuild trust with employees and
customers: "It's much more important for us to make sure we've got
the right team members in place, motivating that team, and
creating that culture than it is for us to focus first on our
investors," he says.  At least for now, Wells Fargo's biggest and
most famous shareholder, Warren Buffett, has declared his faith in
the company, with Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway apparently holding
on to most of its 500 million shares.

Key to fixing Wells Fargo is understanding how it got broken in
the first place.  "How could it be such a successful bank and get
into such deep trouble?" asks Harvard Business School professor
Bill George, a Goldman Sachs director, former Medtronic CEO, and
Wells Fargo customer and shareholder.  How could so many smart
people have been so wrong for so long?

It's a critically important question, and Fortune spent several
months trying to shed some light on the answer.  The ending for
this case study has yet to be written and may not be for some
time. But the story so far does offer some sobering takeaways.
One of those is a lesson for every company.  Harvard's Bill George
sums it up well: "No one can say this can't happen to us."
Every tale of corporate scandal begins with culture -- and Wells
Fargo's culture, at least in one prominent segment of the
company's business, made it the kind of place where frontline
employees could feel ungoverned and libertine enough to fabricate
millions of customer accounts.  It also created an environment
where such behavior could be concealed, minimized, and willfully
ignored by higher-ups.  But the story is hardly that simple. The
culture's worst features were also, in their more benign forms,
key to the bank's knockout success, transforming it from America's
No. 9 bank in the late 1990s, operating mostly in California, to
the country's most valuable bank for a time--and even, in 2015, the
most valuable bank on earth, ahead of Industrial and Commercial
Bank of China.  Today it's No. 2 globally, behind only JPMorgan
Chase.

That dichotomy wasn't everywhere at Wells Fargo -- but it was
central to the ethos at the company's retail banking unit, known
internally as the Community Bank, which is the company's biggest,
most profitable segment as well as its public face.

Leaders there didn't think of themselves as bankers providing
services but rather as retailers selling products, and they
"regularly likened the retail bank to nonbank retailers," says the
investigation report of a special committee set up by Wells
Fargo's board in the wake of the scandal.  For example, the bank's
branches weren't called "branches"; they were "stores." When
employee turnover reached 41% in one 12-month period -- worryingly
high for a bank -- managers reasoned that the number was normal
for a retailer and thus no cause for concern.  But high turnover
meant many employees were extremely inexperienced
-- which became a compounding problem when it came to hawking
additional banking services to customers.

"Cross-selling," it's called, and virtually all banks want to do
more of it.  Once a customer opens a checking or savings account,
maybe he or she would also like an auto loan or overdraft
protection or a credit card. The more products a customer has with
a bank, the more money the bank makes and the less likely the
customer is to leave.  That's why all banks cross-sell.  But
arguably no bank has ever done it with the fevered intensity of
Wells Fargo.

The obsession with cross-selling dates back to Wells Fargo's 1998
acquisition by Minneapolis-based Norwest, whose CEO, Richard
Kovacevich, adopted the more prestigious Wells Fargo name for the
merged business.  He urged employees to "Go for Gr-eight,"
achieving an average of eight banking products per customer.  This
seemed an insanely ambitious goal; at most banks the average was
two or three.  But Mr. Kovacevich stuck with it.  So did
Mr. Stumpf, a Norwest banker who ran the retail bank before
succeeding Mr.  Kovacevich as CEO.  And so did Carrie Tolstedt,
another Norwest banker whom Mr. Stumpf considered "the best banker
in America."  She ran the retail bank from 2007 until the company
announced her retirement at age 56, six weeks before the scandal
became public.  "Go for Gr-eight" remained the retail bank's
stated goal until last year. One result of this hard-charging
sales culture was that Wells Fargo became the envy of the
industry, achieving towering dominance in products per customer:
an unheard-of 6.1, vs. an industry average of 2.7. Bankers
everywhere wondered how they did it.

Every managerial program has a life span.  Employees eventually
figure out how to game the program, or the environment changes and
it no longer serves a useful purpose, or it accomplishes all it
can accomplish. All those things happened with "Go for Gr-eight."
But senior leaders seemed oblivious to these limits, and as the
program intensified over many years, they did little to rein it
in.  Whenever a note of caution rang, the company's Kafkaesque
bureaucracy stifled effective action.

An early warning appeared in the spring of 2002, when practically
all the employees of a Colorado branch jointly gamed the program
in an effort to meet sales goals, including by issuing debit cards
that customers didn't ask for.  The board report explains that
firing everyone as required by federal law would have left the
branch virtually empty, so Wells Fargo arranged a regulatory
exception that allowed some lower-level workers to stay.  Everyone
else in the branch retired or was terminated.

Such behavior -- opening accounts or issuing products that
customers didn't ask for -- was and is against the rules at Wells
Fargo, and when the bank found employees doing so, as it
increasingly did after 2002, it would fire them.  Senior leaders
believed they were thus addressing the problem.  But unethical
employees weren't the cause of the dysfunction; they were mostly
an effect of it. The problem was targets that couldn't possibly be
met and a high-pressure sales culture that made the typical car
dealership seem like a meditation retreat.

Many sales organizations report results every month or week. Wells
Fargo branch managers in some regions had to report sales data
every hour in calls with district managers.  Branch managers
therefore leaned heavily on their staff to sell.  Even tellers
were supposed to sell products, in some cases at least 100 per
quarter.  Individual employees were constantly and publicly ranked
against one another, as were branches, districts, and regions.  At
every level, from tellers up through district managers and their
bosses, those who beat sales targets were celebrated, and those
who didn't were publicly humiliated, sometimes demoted, and
occasionally fired.

Training in "questionable sales practices was required or you were
to be fired," a former employee tells Fortune.  "We were
constantly told we would end up working for McDonald's" for not
meeting quotas, a former branch manager told the Los Angeles Times
in 2013; another former branch manager said employees "talked a
homeless woman into opening six checking and savings accounts with
fees totaling $39 a month."  That newspaper article sparked an
investigation by the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney,
leading eventually to the actions brought by that office and the
others that were settled last September.

"Managers constantly hound, berate, demean, and threaten employees
to meet these unreachable quotas," the Los Angeles suit alleged.
"Managers often tell employees to do whatever it takes to reach
their quotas.  Employees who do not reach their quotas are often
required to work hours beyond their typical work schedule without
being compensated for that extra work time, and/or are threatened
with termination."

The message was clear to everyone in the retail bank: "The route
to success was selling more than your peers," the board's
investigation found -- not profitability or customer satisfaction,
but simply selling more products to each customer.  Everyone knew
the goals were sheer fantasy for many branches and employees.  At
some branches not enough customers walked in the door, or area
residents were too poor to need more than a few banking products.
Bank leaders called overall quotas "50/50 plans" because they
figured only half the regions could meet them. Yet no excuses were
tolerated. You met the quotas or paid a price.

The predictable result: fake accounts.  Employees began issuing
unrequested credit cards to existing customers or opening
additional deposit accounts with fake email addresses (such as
"noname@wellsfargo.com") so the customer would never know.  A
slightly safer tactic was to open ghost accounts for friends and
family.  The board's investigation found a branch manager who had
a teenage daughter with 24 accounts, an adult daughter with 18
accounts, a husband with 21 accounts, a brother with 14 accounts,
and a father with four accounts.

That was more than bad enough, but an even worse cultural problem
was what happened higher up: nothing.  Or at least nothing
effective.  As signs of trouble mounted alarmingly for years, top
leaders consistently underreacted.  The reasons were several, none
of them unique to Wells Fargo or to banking.

Ever since the Norwest takeover, the company had maintained a
strong tradition of deference to the leaders of each business
unit, who were urged to "run it like you own it."  Mr. Kovacevich
called himself a "CEO of CEOs."  The theory was that everything,
including risk management, worked better when decisions were made
closer to the customer.  Ms. Tolstedt, the retail banking head,
was therefore expected to take full charge of any problems in her
business, and the guiding standard of deference meant she was not
pushed hard on the phony-accounts problem until late in the game.

That culture proved particularly troublesome with Ms. Tolstedt at
the helm because she was "insular and defensive and did not like
to be challenged or hear negative information," the board's
investigation concluded.  "Even senior leaders within the
Community Bank were frequently afraid of or discouraged from
airing contrary views." (Ms. Tolstedt has not spoken publicly
since leaving the bank, and she did not respond to an interview
request from Fortune conveyed through her lawyer.  When the board
issued its findings, her lawyer said, "We strongly disagree with
the report and its attempt to lay blame with Ms. Tolstedt.  A full
and fair examination of the facts will produce a different
conclusion.")
RELATED

Compounding the problem was a dysfunctional second line of
defense: a corporate bureaucracy so sprawling that all its
elements could plausibly evade full responsibility for the
scandal.  For example, the corporate chief risk officer had no
authority over the retail bank's risk officer, who reported only
to Ms. Tolstedt.  The HR department regarded employee bad behavior
as an issue of training, incentive compensation, and performance
management.  The internal investigations and audit department
looked for problems but didn't propose solutions; ditto the sales
and service conduct oversight team. The law department's
employment section focused mainly on litigation risks from firing
employees.

These are only a minor fraction of the individuals, offices,
committees, boards, departments, groups, task forces, and teams
that examined sales problems in the retail bank. Each concerned
itself with its assigned slice of the issue; no one looked for the
root cause or envisioned big-picture consequences.

"Bureaucracies love to lie to themselves," says University of
Michigan leadership authority Noel Tichy.  "The hardest thing is
to get a bureaucracy to be honest."

At the top of this bureaucracy was Mr. Stumpf, whose tepid
response to information that should have triggered loud alarms is
one of the most striking features of the scandal.

Internally reported cases of sales gaming rose from 63 in 2000 to
about 680 in 2004.  In the second quarter of 2007, company bosses
received 288 allegations of employee sales misconduct; that figure
soared to 1,469 in the fourth quarter of 2013.  Yet when Mr.
Stumpf was told that the retail bank was firing 1% of its
employees every year for sales integrity violations, he saw it as
excellent news because it showed that 99% were following the
rules.  He reiterated the point in an email to  Mr. Sloan: "Do you
know only around 1% of our people lose their jobs [for] gaming the
system, and about 2/3 of those are for gaming the monitoring of
the system, i.e. changing phone numbers, etc.  Nothing could be
further from the truth on forcing products on customers.  In any
case, right will win and we are right.  Did some do things wrong -
- you bet and that is called life.  This is not systemic." (Mr.
Stumpf, through his lawyer, declined a request for an interview.)

Just as Mr. Stumpf and nearly everyone else focused too narrowly
when looking inward ("This is not systemic"), they also focused
too narrowly when looking outward. They figured, correctly but
narrowly, that direct financial harm to customers from sales
gaming in the form of unwarranted fees and penalties was
insignificant in Wells Fargo's overall results.  But no one seems
to have envisioned the reputational threat -- specifically, to
have imagined how news media and social media would react to the
words "2 million fake accounts."

Which brings us to Sept. 8, 2016, when Wells Fargo announced it
would pay $185 million to the City of Los Angeles, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency. The public response quickly made clear how badly the
bank's leaders had underestimated that announcement's effect--even
if shareholders were still mostly unalarmed.

As Senate and House committees sum moned Mr. Stumpf to testify,
executives and directors switched into crisis mode.  "Tim [Sloan]
really stepped up and grabbed the company by the collar even
before John's fate was determined," notes David Carroll, who runs
the company's wealth and investment management business. Within
five days the company announced that all sales goals at the retail
bank would be eliminated. By September's end, the board had clawed
back $19 million worth of stock awards to Ms.  Tolstedt, denied
her severance pay or a 2016 bonus, and determined that she should
be fired for cause.  It also rescinded -- reportedly at the CEO's
own request -- $41 million of unvested stock for Mr. Stumpf, who
stepped down from his roles as chairman and chief executive on
Oct. 12.

With the board's explicit support, Mr. Sloan has since made broad
organizational changes that are the infrastructure for culture
change. Even before the scandal became public (but while the
settlements were being negotiated), he had orchestrated Ms.
Tolstedt's retirement and her replacement by Mary Mack, who was
running the brokerage business and who had come to Wells Fargo in
its 2008 takeover of Wachovia.  On Jan. 1 he instituted a new
incentive compensation plan in the retail bank that pays employees
on the basis of customer satisfaction and achievement of team
goals, among other measures, but not product sales goals. The
branches aren't "stores" anymore; they're branches.  No one in the
company gets evaluated on products per customer, and after almost
20 years, the company no longer reports that number to investors.

Repairing a critical structural error, Mr. Sloan has fully
centralized the risk and HR functions, so the leaders of those
departments in the business units now report to their corporate
chiefs without even a dotted line to the business unit head.  He
consolidated much of the vast risk-control bureaucracy into a new
office of ethics, oversight, and integrity, accountable to the
board's risk committee.  In February the board fired four more
retail bank executives for cause, and in April it clawed back an
additional $47 million of Mr. Tolstedt's pay and an additional $28
million of Mr.  Stumpf's.

All of that needed doing before Mr. Sloan could finally start the
culture-change project in earnest.  He knows that culture doesn't
come from policy; it comes from leaders' day-to-day behavior, and
it cascades.  What will he ask of his direct reports? Who will get
promoted? How will frontline workers be evaluated, promoted, paid?
Crucially important: What will happen when an employee calls the
ethics hotline?

"With 269,000 employees, it's inevitable that there are some who
will lie, cheat, and steal," says the University of Michigan's
Tichy.  The question is what the leaders will do to discourage it,
discover it, and deal with it."  Every employee will be watching
for the answers.

In trying to change its culture, Wells Fargo holds an advantage
over most big, old, successful companies. As an amalgam of many
banks, it doesn't have a deeply rooted, oak-strong culture like,
say, General Motors had when CEO Mary Barra launched her culture-
change effort after the 2014 ignition-switch scandal.  With
Norwesters Stumpf and Tolstedt gone, and the main elements of the
Norwest model-extreme decentralization and "Go for Gr-eight"--
purged, Mr. Sloan faces an opportunity to create something new: a
strong, companywide, uniquely Wells Fargo culture.

It can't happen quickly.  "It takes years to behave your way out
of a problem like this, to become the company you dream of
becoming," says Douglas Conant, who transformed Campbell Soup's
culture and rescued the company in the early 2000s.  Wells Fargo
today doesn't need rescuing, just fixing -- and it needs someone
to instill the right culture.  If Sloan remains CEO until he's 65,
and remembers that culture is what he's creating with his every
act every day for the next eight years, he could do it. A version
of this article appears in the June 15, 2017 issue of Fortune with
the headline "Can Wells Fargo Get Well?". [GN]


WESTERN DIGITAL: Suit by Union Asset and KBC Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the consolidated class action lawsuit
led by Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management
NV as lead plaintiffs.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities
between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege
violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages
and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend.

In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as
new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,
Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders
Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in April 2016.

In June 2016, the District Court granted the motion and dismissed
the amended complaint with leave to amend.

In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further
amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in
August 2016.

In January 2017, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss
without prejudice to the defendants filing a renewed motion to
dismiss, which the defendants filed soon thereafter.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and
the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and
royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Ritz Camera Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal related
to the class action lawsuit by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz")
remains pending.

In June 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that SanDisk violated federal antitrust laws
by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash
memory products. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of direct
purchasers of flash memory products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-
controlled joint ventures from June 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleged that SanDisk created and maintained a monopoly
by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain
competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its
competitive use. The complaint sought damages, injunctive relief,
and fees and costs.

In February 2011, the District Court granted in part SanDisk's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in as named plaintiff Albert Giuliano,
the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, and the
Trustee's motions to add as named plaintiffs CPM Electronics Inc.,
E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc.

In May 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. In April 2016, the District Court granted
SanDisk's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is currently
pending.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and
the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and
royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed in SD Cards Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery has been
stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the class
action lawsuit buy indirect purchasers of SD cards.

In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of SD cards.

The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws and
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as
common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs
associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly
caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.

The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.

In May 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.

In May 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in the District Court. In September 2015, the District Court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

In November 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' federal law claims.

In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' remaining claims.

Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the
pleading stage. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer, and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and
the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The Company also generates license and
royalty revenue related to its intellectual property.


WESTERN REFINING: Says NTI Merger Litigation in Earliest Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the NTI Merger
Litigation is in the earliest stages of litigation.

On August 24, 2016, an alleged Northern Tier Energy LP ("NTI")
unitholder ("Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit
against Western, NTI, NTI GP, members of the NTI GP board of
directors at the time of the NTI Merger, Evercore Group, L.L.C.
("Evercore"), and MergerCo (collectively, "Defendants") (the "NTI
Merger Litigation"). The NTI Merger Litigation appears to
challenge the adequacy of disclosures made in connection with the
NTI Merger. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

Western believes the NTI Merger Litigation is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it.

Western Refining, Inc. produces refined products at its refineries
in El Paso, Texas, near Gallup, New Mexico and St. Paul Park,
Minnesota.


WESTERN REFINING: Tesoro Merger Litigation Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Tesoro Merger
Litigation has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Tesoro Merger Agreement") with
Tesoro Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Tesoro"), Tahoe
Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 1"), and Tahoe Merger Sub 2,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 2"), pursuant to which Merger
Sub 1 will merge with and into the Company (the "First Tesoro
Merger," and, if a second merger election as discussed below is
not made, the "Tesoro Merger"), with the Company surviving the
First Tesoro Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro.
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Tesoro Merger
Agreement, upon consummation of the First Tesoro Merger, each
share of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the First
Tesoro Merger (excluding our common stock owned by the Company or
Tesoro or any of their respective direct or indirect wholly-owned
subsidiaries that are not held on behalf of third parties) will be
converted into and become exchangeable for, at the election of the
holder of each share of our common stock, either (a) $37.30 in
cash or (b) 0.4350 shares of Tesoro common stock, par value
$0.16 2/3 per share, in each case without interest and subject to
proration."

As of February 8, 2017, Western was named as defendants in five
substantially similar purported stockholder class actions by
Western stockholders (the "Tesoro Merger Litigation"). The suits
challenge the adequacy of the disclosures made in connection with
the Tesoro Merger. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the merger until additional information relating to the
transaction is disclosed. The Tesoro Merger Litigation was
dismissed with prejudice on March 20, 2017.

Western Refining, Inc. produces refined products at its refineries
in El Paso, Texas, near Gallup, New Mexico and St. Paul Park,
Minnesota.


ZYNGA INC: Settlement in "Lee" Won Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------
Zynga, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the
case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., has been approved on a final basis,
and the case has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. The
complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint further stated that "Zynga is named as a defendant
herein solely because it is a party to agreements underlying and
relating to the Secondary Offering."  The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who
were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted
to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering. On January 17,
2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and
a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were
pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to
dismiss brought by the Company and the directors and granted the
motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named
as defendants.

"On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  On August 19, 2015,
the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual
director defendants from the case.

"Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13,
2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing
on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015,
the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On
July 27, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order setting a
trial date of October 9, 2017.

"Before the trial date, a mediation session was conducted on
September 20, 2016 where the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle Lee v. Pincus, et al. as to all defendants for
$10.0 million. The parties filed a stipulation of settlement with
the court on December 15, 2016. On March 27, 2017, the Court
approved the settlement and entered final judgment dismissing the
action. The settlement was funded entirely by insurance and
resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the defendants.
Accordingly, and also because no claim for damages was asserted
against the Company and the Company is not considered the obligor
in the matter, and there was no impact to the Company's financial
statements."


* Belgium Declares New Provisions on Class Action Procedure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Loyens & Loeff wrote that on 18 May 2017, the Belgian Federal
Parliament adopted a new Act on actions for damages for
competition law infringements (the "Competition Law Damages Act").
The Competition Law Damages Act transposes Directive 2014/104/EU
(the "EU Damages Directive") into Belgian law, which aims to make
it easier for victims of competition law infringements to claim
damages for the harm they suffered.  The Competition Law Damages
Act was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on June 12,
2017, and will enter into force on 22 June 2017.

Competition law enforcement has two main prongs: public and
private enforcement. The public enforcement is observed by the
European Commission and the National Competition Authorities, such
as the Belgian Competition Authority ("BCA"), which investigate
alleged competition law infringements, on their own initiative,
following a complaint, or following a leniency application or
whistle-blower declaration.  The competition authorities may
impose heavy administrative fines on violators. The Competition
Law Damages Act on the other hand, deals with private enforcement.
This is the right of victims of competition law infringements to
claim for damages against violators for the harm they allegedly
suffered.  In the United States victims are very active in private
enforcement.  In Belgium and in most other EU member states there
have been relatively few actions for damages from competition law
infringements up to date.  The European Commission ascribes this
inter alia to the fact that private parties have difficult access
to proof obtained by competition authorities, to the legal
uncertainty resulting from fragmented national rules and to the
difficulties concerning quantification and attribution of damages,
which often requires an in-depth economic analysis.

The EU Damages Directive seeks to remedy those issues and enable
victims of competition law infringements in their efforts to seek
damages.  The Competition Law Damages Act transposes the directive
into Belgian law by introducing, inter alia, the following rules:

   -- it stresses the right of a victim to full compensation of
the harm done.  While this is not a departure from general Belgian
civil law, the explicit mention of this principle stresses the
importance of victim indemnification;

   -- it facilitates private parties' burden of proof by
introducing several presumptions, including:

      * a finding by the BCA or the Brussels Court of Appeal of a
competition law infringement irrefutably proves the existence of
the infringement (a similar presumption already exists with
respect to decisions of the European Commission).

      * the Competition Law Damages Act also introduces the
refutable presumption that a cartel caused harm.

   -- it introduces rules concerning private parties' access to
proof. In particular, the Competition Law Damages Act introduces
the possibility for private parties to gain limited access to the
BCA's dossier, under certain conditions and exceptions (it is e.g.
not possible to gain access to leniency or settlement
applications).

   -- undertakings who together have committed a competition law
infringement are jointly and severally liable.  Exceptions to this
principle apply e.g. to small and medium-sized enterprises.

   -- the Act contains provisions on the so-called "passing on" of
overcharges (i.e. the difference between the price actually paid
and the price which would have been paid without infringement).
Passing on means that the direct customer of a cartel member has
passed on the overcharges to its customer (the indirect customer).
In that respect, the Act provides the following:

     * in a claim between a direct customer and a cartel member,
the latter may rely on passing on in defence to a claim for
damages.

     * in a claim between an indirect customer and a cartel
member, passing on is presumed to have occurred if (i) the
defendant has committed a competition law infringement, (ii) the
infringement has led to overcharges for the direct customer and
(iii) the direct customer provided goods or services covered by
the infringement to the indirect customer.  The presumption does
not, however, apply if the cartel member makes a reasonable case
that the surcharges were not passed on to the indirect customer.

   -- it provides for a favourable regime regarding amicable
settlements between competition law infringers and victims.  In
this respect, the Competition Law Damages Act allows the BCA e.g.
to take into account the fact that an undertaking has indemnified
victims when calculating fines under a public enforcement
procedure.

   -- it declares the new provisions applicable to the Belgian
class action procedure for consumers, the so-called "action for
collective recovery".  In practice, this will mean that consumers
who are the victim of a competition law infringement may pool
their claims and jointly file for damages.

Three things one should take away from this new Act:

   1. The new Act is victim-friendly and will likely lead to more
claims for damages against undertakings who have been found guilty
of competition law infringements by the European Commission or a
National Competition Authority;

   2. The provisions also apply to the Belgian class action
procedure, allowing consumers to pool their claims and jointly
file for damages.

   3. Leniency or settlement applications remain confidential and
victims are not allowed access to those documents.  It is
therefore likely that leniency or settlement applications will
remain an option companies must take into account.

The Competition Law Damages Act was published in the Belgian
Official Gazette on 12 June 2017 and will enter into force on 22
June 2017. [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  * * *