CAR_Public/170718.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, July 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 140



                            Headlines

99 CENTS: "Bradford" Class Action Underway in California
ABM SECURITY: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
ALL WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Robocalls
ALLERGAN PLC: Claims in Asacol Direct Purchasers' Suit Narrowed
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Bid in Botox Suit Remains Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment Motions in Namenda Suit Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Certification Bid in Mass. Lexapro Case Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Certification Bid in Wash. Lexapro Case Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Class Action in Early Stages

ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Says Plaintiffs to Dismiss Zeltiq Shareholder Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Advertising Litigation Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: To Settle Sales Representatives' Lawsuit
ASHFORD INC: Says Lawsuit over Remington Acquisition Moot

ATHENE HOLDING: District Court Dismissed "Hudson" Lawsuit
ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit over Aviva Annuities Ongoing
AUSTRALIA: Tenterfield Council Urged to Back Zoning Correction
AW MOBILE: "Terrero" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
B COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

BANKRATE INC: J&W Launches Investigation Into Proposed Sale
BASF SE: Arkansas' Governor Bans Dicamba Sale
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Suit
BUCKEYE FAMILY: Faces "Suttles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BURTON OIL: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

CALIFORNIA: PACC Putting Together Class Actions Against CPS
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing
CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: AAFC Appeal Awaits Judgment
CLEAN ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sandoval" Suit Claims
COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Accused of Withholding Witness Statement
DEALDASH: Uses Widespread Deceptive Marketing, Suit Says
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Defending Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
DNB ASA: Faces Norwegian Consumer Council Class Action

DOCLER MEDIA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Kass" Suit Says
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: First FORTESTA MDL Trial in Sept. 2018
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Trial to Begin Late 2017
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Court Trims Opana Indirect Buyers' Claims
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Friedman Suit Pending

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Remove Public Employees' Case Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending Against "Makris" Suit
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Securities Class Suits in New York Ongoing
FYRE MEDIA: Festival Founder May Face Jail Time Amid Class Action
GUAM: Lack of H-2B Approvals Prompt Class Action

GUVERA: Class Action Mulled Over $2-Mil. Share Buyback
HOME LOAN: November 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HONEST CO: To Set Up $7.35 Million Settlement Fund
HORTONWORKS INC: "Monachelli" Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
HORTONWORKS INC: September 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

IOWA: DHS Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Program
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 400 Women Registered for Mesh Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Take on Law Limits
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Appeals Ruling in "Waters" Suit to 9th Cir.
LG CHEM: November 29 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

LG ELECTRONICS: One Class Action Suit Compelled Into Arbitration
LINN COUNTY, OR: Plaintiffs' Attorney Mulls Timber Suit Appeal
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Settles Customers' Billing Class Action
MDL 2262: FTC Futures Appeals Order in Metzler v. Credit Suisse
MDL 2724: Endo Defending Against Generics Pricing Antitrust Case

NEIMAN MARCUS: "Tanguilig" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
NEIMAN MARCUS: July 2018 Trial Date Set for "Rubenstein" Lawsuit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Attia" Class Suit Still Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Ohle" Suit Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay
NEIMAN MARCUS: Awaits Initial Court OK on Cyber-Attack Suit Pact

NEW ENGLAND: Michigan Tainted Injections Victims Can File Claims
NEW JERSEY, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wolf" Class Suit
NEW YORK: Teachers' Retirement System Sued for Extra Pension
NIGERIA: Police Faces Class Action for Threatening Musician
ONEOK PARTNERS: Settled 2 Putative Class Action Lawsuits in June

PARTY ANIMAL: Sued Over Upscale "Cocolicious" Dog Food
PATHEON NV: Suit over Oral Contraceptive Ongoing in Pennsylvania
RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Gives Final OK to $150 Million Settlement
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sneed" Sues Over British American Merger
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Government Probe Amid Class Action

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sept. 2018 Trial Date in Securities Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Awaiting Oral Argument Date
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Briefing in July Thru Sept.
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: 11th Circuit Petition Pending
STRAIGHT PATH: $9.45M Zacharia Deal Awaits Definitive Accord

TAILORED BRANDS: Still Faces "Makhlouf" Class Action Lawsuit
TAILORED BRANDS: "Oliver" Suit over TCPA Claims Still Ongoing
THOMAS GIRARDI: Carson Residents Sue for Hoarding Fund
TRANS WORLD: Bid to Transfer "Spack" Suit to N.D.N.Y. Opposed
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY: Age Discrimination Class Action Advances

TRAVELERS: Wants Connecticut Homeowners' Class Action Tossed
TURTLE BEACH: Appeal in Nevada Supreme Court Still Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Drivers Sue Over Employee Status
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gets Red Light in Bid to Settle Wage Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NLRB Urges Court to Revive Contract Worker Suit

UNITED STATES: Cayugas Awarded Proceeds in Federal Suit
VECTRUS INC: Still Defends Employee Class Suit in W.D. Wash.
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Israel
VIVINT SOLAR: Oral Arguments Heard in Appellate Case
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in Kern County Case Remains Pending

VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration of New Plaintiff Claims Sought
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Simoni" Suit Over Unsolicited Robo-Calls
WAYFAIR INC: Still Faces "Zouzout" Class Suit
WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Apollo Merger Plan

WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Wyant" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin June 2018 in "Doppelt" Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Says "Leung" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage

XPO LOGISTICS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Pina" Deal
ZAFGEN INC: Class Action Dismissal Affirmed

* Diesel Scandals to Impact Future of Big Automakers
* NSW Health Investigates Pelvic Mesh Company Rep Amid Suits







                            *********


99 CENTS: "Bradford" Class Action Underway in California
--------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 9, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 28, 2017 that it has not yet been
served with the complaint of Venzel Bradford against the company
and certain staffing agencies.

Former warehouse worker Venzel Bradford filed a putative class
action complaint against BaronHR, Inc., Solvis Staffing Services,
Inc., Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, and the Company on April 26,
2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles.  On behalf of himself and all others alleged to be
similarly situated, Bradford is asserting claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
waiting time penalties, failure to provide proper wage statements,
and unfair competition.

The Company said, "Bradford was not employed by the Company; he
was employed by one or more of the staffing agencies named as
defendants.  The Company has not yet been served with the
complaint and intends to seek indemnity from the employing
agency(ies).  The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could result
from such lawsuit."

99 Cents Only Stores LLC operates retail stores in the United
States.  Its stores offer consumable products and other household
items, and seasonal items, as well as domestic and imported fresh
produce, deli, dairy, and frozen and refrigerated food products.
The Company was founded in 1965 and is based in City of Commerce,
California.  99 Cents Only Stores LLC is a subsidiary of Number
Holdings, Inc.


ABM SECURITY: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
California employers got a big heads up in December 2016 when the
highest court in the State came down on the side of workers who
either expect to be paid or left in peace during their breaks.

Los Angeles employment lawyer, Nicholas De Blouw, from Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik says that Augustus v ABM Security Services
decision by the California Supreme Court now looms large when
there are issues concerning meal breaks and rest periods for
workers in the state of California.

"It was a hugely important case," says Mr. De Blouw.  "It was a
case dealing with security guards at ABM Security.  The court said
the security guards that had a pager were on call."

"The decision means there is no such thing as an 'on call rest
period'.  If you have a pager, or if you have to potentially work
during your rest period then that's is when the company is
obligated to pay you under the labor code."

Specifically the California Supreme Court said that during rest
breaks "employers must relieve their employees of all duties and
relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time."

"After that decision the obligation to respect rest periods is
even more so than it was in the past," says Mr. De Blouw.
"Employers have to allow their employees to have off duty rest
periods or they need to be paid."

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik specializes in helping employees
fight back against unfair business practice including violations
of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. De Blouw does not comment on pending litigation.

However, his firm has currently lodged a class action lawsuit
against Service King Paint & Body for alleged similar violations
on behalf of all non-exempt employees.  The complaint charges
Service King employees were not provided "timely thirty minute
uninterrupted mean breaks" nor were they given "compliant off duty
rest breaks".

Workers were also, according to the complaint, required to pay for
their own company logo uniforms.

The complaint is limited to California workers and the proposed
class is all non-exempt employees that worked for Service King
Paint and Body LLC in California.

As an employment lawyer Mr. De Blouw has represented hundreds of
workers in similar types of litigation where meal breaks and rest
periods are at issue.  He sees a common theme.

"A lot of the cases it is the employer trying to save labor costs
and squeeze the employee.  They under staff their labor and that's
when you run into employee rest break problems," says
Mr. De Blouw.

Service King is headquartered in Richardson, Texas.  It was
established in 1977 and has 324 locations in 24 states.

The company did not reply to a request for comment from LAS. [GN]


ALL WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Kacie Whaley, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has cancelled a Delaware insurance marketer's
attempt to dismiss a class-action complaint based on unwanted
phone calls, saying, while federal law may allow robocalls
relaying messages related to health care, that protection doesn't
extend to selling health insurance products.

In June, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber dismissed the
motion to dismiss from defendant All Web Leads Inc.  The court
found that not only did All Web fail to prove that the company was
legally allowed to make autodialed calls to the plaintiff, but
they were unable to prove that other victims of the class went
through a different sign-up procedure than he did.

The motion stemmed from a complaint filed by plaintiff
William Sullivan.  According to his complaint, on Jan. 13,
Mr. Sullivan was searching for an insurance plan that would comply
with the Affordable Care Act.  He encountered a website run by All
Web, a company that serves insurance agents and transfers all of
its calls to those agents.  He proceeded to fill out his
information on a quote form and submit it to the site.  Not long
afterward, he received a phone call from an insurance agent who
was attempting to persuade Sullivan to "enroll in a limited
benefit non-major medical plan, and suggested that it was a better
option than an 'Obamacare-compliant' plan."
Mr. Sullivan said he continued to receive unwanted autodialed
calls.

Mr. Sullivan filed his complaint against All Web on behalf of
himself and other victims of the company's autodialed calls. His
argument was based on the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), which states that it is unlawful to make a call "using
any automatic telephone dialing system or . . . artificial or
prerecorded voice" to a cell phone. He stated he was "tricked"
into consenting to the calls because the terms and conditions on
the All Web website were too small to read. Sullivan is seeking
injunctive relief and money damages.

All Web filed a motion arguing Sullivan cannot represent punitive
class members without knowing whether the company "gave proper
notice to users" who filled out the quote form, and that those
individuals' issues therefore "cannot be resolved without a series
of mini-trials."  The company also argued that its calls contain a
health care message, meaning they should fall under an exception
in the TCPA allowing them to make autodialed calls.

The district court dismissed All Web's motion after declaring
Mr. Sullivan is seeking to represent individuals who, in fact,
"engaged in the same consent procedure" as he did.

Secondly, the court found the phone messages All Web conveys are
not "inarguably health-related," as the company claims.  According
to the court, the messages do not follow what the Federal
Communications Commission considers to be health-related, but
instead promotes "a product simply because it may be construed to
benefit a consumer's health."

The case is WILLIAM SULLIVAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 1307 (N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 1,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/Zz4PUK from Leagle.com.

Mr. Sullivan is represented in the action by Kozonis Law, of
Chicago.

All Web is defended by the firm of Latimer LeVay Fyock, of
Chicago. [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Claims in Asacol Direct Purchasers' Suit Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has issued
an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion
to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint in the
Asacol(R) Litigation.

Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and three
more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in Massachusetts on
behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each
complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for
Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a
result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying
generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older
Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. Defendants moved to dismiss
the indirect purchasers' complaint.

A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016.  On
July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in
part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based
on purported reverse payments and dismissing several of indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws.

On August 15, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  The Company filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.  Complaints were also
filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26, 2016, and on
June 29, 2016, in each case making similar allegations to the
complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.  Those
matters have been consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases
in the federal court in Massachusetts.

On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' consolidated complaint and oral argument on the
motion was held on December 16, 2016.  On February 10, 2017, the
court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Company's motion to dismiss.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Bid in Botox Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class
certification motion in the Botox(R) Litigation remains pending.

A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California
on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful
market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly
market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's
Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof.
Code, and violations of California's unfair competition law,
Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. In the
complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages.

On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Oral
argument on the class certification motion was heard on January
13, 2017.

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

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a motion to dismiss
the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation remains pending.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain
affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit
settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to
Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and Lupin improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner
Chilcott in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been
filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same
putative class of end-payors.

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors and by direct purchasers in
their individual capacities.  After a hearing on September 26,
2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related
Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of
Rhode Island.

On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral
argument was held on December 7, 2015.

On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.  On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class
plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct
purchaser plaintiffs.  Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was
held on January 13, 2017.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment Motions in Namenda Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs'
summary judgment motions and a cross motion for summary judgment
in the Namenda(R) Litigation remains pending.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR. On December 11, 2014, the district court
issued a ruling granting the state's preliminary injunction motion
and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014 which the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed on May 22, 2015. Forest
and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement on November
24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed
on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers.
The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the pending complaints. On September 13, 2016, the
court issued a decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

On September 27, 2016 the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On February 16, 2017 and February 23, 2017, plaintiffs
filed motions for summary judgment two of the counts of their
complaint.  On March 16, 2017, the Company filed oppositions to
the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions and a cross motion for
summary judgment on one count.  The motions were argued before the
court on May 5, 2017.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Certification Bid in Mass. Lexapro Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding, the plaintiff's second motion
for class certification remains pending.

Forest and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants
in multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the federal district
court in Massachusetts.

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota which sought to certify a nationwide class of third-
party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and
paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 12, 2014, and
the court thereafter issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims
under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion. A motion for class certification
was filed in February, 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition requesting leave to
appeal the denial of class certification which the First Circuit
denied on December 7, 2016.

On January 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
on the Company's statute of limitation affirmative defense and the
Company filed a cross motion for summary judgment on all claims on
February 23, 2017.  In addition, plaintiff in this action filed a
second motion for class certification on February 28, 2017.

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

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Certification Bid in Wash. Lexapro Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the class action in the federal district
court in Washington remains pending.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, alleging
that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid
illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 19, 2014. On
June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss,
granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs thereafter
filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest's motion.  On March 3,
2017, plaintiffs in this action filed a motion for class
certification.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Class Action in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is in the
early stages in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection
laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain
testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT
Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product. This
matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL,
notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.

Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on
February 3, 2016.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims against
the Company for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with
particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to
replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory
claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The
Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and its claims for negligent
misrepresentation.

Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on April 7, 2016.
Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint on May 5, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, the court dismissed
all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company
except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim.

On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration
or, in the alternative, Motion to Certify for Interlocutory
Appeal, which the court denied on the September 8, 2016.
Discovery is in the early stages.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company still
defends the TNS Products Litigation.

On March 19, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
federal district court in California on behalf of a putative class
of consumers. The complaint alleges violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the
False Advertising Law, and deceit.

On June 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On
June 23, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

On September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part
Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 8, 2014, the court set
trial for September 1, 2015.

On November 4, 2014, Allergan and SkinMedica filed a motion to
dismiss. On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica's motion to
dismiss was denied.

On February 19, 2015 plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
On May 27, 2015, the case was stayed pending the decision of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving similar
legal issues.

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

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Says Plaintiffs to Dismiss Zeltiq Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants anticipate
that plaintiffs will dismiss their complaint in the Zeltiq
Shareholder Litigation.

On March 14, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. and various directors as
well as Allergan entities in Delaware federal court.  Plaintiffs
allege that Zeltiq's proxy statement misrepresents material
information that is preventing Zeltiq's shareholders from making a
fully informed decision on the proposed sale to Allergan,
including failure to disclose GAAP reconciliation of Zeltiq's non-
GAAP projections.  The Allergan entities were named under a
supervisory role theory.

On March 29, 2017, a similar putative shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed in California federal court against Zeltiq
Aesthetics, Inc. and various directors seeking a preliminary
injunction.  Allergan was not named as a defendant.

Zeltiq filed an amendment to its Definitive Proxy Statement on
April 11, 2017, which includes supplemental disclosures that
address plaintiffs' claims.  On the same date, plaintiffs in the
California action withdrew their motion for a preliminary
injunction.  Defendants anticipate that plaintiffs will dismiss
their complaint.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Advertising Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has not
yet responded to the complaint in the Zeltiq Advertising
Litigation.

On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. in state court in California
alleging that Zeltiq misled customers regarding the promotion of
its CoolSculpting product and the product's premarket notification
clearance status.  Plaintiffs recently served Zeltiq with the
complaint.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ALLERGAN PLC: To Settle Sales Representatives' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties have
agreed to settle a lawsuit by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal
district court in New York.

In July 2012, Forest was named as defendants in an action brought
by certain former company sales representatives and specialty
sales representatives in the federal district court in New York.
The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges
class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with
respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the
basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal
Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current
and former female sales representatives employed by the Company
throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the
proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and
former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will
become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S.
from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act
collective action class includes current, former, and future
female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to
similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability
period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class
claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual
harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of
the Family and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of
an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed.

On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to
conditionally certify a collective action.  On April 3, 2017, the
parties agreed to settle this matter.

Allergan plc is a global pharmaceutical company and a leader in a
new industry model -- Growth Pharma.  Allergan is focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceutical ("brand", "branded" or "specialty brand"), device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world. The Company has operations in more than 100
countries. Warner Chilcott Limited is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allergan plc and has the same principal business
activities.


ASHFORD INC: Says Lawsuit over Remington Acquisition Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Remington acquisition has been terminated
and therefore a class action lawsuit is moot.

The Company said, "On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder
class action and derivative complaint challenging the Remington
acquisition, described in note 13 to our condensed consolidated
financial statements, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and styled Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No.
11796. The complaint names as defendants each of the members of
the Company's board of directors, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A.
Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP, as
well as the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges
that the members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection
with the Transactions and that Monty Bennett, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. In
support of these claims, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair
process with Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result
the Company overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100%
general partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint
also alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains
certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action
seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting
of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock
issuances or rescinding the Transactions if they are consummated,
or in the alternative an award of damages, as well as unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to any other
relief the court may deem proper. Since the filing of the
complaint, the special meeting of stockholders and related vote
occurred with the stockholders approving the acquisition. On March
24, 2017, the Remington acquisition was terminated and therefore
this action is moot.

Ashford Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on April 2, 2014,
subsequently reincorporated in Maryland, that provides asset
management and advisory services to Ashford Hospitality Trust,
Inc. ("Ashford Trust") and Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc.
("Ashford Prime"). Ashford Trust commenced operating in August
2003 and is focused on investing in full service hotels in the
upscale and upper-upscale segments in the U.S. that have revenue
per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than twice the
national average. Ashford Prime invests primarily in luxury hotels
and resorts with RevPAR of at least twice the U.S. national
average. Ashford Prime became a publicly traded company in
November 2013 upon the completion of its spin-off from Ashford
Trust. Each of Ashford Trust and Ashford Prime is a real estate
investment trust ("REIT") as defined in the Internal Revenue Code,
and the common stock of each of Ashford Trust and Ashford Prime is
traded on the NYSE. The common stock of Ashford Inc. is listed on
the NYSE MKT Exchange. Ashford Trust holds approximately 598,000
shares of Ashford Inc. common stock for the benefit of its common
stockholders, which represents an approximate 30% ownership
interest in Ashford Inc. Ashford Prime holds approximately 195,000
shares, which represents an approximate 9.7% ownership interest in
Ashford Inc.


ATHENE HOLDING: District Court Dismissed "Hudson" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Athene Holding Ltd. (AHL) disclosed in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2017 that
the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa has
dismissed Don Hudson's class action suit related to the financial
condition of Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA).

On June 12, 2015, Don Hudson, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
against the Company. The complaint, which is similar to complaints
recently filed against other large insurance companies, primarily
alleges that captive reinsurance and other transactions had the
effect of misrepresenting the financial condition of AAIA.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of annuity products issued by AAIA between 2007 and the
present and asserts claims against AHL, ALRe, AUSA and AAIA in
addition to Apollo and AAM.  There are also various allegations
related to the purchase of Aviva USA and concerning entry into a
modco transaction with ALRe in October 2013.

The suit asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks compensatory damages,
trebled, in an amount to be determined, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 25, 2016, the matter was transferred to the United States
District Court, Southern District of Iowa (S.D. IA Court).

On May 25, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to file an
amended complaint dropping plaintiff Silva and defendant Aviva
plc.

The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on June 30, 2016, and
the motion was fully briefed as of September 8, 2016.  On November
14, 2016, the court stayed consideration of the motion to dismiss
pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit in a similar case which will likely affect the
disposition of the Company's motion.  See Ludwick v. Harbinger
Grp., Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Mo. 2016), appeal docketed,
No. 16-1561 (8th Cir.).

On April 13, 2017, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the claims in Ludwick, and Athene has advised
the S.D. IA Court.

On May 11, 2017, the S.D. IA Court, in a written decision,
dismissed the action with the plaintiff having the right to appeal
the dismissal.

Athene Holding said, "The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the amended complaint and
intends to vigorously defend any appeal and the litigation."

Athene Holding Ltd., a retirement services company, issues,
reinsures, and acquires retirement savings products designed for
individuals and institutions seeking to fund retirement needs in
the United States, the District of Columbia, and Germany.  It
offers fixed deferred, immediate, and payout annuities; funding
agreements to institutional investors; and life insurance and
unit-linked products.  The company was incorporated in 2008 and is
based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit over Aviva Annuities Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action filed by John Griffiths against Athene
Holding Ltd. (AHL), among other defendants "Aviva Entities", is
still ongoing, according to the Company's revised Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2017 filed as an
attachment of their Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 13, 2017.

On July 27, 2015, John Griffiths, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against
the Company. An amended complaint was filed on December 18, 2015.

The complaint asserts claims against AHL, Athene Annuity and Life
Company (AAIA) and Athene London Assignment Corporation (Athene
London), in addition to an Aviva defendant.  AHL is a named
defendant due to its purchase of Aviva USA, and AAIA and Athene
London are named as successors to Aviva Life Insurance Company and
Aviva London Assignment Corporation, respectively.

The complaint alleges a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who are the beneficial owners of assets which were used to
purchase structured settlement annuities that Aviva Life Insurance
Company, Aviva London Assignment Corporation, and Aviva
International Insurance Limited (Aviva Entities) or their
predecessors, as applicable, delivered to purchasers on or after
April 1, 2003.  The complaint alleges that the Aviva Entities sold
structured settlement annuities to the public on the basis that
such products were backed by a capital maintenance agreement by
Aviva International Insurance Limited or its predecessor, which
was alleged as a source of great financial strength.

The complaint further alleges that the Aviva Entities used this
capital maintenance agreement to enhance the sales volume and
raise the price of the annuities.  The complaint claims that, as a
result of Aviva USA's sale to AHL, the capital maintenance
agreement terminated.

According to the complaint, no notice was provided to the owners
of the structured settlement annuities and the termination of the
capital maintenance agreement constituted a breach of contract,
and the plaintiff further asserts other causes of action.

The defendants have answered and are engaged in the discovery
process.

The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the claims set forth in the complaint and intend to vigorously
defend the litigation.  In light of the inherent uncertainties
involved in this matter, reasonably possible losses, if any,
cannot be estimated at this time."

Athene Holding Ltd., a retirement services company, issues,
reinsures, and acquires retirement savings products designed for
individuals and institutions seeking to fund retirement needs in
the United States, the District of Columbia, and Germany.  It
offers fixed deferred, immediate, and payout annuities; funding
agreements to institutional investors; and life insurance and
unit-linked products.  The company was incorporated in 2008 and is
based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


AUSTRALIA: Tenterfield Council Urged to Back Zoning Correction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Ward, writing for Tenterfield Star, reports that Councillors
accepted the recommendation of Tenterfield Shire Council's chief
operating officer Andre Kompler to seek Department of Planning and
Environment approval to remove its RU3 Forestry land use zone from
the Local Environmental Plan and convert all current RU3 land to
RU1 Primary Production.

The move followed submissions ahead of June's council meeting from
affected landholders Brett Watson, Bill Petrie and
Tim Petrie, who individually petitioned councillors to support the
correction.

"There are more than 44 perpetual crown leases," Mr Watson said.
"Give them back their property rights."

Mr Bill Petrie said he was shocked to find that two portions of
his freehold property were also affected.

"Clearly there's been a mapping error," he said.

He was hoping councillors' support would avoid the need for a
class action against council.

Councillor Gary Verri who was on council at the time of the
creation of the RU3 zone in the 1990's said the consultant
involved had said the RU3 zone was only on forestry land.

"I assumed the consultant did due diligence," he said.

"That was an error on my part. [GN]


AW MOBILE: "Terrero" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alba Terrero, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. AW Mobile Inc.; Ravinder Kohli; Jerry Kohli;
Case No. 606125/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 26, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and unpaid
commissions pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate several brick and mortal retail
locations under the T-Mobile banner, including but not limited to
locations in Bethpage, Queens, West Islip, Huntington, and
Commack. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


B COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, reminds
investors in B Communications Ltd. ("B Comm" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:BCOM) of the August 28, 2017 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.

If you invested in B Comm stock or options between November 7,
2013 and June 19, 2017 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/BCOM.  There is no cost or
obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
B Comm securities between November 7, 2013 and June 19, 2017 (the
"Class Period").  The case, Maleeff v. B Communications Ltd et
al., No. 17-cv-04937 was filed on June 29, 2017.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that the
Company's principal shareholder Shaul Elovitch ("Elovitch") was
engaged in potentially illegal activities regarding the merger
between Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication Corporation Limited
("Bezeq") and Bezeq's subsidiary, D.B.S., Satellite Services
(1998) Ltd. ("DBS").

Specifically, on June 20, 2017, The Times of Israel reported that
the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") raided the offices of
Bezeq and detained Elovitch.  The ISA stated that it was
investigating "suspicions of violations of the securities law and
the penal code relating to transactions connected to" Elovitch.
Additionally, the Israeli publication, Globes, reported that the
ISA is investigating the aforementioned merger, as well as
payments the unit made to Eurocom Communications Ltd. under
pressure from Elovitch.

After the announcement, B Comm's share price fell from $21.50 per
share on June 19, 2017 to a closing price of $20.50 on June 20,
2017 -- a $1.00 or a 4.65% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding B Comm's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


BANKRATE INC: J&W Launches Investigation Into Proposed Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP (J&W) has
launched an investigation into whether the board members of
Bankrate, Inc. (NYSE: RATE) breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Red Ventures.
Bankrate operates as a publisher, aggregator, and distributor of
personal finance content on the Internet.

On July 3, 2017, Bankrate announced it had signed a definitive
merger agreement with Red Ventures.  Under the terms of the
agreement, Bankrate stockholders will receive $14.00 per share in
cash.

The investigation concerns whether the Bankrate board failed to
satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether
the board had adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition
and whether the board obtained the best price possible for
Bankrate shares of common stock.  Nationally recognized Johnson &
Weaver is investigating whether the proposed deal price represents
adequate consideration.  The deal may undervalue the Company
resulting in a loss for many long term shareholders.

If you are a shareholder of Bankrate and believe the proposed
buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more
about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-
814-4471.  If emailing, please include a phone number.

                  About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York
and Georgia.  The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. [GN]


BASF SE: Arkansas' Governor Bans Dicamba Sale
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Demillo, writing for Idaho Statesman, reports that
Arkansas' governor gave initial approval on June 30 to temporarily
banning the use and sale of an herbicide that's prompted hundreds
of complaints and a federal lawsuit claiming it's caused
widespread damage.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson forwarded the 120-day ban on dicamba to a
legislative panel, which must also approve the restriction before
it can take effect. The Plant Board approved the emergency rule.
Dicamba is a relatively inexpensive weed killer but it can drift
and damage nearby row crops, such as soybeans and cotton, in
addition to fruit and vegetable farms and ornamental trees.

Hutchinson said he was concerned that more limited options weren't
fully debated, but said he believed the number of complaints over
the herbicide's use warranted emergency action. He said he wants a
task force formed to look at dicamba, problems with its
application, and longer term recommendations. The Plant Board has
received more than 500 complaints in 21 counties about dicamba use
so far this year.

"This debate will continue into future planting seasons and
Arkansas needs a long-term solution," Hutchinson wrote in a letter
to the heads of the Plant Board and the Agriculture Department.

Hutchinson also approved allowing the Plant Board to assess civil
penalties of up to $25,000 for egregious violations, a rule that
will take effect Aug. 1. The board can currently only assess up to
$1,000 fines for violations.

A group of farmers filed a class-action lawsuit in June against
the makers of the herbicide over damage to their crops. The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for damage to crops, fruits and
trees that weren't dicamba-resistant

BASF, which makes the only dicamba herbicide that's been approved
for use in Arkansas, criticized the ban and said it would deprive
farmers of a key tool for protecting their crops from weeds in the
middle of the growing season.

"Eliminating dicamba as a weed control option for Arkansas farmers
is not the answer," the company said in a statement. "Farmers
deserve access to effective crop protection products to help
increase yields and profitability." [GN]


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge tossed out a proposed shareholder class action
alleging securities fraud against Brocade Communications over its
acquisition of Ruckus Wireless Inc., valued at about $1.2 billion,
saying the shareholder plaintiffs repeatedly failed to show how
the companies misled them in financial statements over the offer.

The city of Pontiac's pension system, which sued on behalf of
other Ruckus shareholders, alleged misrepresentations about the
companies' share values involved in the tender offer, as well as
breach of fiduciary duty against individual defendants connected
to the deal.

The plaintiffs identified an allegedly misleading statement
related to a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis from Morgan
Stanley that didn't reveal it was based on an assumption of
Brocade's standalone stock value. But U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen said this argument didn't meet the standards for a materially
misleading statement.

"It is important to put the DCF analysis in context," the judge
said. "It was one of several models of financial analyses which
informed Morgan Stanley's opinion as to the fairness of the other
consideration to Ruckus shareholders. Lead plaintiff has not shown
how the standalone share value of Brocade stock, which allegedly
was omitted from the DCF analysis, was material to the overall
multifaceted financial analysis."

Judge Chen also said the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
scienter.

"Lead plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that these
defendants knew or should have known that the implied Brocade
stock standalone value was $13.58 to $19.52 per share (i.e.,
overinflated)," he said.

Judge Chen dismissed the case with prejudice, citing a previous
opportunity for the plaintiffs to amend their case.

Brocade announced the Ruckus acquisition in April 2016, saying the
deal would expand its network solutions offerings and help
customers prepare for emerging technologies such as the so-called
internet of things and new cellular data networks. The deal closed
in May of that year.

The initial shareholder suit was filed in June 2016. Judge Chen
dismissed a first amended complaint in February with leave to
amend, saying that the plaintiffs needed to show an intent to
deceive or deliberate recklessness involved in their claims.

The second amended complaint said that the acquisition was based
on "a flawed process" with conflicts of interests over who would
benefit from the deal as well as material omissions in the 14D-9
recommendation that Ruckus shareholders tender their shares to
Brocade relating to the Morgan Stanley analyses.

In April, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss that said the
second amended complaint still failed to cure the deficiencies by
failing to explicitly show the what and why of the misleading
statement. The defendants also noted that the Morgan Stanley
fairness opinion that included the DCF analysis was one of 20
reasons supporting the Ruckus board's recommendation.

Judge Chen said that even if the DCF analysis was central to
Morgan Stanley's fairness opinion and contained some sort of
overinflated value, the shareholders "effectively conceded" that
there was no problem with Morgan Stanley's bottom-line DCF
valuation.

"If the value of the merger consideration ($17.61-$22.35) was
correct or reasonable, the court does not see how the implied
value of Brocade stock standalone was material to a Ruckus
shareholder in deciding whether or not to tender her shares in
exchange for that consideration," Judge Chen said.

Though the plaintiffs also brought state claims, Judge Chen
declined to consider them as a result of the federal claims
dismissal.

Joseph Floren of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, who represented
Brocade and Ruckus, told Law360 that "we are very pleased with the
result and gratified that the court has agreed the plaintiffs'
claims had no merit."

A representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel David T.
Wissbroecker, Esq. -- dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Randall J.
Baron, Esq. -- rbaron@rgrdlaw.com -- and A. Rick Atwood Jr., Esq.
-- ricka@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Individual defendants are represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Esq.
-- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLP is represented by David Priebe, Esq. --
david.priebe@dlapiper.com -- and Isabelle L. Ord, Esq. --
isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper LLP.

Brocade Communications Systems Inc. and Ruckus Wireless Inc. are
represented by Joseph E. Floren, Esq.--
joseph.progress@morganlewis.com -- Kevin M. Benedicto, Esq. --
marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. and
Karen Pieslak Pohlman, Esq. -- %20karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -
- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

The case is Hussey v. Ruckus Wireless Inc. et al., case number
3:16-cv-02991 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-02991 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 29, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/SkpHWs from Leagle.com.


BUCKEYE FAMILY: Faces "Suttles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Suttles, Jessica Tucker, Heidi Phelan, Timothy Phelan, and
Jeremy Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buckeye Family Residential Care Services, Inc. and
Brad Belcher, Case No. 3:17-cv-01346 (N.D. Ohio, June 26, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing services to
individuals with mental, emotional, and behavior issues at state-
licensed long-term care residential facilities in the central Ohio
area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
      Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 610-4134
      Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
      E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
              Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com



BURTON OIL: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Villarreal, individually and on behalf of all current and
former field employees v. Burton Oil Service Operations, LLC,
Preston Burton, and Ben Burton, Case No. 5:17-cv-00566 (W.D. Tex.,
June 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Burton Oil Service Operations, LLC is based in Tyler, Texas and
provides oilfield tank cleaning and pressure washing services
throughout the State of Texas. [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


CALIFORNIA: PACC Putting Together Class Actions Against CPS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chan, writing for San Francisco Bay View, reports that
how does Child Protective Services balance a child's best
interests with the perceived risk that the child may have contact
with an alleged "offending parent?" Who makes and un-makes
decisions that send children off to live with strangers, all too
often in far-away communities and on an adoption fast track?

Child welfare and modern adoption laws were developed in the mid-
1800s based on the premise that certain people were unfit to raise
children and that those children were better off with more
affluent families.  "Child-saving," they called it.  As it turned
out, "child-saving" often had more to do with poverty, or
"dependency" as they used to call it, than actual abuse, neglect
or parenting deficiencies.

How does Child Protective Services balance a child's best
interests with the perceived risk that the child may have contact
with an alleged "offending parent?"

Although these "poor" children were sometimes adopted for love or
for reasons such as infertility and philanthropy, they were too
often treated as property and used as child labor.  Some would
argue that not much has changed.

The developmental and emotional benefits of kinship placement --
when children are sent to live with relatives after being removed
from parental custody -- is rooted in notions of blood and
belonging, needs and rights, and family and cultural preservation.
According to the Fostering Connections to Success Act and Welfare
and Institutions Code 361.3, CPS is supposed to make efforts to
place children with relatives before placing them in foster or
group homes.  In addition to being in the best interests of
children, it is also more fiscally conservative.

Unfortunately, children are frequently deprived of the basic human
right to be raised by suitable and loving family members with whom
they had preexisting relationships, because CPS claims that doing
so would give the alleged offending parents access to their
children.

Jennifer Ford has been fighting since February of 2015 to have her
grandson placed in her custody.  She passed the kinship home
assessment, submitted five character letters, passed the criminal
background check, and took parenting classes and a foster care
class -- all of which resulted in her approval for kinship care.

Moreover, she clearly demonstrated that she had a preexisting
relationship with her grandson.  She attended visitation two times
a week with the child and was not late once. During these visits,
she poured out her soul to the child.  "On his first birthday,"
she said, "We threw him the nicest party they said they ever had
at that CPS office."  Jennifer beamed with pride as she shared the
story of balloons and cake and casseroles and cookies, the story
of the little boy who was loved and wanted.

In the end, none of Jennifer's efforts or good intentions, nor the
best interests of the child, mattered.

Jennifer's dedication towards getting her grandson back in her
custody is further motivated by her personal experiences growing
up.

She never knew her birth mother.  On the surface, Jennifer appears
to have been quite fortunate.  She was taken in by middle-class
foster parents who later adopted her.  Her adoptive father,
Silton, was retired from the Navy and worked at the Hunters Point
Shipyard and City of Palo Alto maintenance.  Her adoptive mother
was an LVN and cosmetologist.

Silton was a kind and protective man.  When Jennifer speaks of
him, tears of pure joy well up in her eyes as fragments of
childhood memories flash through her mind.

Except, Jennifer reports that her adoptive mother, Norma, never
loved her and was extremely abusive.  "It was almost like she was
jealous of me, like the more my father loved me, the more she
wanted to hate me," Jennifer said.  "She beat me with her hands
and with her words.  Bitch this, bitch that, she said.  She called
me bitch so much, I started to think that was actually my name."

Silton did all he could to protect Jennifer, even going so far as
to rent a room for her temporarily with family friends during
Jennifer's adolescence.  However, even if he was sometimes
successful in keeping Jennifer away from Norma to avoid beatings,
the pain of feeling unloved and unwanted burned a hole in
Jennifer's heart.

It is these memories that Jennifer holds close, because she does
not want history to repeat itself.  She knows first-hand the risks
and vulnerabilities adopted children can face and does not want
her own grandson to be raised by a foster or adoptive family.

On Oct. 25, 2015, Jennifer's son, Warren Morrison, got in trouble
with the law.  Jennifer reports the incident as a "fight gone
wrong."  Now, Morrison is incarcerated at McGuire Jail in Redwood
City and is doing hard time for first-degree murder.

When Morrison's parental rights were terminated, so were all of
Jennifer's grandparents' rights.  "I just don't understand how
this can happen.  How our family can just totally lose my grandson
like this," she says.  "CPS fought against awarding me custody
because they were worried I would allow my son to see my grandson.
Well, my son is locked up now and he's going to be there for a
long time.  Why does (the child) have to suffer? Why does (the
child) have to be raised by non-relatives who may or may not love
him like I will?"

When Morrison's parental rights were terminated, so were all of
Jennifer's grandparents' rights.  "I just don't understand how
this can happen. How our family can just totally lose my grandson
like this," she says.

Jennifer is determined not to give up hope.  She has joined
Parents Against CPS Corruption, or PACC, to fight for
grandparents' rights and increased efforts towards kinship
placement in child welfare proceedings.  "This fight is not only
in honor of my grandson, but also in honor of my adoptive father
and my incarcerated son.  I believe that, one day, justice will be
ours," she says.

Call to action

PACC is putting together class action lawsuits to address various
issues in multiple counties in Northern California.  A class
action is a legal procedure that allows many people with similar
grievances to join together and file a lawsuit.  The lawsuit is
filed by a lead plaintiff (or lead plaintiffs) on behalf of a
larger group and can be brought against a county for abuses or
violations of law.

Social change can be enacted through the civil courts.  PACC is
urging everyone who currently or previously has had a CPS case to
please get in contact.  People may not be aware that they or
someone they know qualifies.

PACC is still fighting for greater oversight and accountability,
fair hearings and trials, due process and greater efforts towards
timely reunification and kinship placement.  For advocacy, court
attendance, peer support or to find out more about their cause or
class action lawsuits, visit ParentsAgainstCPSCorruption.com,
email protest@parentsagainstcpscorruption.com, call 415-815-9415,
or follow them on Twitter @ProtestCPS. [GN]


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Securities Class Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation is still defending itself against a
consolidated federal securities class action in California,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 13, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.  The court has previously dismissed the case
in March 2017 with leave to amend. The plaintiffs have filed their
amended complaint in April 2017 and the defendants have asked the
court to dismiss it on June 2, 2017.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc.  v.
Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015
(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the
"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC Engineering and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to
fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The
Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial
statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this
situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and
that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
accounting.  The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public
statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by
all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations
and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action.  The putative
class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12,
2014 to November 5, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016.

On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2017.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed June 2, 2017.

The Company has not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2017
since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable
given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration
(combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and
power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical
power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the
Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators
for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was
organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine
generators commercially since 1998.


CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: AAFC Appeal Awaits Judgment
-----------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras said in its Form
20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a civil class action
is in progress at the Second Public Finance Court.

According to the Company, "This event caused the filing of legal
proceedings by retirees, with emphasis on the Civil Class Action
whose decision was handed down by the 2nd Public Finance Court in
June 2005, whereby the claim was deemed unfounded, allowing the
payroll processing and retirement and pension payouts according to
Law No. 4819/58, by SEFAZ-SP. FUNCESP Retiree Association (AAFC),
which represents FUNCESP retirees and pensioners, filed an appeal
and prior to its judgment protested against the jurisdiction of
the Regular Legal Court, which was accepted by the Sao Paulo Court
of Justice (TJ/SP)."

Subsequently, in August 2008, the Higher Court of Justice (STJ)
recognized the jurisdiction of the Regular Legal Court, and AAFC
filed another appeal taking the matter to the STF, which upheld
the jurisdiction of the Regular Legal Court. The various appeals
filed by AAFC were denied by the STF, and the last decision was
handed down on October 7, 2015, becoming final on November 24,
2015, maintaining the jurisdiction of the Regular Legal Court.
This proceeding was received by the 2nd Public Finance Court/SP on
May 24, 2016, and taken to the Labor Prosecution Office so that it
expresses its understanding, for subsequent submission to Sao
Paulo State Court of Justice (TJ/SP) for judgment of the appeal
filed by AAFC against the decision that deemed such proceeding
unfounded.

On June 27, 2016, a stay of decision was assigned to the Appeal
filed by AAFC and after the parties expressed their understanding,
on July 22, 2016, a new decision was handed down clarifying that
the labor preliminary injunction should be maintained up to the
appeal judgment.

The AAFC appeal awaits judgment since August 29, 2016.

The Company also disclosed that, in contrast to the decision
previously handed down, a decision issued by the 49th Sao Paulo
State Labor Court was communicated to CTEEP on July 11, 2005
granting interim relief for Funcesp to process again the payments
of benefits arising from State Law No. 4819/58, according to
respective rules, as performed until December 2003, with CTEEP
acting as an intermediary between SEFAZ-SP and Funcesp.

In order to fulfill the aforementioned court decisions, CTEEP
requests the necessary funds to SEFAZ-SP, on a monthly basis, to
transfer them to Funcesp, which must process the respective
payments to the beneficiaries. This class action resulted in an
unfavorable decision against SEFAZ-SP, CESP, Funcesp and CTEEP.

Due to the existence of proceedings at Courts of different
jurisdictions, the Conflict of Jurisdiction was raised before the
STF to define the jurisdiction to judge the action. On March 12,
2015, the STF handed down a decision recognizing the jurisdiction
of the Regular Legal Court and voiding all decisions of the Labor
Court.

AAFC filed an appeal against the decision, which was denied on
October 14, 2015, and the jurisdiction of the Regular Legal Court
was upheld. An unappealable decision was handed down on November
20, 2015. On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Labor Court (TST) ordered
the case to be remanded to the 49th Sao Paulo Labor Court, which
transmitted the records to the Regular Legal Court.

The Class Action was filed with the 2nd Public Finance Court/SP on
May 20, 2016, and on May 30, 2016 a decision was handed down
revoking the preliminary injunction that required CTEEP to pay the
monthly installments, extinguishing the requests inherent in the
payroll processing, and deeming unfounded the request for refund
of any differences due to retirees and pensioners according to Law
No. 4819/58.

SEFAZ-SP resumed payroll processing from June 2016, however, after
lodging of appeal, AAFC requested to the TJ/SP assignment of stay
of decision to the appeal, which was granted on June 27, 2016.

After the parties expressed their understanding, a new decision
was handed down on July 22, 2016, clarifying that the labor
preliminary injunction should be maintained until a decision on
the AAFC appeal is handed down, which is awaiting judgment at
TJ/SP since December 6, 2016.


CLEAN ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sandoval" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Clean Energy Experts, LLC, d/b/a Solar Research Group,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01300-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2017), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express
consent of the called party.

Clean Energy Experts, LLC provides customer leads, performance
marketing, and software solutions for solar, energy, and home
improvement companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART 2221
      Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              kevin@westcoastlitigation.com


COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
related to the merger remains pending.

The Company said, "On September 21, 2015, we and [Colony American
Homes, Inc.] announced the signing of Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of September 21, 2015, among us and certain of our
subsidiaries and CAH and certain of its subsidiaries and certain
investors in CAH ("the Merger Agreement") to combine the two
companies in a stock-for-stock transaction.  In connection with
the transaction, we internalized the Manager. The Merger and the
Internalization were completed on January 5, 2016."

"Upon consummation of the Internalization, Starwood Capital Group
contributed the outstanding equity interests of the Manager to our
operating partnership in exchange for 6,400,000 units in our
operating partnership ("OP Units"). The OP Units are redeemable at
the election of the holder and we have the option, at our sole
discretion, to redeem any such OP Units for cash or exchange such
OP Units for common shares, on a one-for-one basis. Subsequent to
the Internalization and the Merger, we own all material assets and
intellectual property rights of the Manager.

"On October 30, 2015, a putative class action was filed by
Plaintiff (i.e., one of our purported shareholders) against the
Defendants (i.e., us, our trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC,
Starwood Capital Group and CAH) challenging the Merger and the
Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami Pension Plan v.
Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of our
trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
and the Internalization, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also challenged the
adequacy of the public disclosures made in connection with the
Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff sought, among other
relief, an injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
the Internalization or the Merger, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and damages, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

"On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December
16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter
notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3,
2016, asserting substantially similar claims and seeking
substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint. In
response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearing on
June 1, 2016. We believe that this action has no merit and intend
to defend vigorously against it."

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


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Accused of Withholding Witness Statement
------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Wade, writing for The Daily Times, reports that several
Maryville residents suing CSX Transportation Inc. over the train
derailment and chemical fire two years ago are now saying the
transportation company "intentionally destroyed or concealed" a
witness statement from one of its own employees in an attempt to
avoid legal liability.

It's one of several new claims set out in a proposed amended
complaint filed in Knoxville's U.S. District Court.

Attorneys for six Maryville residents, most of whom were evacuated
from their homes following the derailment, are seeking approval
from a federal judge to add it and several other allegations to
their pending lawsuit against CSX and Union Tank Car Co.

CSX is now accused of failing to turn over a written statement
from the train's engineer, who reportedly saw sparks from the
derailed tank car at least three miles before the car ruptured and
caught fire, sending toxic fumes billowing into the air.

In addition to the $5 million the plaintiffs were already asking
for to cover a variety of alleged damages -- including property
damage, loss of income and aggravation and inconvenience -- they
now wish to seek unspecified punitive damages "in an amount
sufficient to punish CSX and deter similar misconduct in the
future," according to the proposed amended complaint.

                         Statement Buried?

The plaintiffs state CSX asked the train's engineer and conductor
to provide written statements, and although they handed over the
conductor's "short" statement, that of the engineer never
surfaced.

"CSX intentionally destroyed or concealed this statement
containing material evidence with the purpose of wrongfully
evading liability in this case," the proposed complaint states.

They also accuse CSX of failing to properly train its employees,
who are in turn accused of failing to follow the company's safety
policies and procedures.

"As a result, CSX failed to stop the train in time to prevent the
tank car from rupturing and catching fire," the proposed complaint
states.

CSX has admitted in prior court filings the tank car which caught
fire -- owned by Union Tank Car Co. and carrying the toxic
chemical acrylonitrile -- actually derailed about nine miles
before the train was eventually stopped near Old Mt. Tabor Road.

Court filings show the derailment originally occurred north of the
Singleton Station Road crossing in Louisville. The CSX crew saw
sparks from the tank car at least five to six miles later, but
chose not to stop the train, according to the proposed complaint.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to add several claims of
recklessness to their lawsuit. Additionally, Union Tank Car Co. is
accused of failing to replace an old, defective wheel bearing on
the tank car, leading to the derailment.

In court filings, CSX has confirmed the bearing failure caused the
derailment.

                           CSX Fires Back

However the company, along with Union Tank Car Co., is asking a
judge to disallow the latest allegations from being included in
the pending lawsuit. In fact, the plaintiffs filed their request
on the last possible day to do so, attorneys for CSX state in
court filings.

CSX "does not take issue with the plaintiffs' proposed addition of
fact contentions (which CSX denies)," the company said in its
response. "But, at this late hour in the litigation, plaintiffs'
attempt to add a brand new and impertinent count for punitive
damages -- based on facts and theories all known to plaintiffs
long, long ago -- is unmeritorious, futile and prejudicial."

CSX also denies destroying the engineer's statement.

"While wrong in fact, and offered without a whit of supporting
fact, this in any event is not a basis for punitive damages," the
CSX response reads.

Attorneys for CSX also accuse the plaintiffs of regurgitating
prior negligence claims and trying to repackage them as claims of
recklessness. They also offer no factual basis for this either,
CSX contends.

"The same is true for all other negligence allegations that now,
suddenly, are dubbed 'recklessness,'" the CSX response states.
"The recipe repeats throughout: take old allegations, change them
in no material way, and label them 'reckless.'"

The plaintiffs also state CSX could have prevented the derailment
if corrective action had been taken years ago.

"CSX had over 60 derailments resulting from overheated wheel
bearings in the past 10 years, but has not implemented measures
that would have prevented the derailment in Maryville," the
proposed complaint states.

Charles Tipton, Kelli and Aaron Johnson, Doreene and James
Christie and Billy Tipton are the six plaintiffs named in the
class-action lawsuit. It actually began as three separate lawsuits
before a federal judge consolidated the trio to one suit last May.
A trial date is set for Nov. 13.

Other Lawsuits

CSX and Union Tank Car Co. are defendants in eight other lawsuits
over the derailment. Only one of them -- a $20 million wrongful
death suit blaming the toxic fire for the death of Blount County
Fire Capt. James "Jim" Patty Jr. -- is still pending in Blount
County Circuit Court.

The others are pending in Knoxville's U.S. District Court.

The two men operating the train -- locomotive engineer Michael
Puckett, of Madisonville, and conductor Ralph Brackett, of Benton
-- are defendants in two lawsuits. The Patty suit, filed on behalf
of Patty's widow, Elizabeth Patty, names them as defendants, as
well as an $80 million mass-tort lawsuit filed on behalf of 53
residents from Maryville, Louisville and Greenback.

Six Alcoa officers and three Blount County deputies who were suing
CSX dismissed their cases earlier this year after reaching a
settlement. A fourth Blount County deputy is still suing CSX. All
10 are still suing Union Tank Car Co.

Most of the remaining lawsuits were filed on behalf of residents
evacuated from their homes. Some request compensation for personal
injury, while others seek property damages. Some claim both.

The other lawsuits include:

-- Maryville resident Mary Beals, who resides on Watson Drive,
    filed a $200,000 lawsuit last June seeking damages for "past
    and future physical injuries, medical expenses, emotional
    distress, fear of future illness and aggravation and
    inconvenience," according to her complaint.

-- Rick Owens and several family members, including his wife,
    Dorothy Owens, and their daughter, Kendall Owens, filed a
    $750,000 suit last June. The complaint states the group was at
    Rick and Dorothy Owens' residence on Middlesettlements Road
    when the train derailed and they "encountered chemical fumes,
    smoke and vapor containing toxic chemicals."

-- and Knox County resident Anna Jaggers, who was branch
    president for SunTrust Bank in Maryville at the time of the
    derailment, filed a $3 million lawsuit last June. Her
    complaint states she went to work the morning of the
    derailment and was affected by the burning chemicals. [GN]


DEALDASH: Uses Widespread Deceptive Marketing, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
NBC reports DealDash, one of the largest and best known "penny
auction" websites, has been accused of operating an "illegal
gambling site" and using a "widespread deceptive marketing
campaign to lure customers" to the site, according to the
advertising watchdog group Truth in Advertising (TINA.org).

"DealDash's marketing claim -- that consumers can generally expect
to win items on the cheap -- is simply not true," Bonnie Patten,
TINA.org's executive director, told NBC News.

DealDash denies all of the allegations by made in the suit and by
TINA.

"DealDash offers fair value and an entertaining experience for its
customers and its business partners," attorney Michael Tuteur,
Esq. -- mtuteur@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP said in an
email.

"DealDash's auctions are also not a 'form of gambling' as the
class action complaint alleges. As with a traditional in-person
auction, the outcome of any DealDash auction is not based on
chance." [GN]


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against Dell Technologies Inc.,
among other defendants, is still proceeding with discovery,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed in June 9, 2017, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 5, 2017.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-
03644).  The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain
current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made
false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations
and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.

On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and
the case is proceeding with discovery.

The Company said, "The defendants believe the claims asserted are
without merit and the risk of material loss is remote."

Dell Technologies Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and supports information technology (IT) products and
services worldwide.  It operates through three segments: Client
Solutions Group (CSG), Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and
VMware.  The company was formerly known as Denali Holding Inc. and
changed its name to Dell Technologies Inc. in August 2016.  Dell
Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Round Rock, Texas.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Defending Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. continues to defend against a class action
complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company.  Following appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on Aprill 11, 2017. The
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public
filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016 (the
"potential class period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries operate
a specialty pharmacy business which stocks, dispenses and
distributes prescriptions for various biotechnology and specialty
pharmaceutical manufacturers.


DNB ASA: Faces Norwegian Consumer Council Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Norway's biggest bank is beefing up its
asset management division after disgruntled institutional clients
sent its national rankings to the lowest since 2013.

DNB ASA is hiring more equity analysts to cover Norwegian
companies and healthcare, sharpening reporting to its biggest
customers and employing more sales people.  The measures are among
a host of improvements to reverse the downward spiral, according
to Torkild Varran, chief executive officer of DNB Asset
Management.

"We dropped to five and we aren't satisfied, but we have made some
steps to get back," Mr. Varran said in a phone interview. "We are
building up a good team in healthcare; we have recruited people
doing more quant-factor asset management; and we recruited on the
team doing Norwegian equities."

Institutional clients, whose assets make up as much as 70% of what
DNB oversees, last ranked the Oslo-based lender the best provider
of external asset management in Norway in 2013.  Since then, DNB
has slipped almost every year.

In the most recent survey by TNS Sifo Prospera it fell below
Nordea Bank AB, Alfred Berg Kapitalforvaltning AS, Storebrand ASA
and Danske Bank.  The survey looks at an asset manager's marketing
standing, the performance of the sales staff, the quality of the
reporting they provide on how investments are progressing, and fee
structures.

The unit has been beset by a few challenges, Mr. Varran said. They
include employee departures, a focus on the private wealth
division that took up resources, and steps by competitors to
improve their reporting back to clients.

"Most of our portfolios outperformed their benchmarks, but there
was turnover in the organisation," Mr. Varran said.  "When it
comes to reporting, we aren't top anymore.  We had been on top on
reporting for a long, long time, but our competitors have improved
a lot."  The rankings are important as banks increasingly turn to
asset management as a capital-light way to generate income growth
instead of lending. Regulators have been warning repeatedly of
unsustainable mortgage debt while loan demand is weak among
businesses.  Meanwhile, households are accumulating more wealth.

DNB is also facing a class action suit being brought by the
Norwegian Consumer Council.  The suit alleges that the bank
charged customers fees for actively managing funds, while in
reality the funds were more index based. [GN]


DOCLER MEDIA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Kass" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Kass, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Docler Media, LLC and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC666459 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Docler Media, LLC operates an entertainment company whose
portfolio of business services includes live streaming for public
viewing through its own websites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donal Potter, Esq.
      Milan Moore, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DONALD POTTER
      690 East Green Street, Suite 102
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 744-1555
      Facsimile: (626) 389-0592
      E-mail: dp@donpotterlaw.com
              milan@donpotterlaw.com

         - and -

      Arthur Whang, Esq.
      WHANG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      11355 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 479-7300
      Facsimile: (310) 943-3774
      E-mail: arthur@whanglaw.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: First FORTESTA MDL Trial in Sept. 2018
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the first MDL trial against EPI involving
FORTESTA(R) Gel is set to begin in September 2018.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries, including
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and
hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), along with other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription medications containing testosterone, including
FORTESTA(R) Gel, DELATESTRYL(R), TESTIM(R), TESTOPEL(R), AVEED(R)
and STRAINT(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive
damages, where available. In June 2014, an MDL was formed to
include claims involving all testosterone replacement therapies
filed against EPI, Auxilium, and other manufacturers of such
products, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court
were coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition,
litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common
Pleas for Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts.
Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and we expect cases
brought in federal court to be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions
to MDL No. 2545. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome
of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation
will be brought against us. We intend to contest the litigation
vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in our best
interests. As of May 2, 2017, approximately 1,260 cases are
currently pending against us; some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs. The first MDL trial against
Auxilium involving TESTIM(R) is set to begin in November 2017; the
first trial against Auxilium in the Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County involving TESTIM(R) is set to begin in January
2018; and the first MDL trial against EPI involving FORTESTA(R)
Gel is set to begin in September 2018."

In November 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois entered an order granting defendants' motion
to dismiss claims involving certain testosterone products that
were approved pursuant to ANDAs, including TESTOPEL(R). Plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of this
order. In March 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part and entered an order permitting certain claims to
go forward to the extent they are based on allegations of
fraudulent off-label marketing.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm Trial to Begin Late 2017
-----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that trial in the Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2521, is currently scheduled to begin in late 2017.

The Company said, "Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of
LIDODERM(R) have filed a number of cases against our subsidiary
EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc and certain of
its subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis), which was subsequently
acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and its
subsidiaries (collectively, Teva) from Allergan plc (Allergan).
Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes
of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual
cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect
purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that
EPI, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive
conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent
infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the
'529 patent) and other patents. Some of the complaints also allege
that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book
as related to LIDODERM(R), that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham
patent litigation against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA
citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and
amendments solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to
obtain FDA approval of their versions of LIDODERM(R). The cases
allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states.
These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement
of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring
these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The court granted plaintiffs' motions for class
certification filed on behalf of classes of direct and indirect
purchasers in February 2017. Trial is currently scheduled to begin
in late 2017.

"We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to
those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the
timing or outcome of any such litigation. We expect any such cases
brought in federal court to be transferred to the Northern
District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm
Antitrust Litigation," the Company said.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Court Trims Opana Indirect Buyers' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that in the class action lawsuit by direct and
indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER, the defendants successfully
moved to dismiss the indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims
arising under the laws of the states of California, Rhode Island
and Illinois.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed
cases against the Company's subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.,
which we subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories Inc.
(Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. Some of these cases have been filed on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others
have been filed on behalf of individual retailers or health care
benefit plans. These cases generally allege that the agreement
reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation
concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's
introduction of the re-formulation of OPANA(R) ER violated
antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as state
common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

In February 2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers,
(ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them
permission to file amended complaints and (iii) granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain
retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints.

In response to the District Court's orders, the indirect
purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants
filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain
retailers also filed amended complaints. The defendants
successfully moved to dismiss the indirect purchaser unjust
enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of
California, Rhode Island and Illinois.

"We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to
those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the
timing or outcome of any such litigation," the Company said.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Friedman Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in the lawsuit by Craig Friedman remains
pending.

In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders.

In August 2016, the Steamfitters' Industry Pension Fund and
Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit Fund were appointed lead
plaintiffs in the action.

In October 2016, a second amended complaint was filed, which added
Paul Campanelli as a defendant, and we filed a motion to dismiss
the case. In response, and without resolving the motion, the Court
permitted lead plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint. The
lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's revision of its 2016 earnings
guidance and certain disclosures about its generics business, the
integration of Par and its subsidiaries, certain other alleged
business issues and the receipt of a CID from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York regarding contracts
with Pharmacy Benefit Managers concerning FROVA(R).

Lead plaintiffs seek class certification, damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in December 2016. Briefing on that motion has been
completed but no ruling has been issued."

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the
ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, for this matter, but will explore all options as appropriate
in our best interests and we intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously."

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Remove Public Employees' Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the defendants' motion to remove the action
by Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi remains
pending.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in our June
2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated purchasers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Endo,
certain of Endo's current and former directors and officers, and
the underwriters who participated in the offering, based on
certain disclosures about Endo's generics business.

In March 2017 defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this
matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and
at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as
appropriate in our best interests and we intend to defend this
lawsuit vigorously."

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending Against "Makris" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC is defending against the case, Phaedra A.
Makris v. Endo International plc, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.
The statement of claim generally seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, damages, interest, and costs based on alleged
violations of the Ontario Securities Act. The statement of claim
alleges negligent misrepresentations concerning the Company's
revenues, profit margins, and earnings per share; its receipt of a
subpoena from the State of Connecticut regarding doxycycline
hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate,
methotrexate sodium, and oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of
the Company's U.S. generic pharmaceutical business.

The Company said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this
matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and
at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, for this matter, but will explore all options as
appropriate in our best interests and we intend to defend this
lawsuit vigorously."

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Securities Class Suits in New York Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. still defends itself against purported
class action lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017.

Ferrellgas has been named, along with several current and former
officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of
certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and
misleading statements in certain of our public disclosures.  The
lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in the
Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages.  Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been
filed naming Ferrellgas and several current and former officers
and directors as defendants.

The Company said, "Ferrellgas believes that it has defenses and
will vigorously defend these cases.  Ferrellgas does not believe
loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to
the putative class action lawsuits or the derivative action."

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., is a distributor of propane and related
equipment and supplies to customers in the United States as
measured by the volume of its retail sales in fiscal 2016 and a
leading national provider of propane by portable tank exchange.
The Company serves residential, industrial/commercial, portable
tank exchange, agricultural, wholesale and other customers in all
50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The
Company's consolidated subsidiaries include Ferrellgas Partners
Finance Corp., Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp.


FYRE MEDIA: Festival Founder May Face Jail Time Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Briese, writing for Brit, reports that Fyre Festival
attendees paid upwards of $250,00 for VIP packages on the promise
of a once-in-a-lifetime experience, only to arrive at a barren
island with no music, food, or shelter, and organizers, including
Ja Rule, were forced to cancel the event entirely when they simply
couldn't pull their act together in time for their already-present
guests.

Now, despite public apologies, refunds, and plans for a bigger and
better Fyre 2018, fest heads have not only been hit with a $100
million class-action lawsuit, but co-creator Billy McFarland has
been arrested and charged with wire fraud.

According to the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of
New York, Mr. McFarland is being accused of using fake documents
to lure investors into dumping more than $1 million in funds into
the ill-fated venture.

The entrepreneur allegedly told investors that the company behind
the event, Fyre Media, had earned "millions of dollars from
thousands of artist bookings" between July 2016 and April 2017
when he actually had only received roughly $60,000 from an
estimated 60 artists.

Additionally, Mr. McFarland is being accused of altering a stock
ownership statement that would inflate his net worth from its
actual figure of $1,500 to $2.5 million in order to entice parties
to feel secure in their investment.

The FBI apparently uncovered enough evidence to support the
accusations to arrest Mr. McFarland on June 30, who was later
released on a $300,000 bond with orders not to travel beyond the
states of New York and New Jersey.  And though he's no longer
currently behind bars, the promoter has officially been charged
with wire fraud, facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Ja Rule's (AKA Jeffrey Atkins) attorney, Stacey Richman, has
confirmed that her client has not been arrested, and that he has
not been asked to collaborate with the government in their
investigation.  "He is saddened by the arrest of Mr. McFarland as
he believed and believes in him," she said in a statement on his
behalf.

Mr. McFarland has given no official statement on the matter. [GN]


GUAM: Lack of H-2B Approvals Prompt Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Louella Losinio, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that
while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has announced plans
to issue more seasonal H-2B visas for the U.S. mainland this year,
Guam industries continue to bear the impact of the dwindling
number of temporary workers.

In the 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, a provision was
included authorizing DHS to increase the H-2B visa cap for the
U.S. mainland.  In June, DHS spokesman David Lapan, as reported in
various media, announced plans to issue more seasonal H-2B visas
in the mainland as early as July.  As to what the numbers would
look like, Lapan said it has not yet been determined by DHS
Secretary John Kelly.

Meanwhile, on Guam, the number of H-2B workers continues to
decrease, and the rate of visa issuance remains at a standstill.
The lack of H-2B approvals prompted the Guam Contractors
Association to initiate a class action lawsuit along with 12 small
business plaintiffs.

John M. Robertson, president of AMORIENT Engineering, said that in
the U.S. mainland, a coalition was formed to address the H-2B
workforce issue.  The coalition was supported by more than 40
national organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Association of Builders and Contractors, Association of General
Contractors of America, and the National Association of Realtors,
along with a multipage listing of regional associations.

According to Mr. Robertson, inclusion of the H-2B provision was a
result of the coalition's efforts.  The president signed the 2017
Consolidated Appropriations Act in May with the provision that
allows DHS, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Labor, to
increase the H-2B cap for fiscal 2017.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the H-2B
cap for the U.S. mainland for the first half of fiscal 2017 was
reached in January.  The cap for the second half was reached after
two months.

The U.S. mainland, according to the USCIS, has a statutory cap of
66,000 for H-2B recruitment per fiscal year.  During the first
half of the fiscal year, the program limits the hiring of workers
to 33,000.  The remaining numbers are applied for the remainder of
the fiscal year.  Unused numbers from the first six months are
carried over during the second half of the year, but not in the
next fiscal year.  Visa limits pass through congressional review
and approval.

While the omnibus spending bill provided a solution to U.S.
mainland industries seeking temporary workers, Guam continues to
wait for a solution.  In March 2016, the island had about 1,500
temporary workers, but visa expiration have reduced that to just
around 260 by the end of February.  In early June, Greg Massey,
administrator of the Guam Department of Labor -- Alien Labor
Processing and Certification Division, said the H-2B visa approval
rate is still at 0 percent.  Massey said the 113 are from the last
batch of approvals from 2015 and 2016.  Some of the workers are
appealing their visa denial.

Military construction projects

The House Armed Services Committee has favorably reported out H.R.
2810 or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018, which authorizes appropriations of around $354.65 million
out of $9.7 billion for military construction projects -- a
critical component of the ongoing Marine realignment plan.

The proposed NDAA for fiscal 2018 includes funding for military
infrastructure and housing projects, including $40.87 million for
housing facilities at AAFB; $56.08 million for a water well field,
and $75.23 million for an aircraft maintenance hangar.

"The bill demonstrates Congress' continued commitment to move
forward with the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, and
address related local challenges," said Guam Delegate Madeleine
Bordallo.

While previous defense appropriation acts also incorporate
significant budgets for military construction to support the
realignment, the limited workforce capability as a result of the
spate of H-2B denials could impact the defense department's
ability to meet construction targets.

According to Robertson, Guam's need of employers to supplement
their workforce with foreign workers is particularly essential due
to Guam's location in the far western Pacific, far removed from
additional U.S. labor sources, and the territory's relatively
small population.  During the past 18 months, many efforts have
been made by the Guam Contractors Association and others to get
relief from USCIS on this sudden change in policy, but to no
avail.

"While employers in Guam have launched a number of initiatives to
resolve the H-2B problem, our efforts have not been as successful
as the stateside H-2B Workforce Coalition.  Congresswoman Bordallo
and Gov. (Eddie) Calvo have done all that could be expected of
them.  The Chamber of Commerce and its Armed Forces Committee made
this problem the major issue for 2017 in their annual door-knocks
in Washington, D.C.," he said.

Robertson said while the lawsuit is one way of resolving the H-2B
workforce issue, a more comprehensive resolution would be through
an H-2B regulation change at the DHS level.

"Ultimately, Guam would likely need to seek federal legislation
for a separate Guam-only visa which would take into account all of
Guam's special needs with regards to temporary foreign workers;
however, this legislation may take considerable time to
materialize given the reluctance in Washington, D.C., relative to
immigration reform," Robertson said.

Bordallo, in a release, said she had met with DHS Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs Ben Cassidy to raise concerns on
the continuing H-2B visa denials, with the belief that the issue
can be addressed "internally without legislative action." [GN]


GUVERA: Class Action Mulled Over $2-Mil. Share Buyback
------------------------------------------------------
Andy Malt, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that
Guvera, the beleaguered streaming music company, is going to get
almost $2 million as part of a share buyback by another start-up.

Following a disastrous attempt last year to float on the
Australian stock market -- which resulted in it bailing on various
markets and putting two subsidiaries into administration -- Guvera
finally went offline worldwide in May. Having now shut down in all
the territories where it operated, Guvera now exists as a company
with no product or customers.

The new cash comes from video messaging app Kwickie, which is
itself loss-making but still in that start-up period when
investors are willing to throw money at it.  Guvera was a
shareholder in Kwickie.  And, the latter firm's shareholders voted
to buy back $1.98 million of shares from the former.

According to Australian newspaper The Courier-Mail, this is an
"extremely rare" move by a start-up, but one that will be welcome
for the struggling Guvera company.

The two companies do have a link, in that Guvera co-founder Darren
Herft is also chair of Kwickie.  However, the latter has stated
that he was not involved in the planning or execution of the
buyback process.

Mr. Herft, who has reportedly now relocated to the UK, is also a
link between the two companies and investment firm Amma Private
Equity, which raised finance for the digital start-ups.

The methods Amma used to raise funds for Guvera are now being
looked into by Australian authorities, with lawyers possibly
poised to launch a number of class action lawsuits involving angry
investors. [GN]


HOME LOAN: November 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on July 3 issued the following statement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE HOME LOAN SERVICING
SOLUTIONS, LTD. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Master File No. 0:16-cv-60165 (WPD)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:   All persons or entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. ("HLSS") common stock
during the period from February 28, 2012 through January 22, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on
behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$6,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement").  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 17, 2017 at 1:15 p.m., before
the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Federal
Building and Courthouse, Courtroom 205B, 299 East Broward
Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, to determine (i)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated June 9, 2017 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator Epiq Class Action
and Mass Tort Solutions, by toll-free phone at 888-721-6290, or by
email at info@HLSSSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained
by the Claims Administrator, www.HLSSSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 31,
2017.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 27, 2017,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Settling
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
October 27, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, HLSS, or
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims
Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

HLSS Securities Litigation
PO Box 3170
Portland OR 97208-3170
info@HLSSSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.HLSSSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
(561) 394-3399

By Order of the Court

URL: www.HLSSSecuritiesLitigation.com
[GN]


HONEST CO: To Set Up $7.35 Million Settlement Fund
--------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reported that Honest Co will set up a $7.35
million fund to compensate shoppers who said the website co-
founded by actress Jessica Alba fraudulently labeled dozens of
home and personal care products as natural, plant-based or
chemical-free.

The fund is part of Honest's second settlement of proposed class
action litigation, which was filed on June 30 in federal court in
Manhattan and requires a judge's approval.

Shoppers accused Honest of marketing bubble bath, children's
toothpaste, floor cleaners, laundry detergent, soap and other
items with superlatives such as "no harsh chemicals (ever!)" even
though they contained synthetic and toxic ingredients.

Under the accord, shoppers would receive a $2.50 payment or credit
per eligible product, up to a maximum of 10 without proof of
purchase and with no maximum if they have such proof.

The company also agreed to change its product labeling, a step it
has already begun.

Honest denied wrongdoing, and in a statement said it settled to
limit the cost and distraction of litigation.

"This settlement in no way changes the fact that our marketing
practices are entirely appropriate and we will continue to market
products as 'natural,'" Honest said.

On June 5, Honest reached a $1.55 million settlement of claims it
sold laundry detergent, dish soap and surface cleaners containing
a skin irritant it had pledged to avoid.

The plaintiffs' lawyers had disclosed the existence of the latest
settlement, but not its terms, on June 12.

They could receive up to $2.45 million drawn from the settlement
fund to cover fees and costs, court papers show.

The case is In re: Honest Marketing Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-01125. [GN]


HORTONWORKS INC: "Monachelli" Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00980 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston entered an order
granting a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of
the case.  A hearing on the settlement is set for Sept. 22, 2017,
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon.
Susan Illston.

Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that on February 29, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-00980-SI. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company,
Robert G. Bearden, and Scott J. Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations. On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order appointing
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff and another named plaintiff
filed an amended complaint seeking to represent a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks' securities
between August 5, 2015 and January 15, 2016, inclusive, and
seeking 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 December 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. The parties
thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations and have agreed to a
class-wide settlement that would not have a material effect on the
Company's financial statements.

On April 28, 2017, the Court held a hearing to address preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Hortonworks, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated in Delaware in
2011 and is an industry-leading innovator that creates,
distributes and supports a new class of enterprise data management
software solutions built on open source technology. The Company's
customers use the Company's enterprise-scale "Connected Data
Platforms" to build transformational data applications fueled by
actionable intelligence from data in motion, information that
flows over a network, such as the internet or corporate networks,
and data at rest, information that is stored in digital form in a
file system, database or other storage medium.


HORTONWORKS INC: September 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 3 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Hortonworks, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HDP):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO:    ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED HORTONWORKS, INC. ("HORTONWORKS") COMMON STOCK (STOCK
SYMBOL: HDP) BETWEEN AUGUST 5, 2015 AND JANUARY 15, 2016,
INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, that a proposed settlement
has been reached in this action.  A hearing will be held on
September 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Susan
Illston, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA
94102.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class claims against
the Settling Defendants Hortonworks, Inc. ("Hortonworks"), Robert
G. Bearden (its Chairman and Chief Executive Chairman), and Scott
J. Davidson (its Chief Financial Officer) for a total
consideration of one million one hundred thousand dollars
($1,100,000.00) should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and
reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the application by
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should
be approved; (4) whether Plaintiffs' request for a compensatory
award should be granted; and (5) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") filed
with the Court.

Lead Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class is
Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor,
New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hortonworks common stock
between August 5, 2015 and January 15, 2016, both dates inclusive
(the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by
this Action and the Settlement thereof.  If you have not received
the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release
Form (the "Proof of Claim"), you may obtain them free of charge by
downloading them at www.strategicclaims.net/hortonworks or by
contacting the Claims Administrator via the information set forth
below.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than August 18, 2017, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you
will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of
whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, postmarked no later than August 18, 2017.  Any objections
to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and
served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
to be received no later than September 1, 2017.

The Settlement Class excludes the Settling Defendants and their
immediate family members; any officer or director of Hortonworks
during the Class Period; any entity in which any Settling
Defendant has, or had during the Class Period, a controlling
interest; and the heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any
excluded person.  Additional details are listed in the Notice and
the Stipulation, which can be downloaded at
www.strategicclaims.net/hortonworks.

Please direct inquiries, including requests for copies of the
Notice, the Stipulation, and the Proof of Claim, to the Claims
Administrator:

Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc.
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA  19063
Tel:  866-274-4004
Email:  info@strategicclaims.net
www.strategicclaims.net/hortonworks

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED:  JUNE 12, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[GN]


IOWA: DHS Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Program
--------------------------------------------------
The Des Moines Register reports that for more than a year now, the
Iowa Department of Human Services has consistently failed to
disclose reliable, detailed information on the impact of its
controversial Medicaid privatization scheme.

Health care providers, legislators and the media have all
complained that some of the information that has been disclosed by
the state seems unsupported by hard data or appears to be
contradicted by other information that's readily available.

In April, for example, Iowa's hospital leaders were stunned when
then-Gov. Terry Branstad claimed the number of Iowa Medicaid
recipients admitted to hospitals had dropped by more than half
since private managed-care companies began running the program in
2016.

Gov. Branstad's claim was intended to buttress his argument that
Medicaid privatization has been a resounding success, leading to
improved health outcomes and big savings for taxpayers.

But data from the Iowa Hospital Association show the number of
Medicaid recipients being discharged from Iowa hospitals declined
about 4 percent over the past year. Referring to the governor's
claims, an IHA spokesman said, "Those sort of numbers don't make
any sense."

Jamie Campbell's in home care has been more than cut in half since
Gov. Branstad's Medicaid privatization went though.

Gov. Branstad also claimed private management of Medicaid is
saving Iowa taxpayers $110 million in the 2016-17 fiscal year and
will save them an additional $232 million in the fiscal year that
recently began.  That seems hard to believe, especially since
estimates are that the federal and state governments -- which fund
Medicaid jointly -- might have to pay an extra $235 million to
help offset losses claimed by the hired managed-care companies
during the first year of privatization.

If the claims of Iowa's health care providers and Medicaid
beneficiaries are any indication, Medicaid privatization has been,
and remains, a spectacular failure.  It is a rolling Dumpster fire
of a program that has resulted in catastrophic consequences for
vulnerable Iowans and the private agencies that attempt to serve
them.

So while it's usually disheartening to see the state or its
leaders being sued in court -- invariably, it's the taxpayers who
foot the bill for defending and settling these claims -- the
federal class-action lawsuit filed June 13 over Iowa's Medicaid
program is an exception.

The lawsuit, organized by the congressionally chartered
organization Disability Rights Iowa, alleges that Iowa's shift to
a privately run Medicaid program has resulted in drastic cuts to
services for thousands of disabled Iowans who are being denied
their legal right to live outside of institutional care
facilities.

One element of the lawsuit points to a set of facts the state can
no longer deny: When Gov. Branstad, without legislative approval,
privatized the management of Medicaid, he promised that services
for disabled Iowans would not be reduced for at least two years.
It's now abundantly clear that promise was broken within just a
few months, with many Medicaid beneficiaries being formally
notified of cuts to in-home services they relied on to avoid
institutional care.

These cuts have had a devastating impact on individual Iowans, and
they also seem destined to cost taxpayers a fortune.  That's
because in-home care is far less expensive to provide than full-
time care in a residential care facility or nursing home.

But forcing disabled Iowans from their homes into institutions is
not just bad policy, it's illegal.  As Disability Rights Iowa
points out, federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court say that
disabled Americans have a legal right to live as independently as
possible.

The lawsuit isn't likely to prompt the state to reverse course on
privatization, and its focus on in-home services for the disabled
means that many other issues related to Iowa's Medicaid cuts are
unlikely to be addressed.

But it may force state officials to finally acknowledge, at least
in a court of law, the human and financial costs associated with
their disastrous decision to privatize the management of Medicaid.
[GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 400 Women Registered for Mesh Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newcastle Herald reports that it has been nearly three years since
the Newcastle Herald first wrote about transvaginal, or pelvic,
mesh devices and a former University of Newcastle associate
professor who implanted the devices, Richard Reid.

A lot has happened since then.

Women left with devastating and permanent injuries and
complications after pelvic mesh surgery for incontinence and
prolapse formed a group, the Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group,
to break the silence about the extent of pelvic mesh problems.

More than 400 women registered for a landmark class action in the
Australian courts against just one of the mesh manufacturers,
Johnson & Johnson, that was set to start on Tuesday, July 4.

Another 350 women have registered for a class action case against
a second major mesh manufacturer, and other women have launched
legal cases against individual doctors.

Herald investigations have revealed the global reach of the
transvaginal mesh catastrophe, and how even a senior medical
specialist familiar with the issue has estimated the total mesh
compensation payouts could be more than $20 billion, with at least
120,000 women seeking damages in America alone.

The Herald has also revealed the Australian backstory to the
global mesh saga, and how an Australian doctor's pelvic mesh
device for incontinence was developed in America and cleared for
use for prolapse surgery without evidence of its safety and
efficacy for that purpose.

That clearance allowed other mesh device manufacturers to have
their devices cleared for use under an American system that allows
manufacturers to argue their devices are "substantially the same"
as already-cleared devices.

In February Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch successfully argued for
a Senate inquiry into transvaginal mesh devices, and how they were
cleared for use in Australia as a surgical treatment for prolapse,
which is a complication after childbirth.

Recently Victorian and NSW health authorities have initiated
investigations after allegations about mesh surgery in a public
and private hospital, and serious allegations about the release of
research papers on mesh.

What is clear, even before the Senate inquiry, is that regulators
failed women for more than a decade.[GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Take on Law Limits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that class action
plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a pair of
Seventh Circuit decisions that they say incorrectly interpreted a
federal securities law and freed JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of
America Corp. from state court litigation they should have faced.

The petitions filed in the two separate cases claim that the
Seventh Circuit dismissed securities class actions for not
complying with the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
even though the breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims
related to investment management fees at the heart of the
complaints were not covered by the law.

The appeals panel said that classes' claims were based on
omissions that must proceed under federal law, not the state laws
under which they were brought.

But that reading of the SLUSA was incorrect, and in conflict with
the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits, which have allowed similar
suits to move forward, the two petitions say.

"When there is so little at stake for each injured person, a claim
cannot be litigated economically on an individual basis," the
petitioners in Richek Goldberg v. Bank of America said in a
petition filed June 21. "In the real world, once a state law
breach of contract class action is barred, no realistic remedy
exists for people who each suffer an injury of this scale, and
very few (if any) of them will litigate on an individual basis."

And the petitioners in the JPMorgan case argued that although the
SLUSA can be used to defeat state law securities claims based on
misrepresentations, it is not appropriate in other areas.

"For example, a defendant may breach its contract to provide real-
time stock market information by simply failing to deliver the
promised information," the petitioners in Holtz et al. v. JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA et al said in their brief filed June 22.

Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for Bank of America, declined to
comment.

Representatives for JPMorgan could not be reached for comment.

Holtz is represented by Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. --
jeisenhofer@gelaw.com -- Daniel L. Berger, Esq. --
dberger@gelaw.com -- and Jeff Almeida, Esq. -- jalmeida@gelaw.com
-- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. and Samuel E.
Bonderoff, Esq. -- samuel@zamansky.com --  of Zamansky LLC; Thomas
C. Goldstein, Esq. -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com  --  and
Kevin K. Russell, Esq. -- krussell@goldsteinrussell.com -- of
Goldstein & Russell PC.

JPMorgan is represented by Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- and Janet Gochman, Esq. --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Goldberg is represented by Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. --
tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com -- of the Saunders Law Firm, J.
Stephen Walker, Esq. of the Law Offices of J. Stephen Walker PC
and Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler
Wallace LLP.

Bank of America is represented by Mary J. Hackett, Esq. --
mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP.

The cases are Holtz et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., case
number 16-1536, and Richek Goldberg v. Bank of America NA, et al.,
case number 16-1541, both in the U.S. Supreme Court. [GN]


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Appeals Ruling in "Waters" Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Crystal Waters, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02325-ODW-AFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
arises from a massive fraud perpetrated by Defendants in
connection with the marketing and employment of their discounts
and their "rewards" program.  With every purchase at Kohl's,
customers earn Kohl's Cash, which can then be applied towards
subsequent purchases.  Although Defendants' labeling of the
rewards program infers, implies, and/or represents that Kohl's
Cash can be used as actual "cash," in truth, Defendants do not
treat it as such.  In contrast to actual cash, Defendants apply
Kohl's Cash prior to applying any percent-off discounts. By
deducting Kohl's Cash from the purchase price prior to applying
any percent-off discounts, Defendants prevent customers from
obtaining and receiving the full amount and benefit of the
advertised or marketed discount and/or the full amount and benefit
of Kohl's Cash.  This results in the customer overpaying for the
goods and Defendants retaining the amount of overpayment.

The appellate case is captioned as Crystal Waters, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 17-80139, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CRYSTAL WATERS, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and TONY VALENTI, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., is
represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6479


LG CHEM: November 29 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Leada Gore, writing for Al.com, reports that if you purchased a
cellphone, a laptop or tablet computer between 2000 and 2011, you
may be eligible for part of a $45 million settlement.

The settlement comes after a class action lawsuit on behalf of
people who purchased products containing lithium-ion cylindrical
batteries.  The batteries are commonly found in all types of
electronics -- including cordless power tools, camcorders or other
products -- and the settlement includes people who bought
replacement batteries.

The suit claimed three manufacturers -- LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem
America Inc.; Hitachi Maxell Ltd. and Maxell Corporation of
America; and NEC Corp. -- conspired to fix prices for more than 10
years, the Clarion-Ledger reported.  The trio of manufacturers
agreed to pay $44.95 million to settle the allegations.

Who is eligible for the settlement?

To be eligible for part of the settlement, a person must be a
resident of the U.S. from Jan. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2011 and have
purchased one or more of the products covered by the settlement.

Customers can file claims online until Nov. 29.  No receipt is
needed to participate, WXIX reported.  The amount each filer
received will be determined after Nov. 29 based on how many claims
are filed; payments are expected to be processed in February-
March 2018. [GN]


LG ELECTRONICS: One Class Action Suit Compelled Into Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
XDA reports that bootloops on LG devices are as infamous as they
are common, often being used in arguments against the merit of
devices manufactured by LG. LG had admitted that the bootloops
were hardware related on the G4 and had promised to repair the
affected devices "under full warranty". But despite LG supposedly
figuring out the issue, the same problem continued to plague other
LG-made devices such as the Nexus 5X, LG V10 and LG V20.

With very little respite in sight from the OEM, consumers had to
approach the Court for justice. A Class Action Lawsuit was filed
against LG when LG continued to manufacture smartphones with the
defects and did not follow through with a recall to fix and repair
susceptible devices. The lawsuit even claimed that LG replaced
bootlooping devices under warranty with devices that once again
succumbed to bootloops.

Initially, this particular lawsuit was filed against LG over the
LG G4 and the LG V10. Subsequently, the LG-made Nexus 5X, the LG
G5 and the LG V20 were also added to the case.

The latest development on the case comes as a heavy blow to the
affected consumers and to those who wished to see an end to the
bootloops for once and for all. The California Central District
Court has passed an order to compel arbitration in this case, thus
dismissing the class action lawsuit. LG had filed for a motion to
compel arbitration, and based on the facts of the case, the Court
saw it fit to grant the motion and dismiss the lawsuit without
prejudice (an "open door" to file the case again later).

The grant of the motion in LG's favor came through a smart legal
technicality that LG incorporated in its sales strategy.
AndroidPolice has uploaded a copy of the Order, which mentions
that the Court has adopted the standard laid down in the [famous]
case of Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc. The Hill case basically lays
down that additional terms can become part of the contract between
parties even if they were not specifically spelled out at the time
of contract, provided that the parties had an opportunity to
inspect the terms and their acceptance of the additional terms can
be assumed from their lack of refusal.

In LG's case, each of the purchased phones came in a box which
contained documentation related to LG's Limited Warranty. The
Limited Warranty contained a provision for arbitration which makes
it binding upon the parties (LG and the purchaser) to resolve
disputes through binding arbitration instead of in Court, unless
the purchaser chooses to opt out. The ability to opt-out of this
arbitration clause (a clause that prohibits class action lawsuits
and jury trials) is time-limited, giving the purchaser the option
to send LG an email or call a toll-free number within 30 days from
the date of purchase.

Applying Hill's case to the carefully drafted Warranty Agreement,
the additional terms of Limited Warranty become applicable and
binding on the parties. This is irrespective of the purchasers
even knowing about the existence of these additional terms prior
to purchasing, nor is it affected by the simplistic human nature
to ignore all documentations inside of our phone boxes. Since the
agreement to refer to arbitration and waive off a civil lawsuit
hinged on the explicit refusal to accept the clause, the
purchasers were deemed to have accepted the arbitration clause
when their 30-day period ended. Under the laws applicable in LG's
case, silence did constitute assent in this context.

The state-specific law discussed above {in the Order} makes clear
that each of the three states recognizes that shrinkwrap or "in-
the-box" agreements, such as Defendants', can be accepted through
silence or inaction. The agreement here, which could be found
inside the box of the product, gave Plaintiffs 30 days to return
the product or opt out of the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs chose
to keep the phones without opting out. As a result, the Court
agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have assented to the
agreement found inside the box, including the arbitration clause.

AndroidPolice states that arbitration is not likely to result in
as much relief or compensation for the plaintiffs as compared to
the class action lawsuit that was existing. To an extent, we
agree, as forcing arbitration in this matter breaks down the
collective nature of a class action lawsuit, and acts in the
advantage of the big corporation and to the detriment of smaller
consumers. Every plaintiff now has to undergo arbitration
procedure, making this a barrier for those seeking justice but not
possessing the inclination to involve themselves in complex,
expensive and time-consuming legal disputes.

But just because the case has been compelled towards arbitration
does not mean that all hope is lost. The arbitrator in his review
of the case and the evidence can impose a decision that comes out
in the favor of the bootlooped parties. Also, since the case has
been dismissed without prejudice, an option to file the case in
court at a later time still exists.

If you are a US citizen, have been affected by the bootloop on the
mentioned LG devices purchased by you through LG or its authorized
retailers and would like to join the suit (the arbitration
proceeding, in this case), you can contact the attorneys involved.
XDA-Developers advises readers to use their own discretion when
deciding on their participation. [GN]


LINN COUNTY, OR: Plaintiffs' Attorney Mulls Timber Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corvallis Gazette-Times reports that a recent ruling in
Linn County's lawsuit over state timber-management practices could
prove to be a critical victory for the state.

Or it could turn out to be a somewhat minor speed bump in the road
for the class-action lawsuit, in which Linn County has been joined
by about 140 other plaintiffs, other taxing jurisdictions in
counties that contain some of the state timber trust land at issue
in the case.

Either way, the ruling from Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel
Murphy should stand as a reminder of the complexity of this case.

And the issue at the heart of the lawsuit -- the idea that shifts
in state land-management practices have financially hobbled
Oregon's rural counties -- will endure regardless of the lawsuit's
disposition.

Despite the complex issues raised in the lawsuit, the case at its
heart boils down to a breach-of-contract claim.  All the taxing
entities involved (including Benton County) have connections to
state forest trust land, mainly logged-over or fire-damaged
properties that were acquired by counties through tax foreclosures
in the 1930s and 1940s and then turned over to the state for
management.  A 1939 law says those lands must be managed for "the
greatest permanent value to the state."

At that time, the law was generally interpreted to mean that the
lands should be managed to maximize timber harvests.  Money from
those timber sales went back to the coffers of the counties and
other entities.

But over the years, the state has broadened the definition of
"greatest permanent value" so that it includes other management
goals, such as recreation and protection of habitat.  As a result,
timber harvests diminished on the state land -- and so did the
money from those harvests.  It's part of the reason why some
Oregon counties still struggle financially, and the lawsuit argues
that it amounts to a breach of contract between the state and the
counties.

Judge Murphy's most recent ruling in the $1.4 billion lawsuit came
as the judge reviewed his earlier decisions rejecting various
defenses attorneys for the state had raised.  The judge ended up
reversing himself on one key issue: He ruled that the counties and
other tax entities in the lawsuit could not sue the state for
monetary damages, agreeing with the legal doctrine known as
"sovereign immunity," which prevents the government from being
sued without its consent.  In this case, the judge noted, the
counties are subdivisions of the state.

Judge Murphy said the plaintiffs should have "the opportunity to
re-plead their case in such a manner that is supported by the law
if they can." That could include seeking an injunction or order to
change Oregon's logging practices.

The problem is that the counties have said they're primarily
interested in recovering lost revenue; that was a key reason why
Benton County commissioners, for example, decided to remain as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Merely forcing a change in logging
practices doesn't offer much immediate relief for financially
strapped counties.

John DiLorenzo, the Portland attorney who represents the
plaintiffs, has said he'd like to meet with Judge Murphy to get
clarification of the judge's ruling.  Mr. DiLorenzo also talked
about the possibility of appealing the ruling to a higher court
and then, depending on the results of that appeal, returning to a
Linn County courtroom for trial.  Such an appeal could make sense
to get a better idea of whether a path to monetary damages remains
open. And it's almost a certainty that this case was headed to a
higher court regardless of what happened in circuit court.

Mr. DiLorenzo told reporters that the plaintiffs in the case knew
they "would be plowing new ground" with the lawsuit.  And the suit
has helped cast a spotlight on the troubled finances of Oregon's
rural counties.  But if Judge Murphy's decision holds, the
plaintiffs may find they've run out of legal ground to plow. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Settles Customers' Billing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Lazarus, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that on June
30, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers may get a
step closer to recovering their money from a landmark class-action
settlement.  The settlement stems from a suit over a faulty DWP
computer billing system that overcharged tens of thousands of
customers while failing to bill others.  A judge will be
considering final approval of the settlement on July 7. The DWP
owes at least $67.5 million in refunds and credits, an independent
monitor concluded. [GN]


MDL 2262: FTC Futures Appeals Order in Metzler v. Credit Suisse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd., 303030 Trading LLC, Atlantic
Trading USA, LLC, FTC Futures Fund SICAV, Gary Francis, Nathaniel
Haynes and Metzler Investment GmbH filed an appeal from an amended
order dated June 26, 2017, relating to the multidistrict
litigation styled In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald entered the amended order for entry
of partial final judgment relating to the lawsuit entitled METZLER
INVESTMENT GmbH, et al. v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al.  The
judgment is entered dismissing the antitrust claims of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants (Exchange-Based Plaintiffs) against the
Foreign Bank Defendants identified in their Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint that were dismissed on
personal jurisdiction grounds for the reasons given in LIBOR VI.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
Plaintiffs have also filed appeals in the litigation.

The Plaintiffs in the MDL (including the Plaintiffs) allege that
the Defendants conspired to artificially depress USD LIBOR for
profit- and reputation-based reasons.  The Defendants then sold
price-fixed financial instruments incorporating USD LIBOR to U.S.
financial institutions, including the Petitioners.  The
Petitioners also allege a broader conspiracy in which the
Defendants agreed to boycott actual or potential LIBOR competitors
in the market for interest-rate benchmarks to facilitate their
price-fixing agreements.

Aside from the Plaintiffs-Appellants, the Other Plaintiffs are FTC
Capital GMBH, Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, City of
Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, Ravan
Investments, LLC, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Richard
Hershey, Jeffrey Laydon, Linda Zacher, Roberto E. Calle Gracey,
Ellen Gelboim, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, City of New
Britain, AVP Properties, LLC, Schwab U.S. Dollar Liquid Assets
Fund, Schwab Money Market Fund, Schwab Total Bond Market Fund,
Community Bank & Trust, Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund, Schwab
Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Berkshire Bank, Schwab Investor
Money Fund, Elizabeth Lieberman, Schwab Cash Reserves, Todd
Augenbaum, Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Charles Schwab Bank,
N.A., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Courtyard at Amwell II, LLC,
Greenwich Commons II, LLC, Schwab YieldPlus Fund, 33-35 Green Pond
Road Associates, LLC, Jill Court Associates II, LLC, Maidencreek
Ventures II LP, Raritan Commons, LLC, Lawrence W. Gardner, Annie
Bell Adams, Dennis Paul Fobes, Leigh E. Fobes, Margaret Lambert,
Betty L. Gunter,  Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico,
Carl A. Payne, Kenneth W. Coker, City of Riverside, Riverside
Public Financing Authority, East Bay Municipal Utility District,
County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Joint Powers Financing
Authority, City of Richmond, Richmond Joint Powers Financing
Authority, Successor Agency to the Richmond Community
Redevelopment Agency, County of San Diego, Guaranty Bank and Trust
Company, Heather M. Earle, Henryk Malinowski, Linda Carr, Eric
Friedman, County of Riverside, Jerry Weglarz, Nathan Weglarz,
Direcors Financial Group, SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust,
Highlander Realty, LLC, Jeffrey D. Buckley, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, County of Sonoma, David E. Sundstrom, in his
official capacity as Treasurer of the county of Sonoma for and on
behalf of the Sonoma County Tresury Pool Investment, Regents of
the University of California, San Diego Association of
Governments, CEMA Joint Venture, County of Sacramento, City of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation
Authority, Principal Funds, Inc., PFI Bond & Mortgage Securities
Fund, PFI Bond Market Index Fund, PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund, PFI
Diversified Real Asset Fund, PFI Equity Income Fund, PFI Global
Diversified Income Fund, PFI Government &High Quality Bond Fund,
PFI High Yield Fund, PFI High Yield Fund I, PFI Income Fund, PFI
Inflation Protection Fund, PFI Short-Term Income Fund, PFI Money
Market Fund, PFI Preferred Securities Fund, Principal Variable
Contracts Funds, Inc., PVC Asset Allocation Account, PVC Money
Market Account, PVC Balanced Account, PVC Bond & Mortgage
Securities Account, PVC Equity Income Account, PVC Government &
High Quality Bond Account, PVC Income Account, PVC Short-Term
Income Account, Principal Financial Group, Inc., Principal
Financial Services, Inc., Principal Life Insurance Company,
Principal Capital Interest Only I, LLC, Principal Commercial
Funding, LLC, Principal Commercial Funding II, LLC, Principal Real
Estate Investors, LLC, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company
LLC, Independence Trading, Inc., Maxwell Van De Velde, Brian
McCormick and Vito Spillone.

Aside from the Defendants-Appellees, the other Defendants are
Credit Agricole S.A., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, BNP
Paribas S.A., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, RBS Citizens,
N.A., incorrectly sued as othe Charter One Bank NA, RBS Citizens,
N.A., Barclays Capital Inc., CitiGroup Global Market, Inc., Credit
Suisse Group, NA, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts, agent of RBS Citizens Bank, NA, Barclays PLC,
Barclays US Funding LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated,
Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Rabobank Group, Does 1 Through 10,
Societe Generale Corporate & Investment Banking, National
Association, Citigroup Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC,
Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen - Boerenleenbank B.A., Stephanie
Nagel, British Bankers' Association, Citigroup Funding, Inc., BBA
Enterprises, Ltd., BBA Libor, Ltd., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., John Does #1- #5, HSBC Finance Corporation,
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1, Lloyds Banking
Group plc, Chase Bank USA, N.A., UBS Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan
Clearing Corp., Bank of America Securities LLC, Centrale
Raiffeisen-Berenleenbank B.A., UBS AG, Royal Bank of Scotland
Group PLC, Societe Generale and Bank of Nova Scotia.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-2056, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd., FTC Futures Fund
SICAV, Metzler Investment GmbH, 303030 Trading LLC, Atlantic
Trading USA, LLC, Gary Francis and Nathaniel Haynes

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 317-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: CLovell@lshllp.com

Defendants-Appellees Lloyds Banking Group plc, Lloyds Bank plc and
HBOS plc are represented by:

          Marc J. Gottridge, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com

Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
America, N.A., are represented by:

          Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: rwise@dpw.com

Defendants-Appellees The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC are represented by:

          David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8851
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8811
          E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Inc. are
represented by:

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1 CityCenter
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (212) 841-1097
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

Defendant-Appellee Credit Suisse Group AG is represented by:

          Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3435
          Facsimile: (212) 378-2186
          E-mail: hwasher@cahill.com

Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com

Defendants-Appellees HSBC Holdings PLC and HSBC Bank PLC are
represented by:

          Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 415-8600
          Facsimile: (212) 303-2754
          E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com

Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., are represented by:

          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: trice@stblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          E-mail: astern@sidley.com

Defendant-Appellee UBS AG is represented by:

          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: jbell@gibsondunn.com

Defendants-Appellees WestLB AG, Portigon AG and WestDeutsche
ImmobilienBank AG are represented by:

          Christopher Martin Paparella, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          1 Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6644
          E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com

Defendant-Appellee Royal Bank of Canada is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Smith, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2900 K Street, NW, North Tower
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 625-3616
          E-mail: robert.smith1@kattenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. is represented by:

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5520
          Facsimile: (212) 822-5520
          E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com

Defendant-Appellee The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., is
represented by:

          Christopher Michael Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-6985
          E-mail: viapianoc@sullcrom.com

Defendant-Appellee Barclays Bank PLC is represented by:

          Amos Amory Friedland, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8248
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: afriedland@bsfllp.com

Defendant-Appellee Societe Generale S.A. is represented by:

          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: hbullock@mayerbrown.com


MDL 2724: Endo Defending Against Generics Pricing Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC continues to defend against the Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In March 2016, EPI received a CID from the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York. The CID requested documents
and information regarding contracts with Pharmacy Benefit Managers
regarding FROVA(R).

The Company said, "We are currently cooperating with this
investigation."

"In December 2014, our subsidiary Par received a Subpoena to
Testify Before Grand Jury from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ
and issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The subpoena requested documents and information
focused primarily on product and pricing information relating to
Par's authorized generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets
and Par's generic doxycycline products, and on communications with
competitors and others regarding those products. Par is currently
cooperating fully with the investigation."

"In December 2015, EPI received Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces
Tecum from the State of Connecticut Office of Attorney General
requesting information regarding pricing of certain of its generic
products, including doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline
hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and
oxybutynin chloride. We are currently cooperating with this
investigation.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of the foregoing
investigations or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if
any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, for these matters but will explore all
options as appropriate in our best interests.

"Beginning in December 2015, two complaints, including a class
action complaint, were filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas against us and certain of our subsidiaries, including Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), along with other manufacturers of
generic pharmaceutical products, seeking compensatory and punitive
or treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, and alleging that
certain marketing and pricing practices by the defendant companies
violated state law, including consumer protection law. The class
action complaint was subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

In January 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint, and that motion remains pending. The case in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is stayed pending resolution of
the class action. Additional similar claims may be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.

"We intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all
options as appropriate in our best interests.

"Beginning in March 2016, several class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and the District of Rhode Island against us and
certain of our subsidiaries, including PPI, and other
manufacturers seeking compensatory and punitive or treble damages,
as well as injunctive relief, and alleging that certain marketing
and pricing practices regarding digoxin and doxycycline violated
federal and/or state antitrust laws and/or gave rise to state
consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment claims. The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1407, issued an order in August 2016 establishing coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings for these cases in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the
caption In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2724. The direct purchaser plaintiffs and
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class
action complaints in January 2017, and defendants moved to dismiss
those complaints in March 2017. An independent pharmacy plaintiff
filed a similar class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2017.

"Additional similar claims may be brought by other plaintiffs in
various jurisdictions. We intend to contest the litigation
vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in our best
interests.

"Since November 2016, several class action complaints have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against certain of our subsidiaries, including PPI,
and other manufacturers seeking compensatory and punitive or
treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, and alleging that
certain marketing and pricing practices regarding divalproex ER
violated federal and/or state antitrust laws and/or gave rise to
state consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment claims.
Additional similar claims may be brought by other plaintiffs in
various jurisdictions. We intend to contest the litigation
vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in our best
interests.

"Beginning in December 2016, multiple class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against us and certain of our subsidiaries, including
PPI, and other manufacturers seeking compensatory and punitive or
treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, and alleging that
certain marketing and pricing practices regarding propranolol
violated federal and/or state antitrust laws and/or gave rise to
state consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment claims.

"Defendants moved to dismiss one direct purchaser complaint
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2017. The
remaining Eastern District of Pennsylvania actions relating to
propranolol were stayed pending a ruling from the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the motion to transfer. In
the Southern District of New York actions, the indirect purchasers
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2017, and the
direct purchasers filed a consolidated amended complaint in March
2017. Defendants moved to dismiss both consolidated amended
complaints, and those motions were denied in April 2017, except as
to certain state law claims brought by the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs. Additional similar claims may be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. We intend to contest the
litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in
our best interests.

"Beginning in March 2017, several class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against our subsidiary PPI and other manufacturers
seeking compensatory and punitive or treble damages, as well as
injunctive relief, and alleging that certain marketing and pricing
practices regarding baclofen violated federal and/or state
antitrust laws and/or gave rise to state consumer protection
and/or unjust enrichment claims. Additional similar claims may be
brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. We intend to
contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as
appropriate in our best interests.

"Also beginning in March 2017, several class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York against us and
certain of our subsidiaries, including PPI, and other
manufacturers seeking compensatory and punitive or treble damages,
as well as injunctive relief, and alleging that certain marketing
and pricing practices regarding amitriptyline or amitriptyline
hydrochloride violated federal and/or state antitrust laws and/or
gave rise to state consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment
claims. Additional similar claims may be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. We intend to contest the
litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in
our best interests.

"In January 2017, Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion
with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking
to transfer certain of the foregoing antitrust complaints to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
inclusion in MDL No. 2724, which would then be renamed In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.

"In April 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order renaming MDL No. 2724 as requested and
expanding it to include actions in which: (a) plaintiffs assert
claims for price fixing of generic drugs in violation of the
Sherman Act and/or state antitrust laws on behalf of overlapping
putative nationwide classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
generic pharmaceuticals; (b) the average market price of the
subject generic pharmaceutical is alleged to have increased
between 2012 and the present; (c) defendants are alleged to have
effectuated the alleged conspiracy through direct company-to-
company contacts and through joint activities undertaken through
trade associations, in particular meetings of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association; and (d) the allegations stem from the
same government investigation into anticompetitive conduct in the
generic pharmaceuticals industry. Pursuant to this order, the
propranolol and amitriptyline hydrochloride cases filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have
been or we expect will be transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL No. 2724.
As noted above, the digoxin and doxycycline, divalproex ER, and
baclofen cases are already pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of the foregoing matters or
the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this
time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, for these matters but will explore all options as
appropriate in our best interests."

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded
pharmaceuticals.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Tanguilig" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Bernadette Tanguilig is
still pending in California, according to Neiman Marcus Group LTD
LLC's Form 10-Q filed on June 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29,
2017.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated.  On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for
the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20,
2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and
injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.  The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed
"related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court
judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court.  However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the
Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration.  The trial
court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral argument, the California
Court of Appeal issued its order affirming the trial court's
denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration and awarding
Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal.

On July 13, 2015, the Company filed its petition for rehearing
with the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29,
2015.  On August 10, 2015, the Company filed its petition for
review with the California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his
answer on August 31, 2015.

On September 16, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for review.  On October 6, 2015, the case was
transferred back to the trial court.

On November 16, 2015, Mr. Pinela filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in the trial court until after the appellate court
resolves Ms. Tanguilig's appeal.  On December 10, 2015, the
hearing on Mr. Pinela's motion to stay and a case management
conference were held, and the trial court judge issued an order
granting the motion and issuing a stay, which currently remains in
effect.  The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed
since final approval of the class action settlement had been
granted.

With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to
set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1,
2014.  In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law.  On December 10, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including
the civil penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims
to trial within five years as required by California law.  After
several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014
trial date.  The court awarded the Company its costs of suit in
connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied
its request of an attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig.  Ms.
Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her
claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of
costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of
Appeal.  Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial
court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation
will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of
the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint.  If this
occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by
the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case (as
described below); however, that settlement does not cover claims
asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from
approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning
of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case).  Briefing on
the appeals is complete, and a judicial panel has been assigned.
The parties have requested oral argument, but no date has been
set.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014.  Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.
A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement.  On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her
motion for catalyst attorneys' fees.  A hearing on the motion was
held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on
July 28, 2015.

The Company said, "Based upon the settlement agreement with
respect to Ms. Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our
currently estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms.
Monjazeb's and Ms. Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation
claims in fiscal year 2014, which amount was not material to our
financial condition or results of operations.  With respect to the
Monjazeb matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the
Company and have been disbursed by the claims administrator in
accordance with the settlement.  We will continue to evaluate the
Tanguilig matter, and our recorded reserve for such matter, based
on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances."

In addition to the foregoing matters, the National Labor Relations
Board ("NLRB") has been pursuing a complaint alleging that the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement's class action prohibition
violates employees' rights to engage in concerted activity, which
was submitted to an administrative law judge ("ALJ") for
determination on a stipulated record.  The ALJ issued a
recommended decision and order finding that the Company's
Arbitration Agreement and class action waiver violated the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  The matter was transferred
to the NLRB for further consideration and decision.  On August 4,
2015, the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision and ordered the Company
not to maintain and/or enforce the provisions of the Arbitration
Agreement found to violate the NLRA and to take affirmative steps
to effectuate the NLRA's policies.

On August 12, 2015, the Company filed its petition for review of
the NLRB's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  On September 23, 2015, the NLRB filed a motion to hold
the Company's case in abeyance pending the Court's decisions in
two other cases, which the NLRB argued presented identical issues
to those before the Court in the Company's case.  On October 2,
2015, the Court issued an order granting the NLRB's motion to stay
the Company's case.  On June 10, 2016, the NLRB filed an unopposed
motion seeking to extend the stay until the deadline for
petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari has passed in a
similar case, and, if such petition is filed, until the Supreme
Court resolves that case.  On June 20, 2016, the motion was
granted.  The NLRB filed its petition for certiorari in the
similar case on September 9, 2016, which was granted on January
13, 2017.  That case is now pending before the Supreme Court, and
the Company's case remains stayed.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: July 2018 Trial Date Set for "Rubenstein" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017, that Linda
Rubenstein's class action case for alleged violations of
California consumer protection laws has been transferred back to
the district court and given a trial date of July 24, 2018.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California.  Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores.  Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

On September 12, 2014, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  On October
17, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted on December 12, 2014.  In its order
dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave
to file an amended complaint.  Ms. Rubenstein filed her first
amended complaint on December 22, 2014.

On January 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015.
In its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015.

On April 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  On May 12, 2015, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety, without leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms.
Rubenstein filed a notice to appeal the court's ruling.  The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was held on February
17, 2017.

On April 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's
ruling, holding that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient
to proceed past the pleadings stage of litigation.  The case has
been transferred back to the district court and given a trial date
of July 24, 2018.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Attia" Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's appeal in the putative class action
lawsuit filed by Holly Attia, et al., in California is still
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 13,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

On February 11, 2016, a putative class action first amended
complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Holly Attia and
seven other named plaintiffs.  They allege claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages due at termination and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.  Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
restitution under California unfair competition law and a
representative claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  Plaintiffs seek to certify
a class of all nonexempt employees of the Company in California
since December 31, 2011.  Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged
Labor Code violations as well as restitution, statutory penalties
under PAGA, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit.

The Company removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 17, 2016, and subsequently
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to all named plaintiffs
and requested to stay the PAGA claim.

On June 27, 2016, the court granted the motion and compelled
arbitration of the individual claims.  The court retained
jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and stayed that claim pending the
outcome of arbitration.

On September 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order regarding the arbitration.

On October 18, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration based on a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, and reversed its
order granting the motion to compel arbitration.

The Company filed an appeal on November 16, 2016.  The U.S.
Supreme Court granted certiorari of the Morris decision, and the
Ninth Circuit appeal is currently stayed pending the Supreme
Court's decision.

On April 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which is set for hearing on July 3, 2017.  The
district court has set a trial date in the matter of February 6,
2018.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Ohle" Suit Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017 that the court has
granted preliminary approval on June 9, 2017 of a settlement of a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Catherine Ohle.

On September 27, 2016, a dormant Illinois putative class action
lawsuit, Catherine Ohle v. Neiman Marcus Group, originally filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, was revived by an Illinois
appeals court when it reversed a June 2014 trial court's order
granting summary judgment to the Company and dismissing the matter
in its entirety.

In Ohle, the plaintiff alleged that the Company's prior practice
of conducting pre-employment credit checks of sales associates and
considering credit history as a factor in its hiring decisions
violated the Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act.  The appellate
court reversed, holding that no exemption applied.

The Company appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court,
and review was denied on January 25, 2017.  The case was returned
to the trial court for further proceedings.

On June 9, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of
settlement.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Awaits Initial Court OK on Cyber-Attack Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
June 13, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017 that the court has
yet to rule on the bid for preliminary approval of a settlement of
a cyber-attack class actions litigation.

Three class actions relating to a cyber-attack on the Company's
computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014.  The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint.

Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27,
2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11,
2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to
re-file a complaint.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards.  Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and
without prejudice as to Shields.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  On June 2, 2014, an amended
complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three
plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents;
and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for
negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of
various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and
violation of state data breach laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July
2, 2014.  On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury.

On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings.

On August 3, 2015, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc.  On September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the Company's petition for rehearing.

The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015
and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion
of the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss that had not
been addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for
December 15, 2015.

The parties completed supplemental briefing on December 21, 2015.

On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The parties jointly requested, and the court granted, an
extension of time for filing a responsive pleading, which was due
on December 28, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, the court denied the parties' request for
another extension of time, dismissed the case without prejudice,
and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to reinstate.

On March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate, which
the court granted on March 16, 2017.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of a class action settlement resolving this action.  The
court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEW ENGLAND: Michigan Tainted Injections Victims Can File Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Thompson, writing for Record Eagle, reports that
Michiganders who received tainted injections during a 2012 fungal
meningitis outbreak can receive compensation for certain related
costs.

A $40 million special victim compensation fund, paid for with the
federal Victims of Crime Act, is available for those who were
injured or killed by the injections, according to a press release
from the Michigan attorney general.  The money is intended to pay
for uninsured medical care and lost income.

The injections were manufactured and distributed by the
Massachusetts-based New England Compounding Center.  It sparked
the 2012 multistate outbreak of fungal meningitis and other
infections in which at least 76 people were killed in more than 20
states, including Michigan.

NECC surrendered its Michigan pharmacy and controlled substance
licenses and no longer operates in the state.

The tainted injections sparked a 2014 civil case in Grand Traverse
County, in which patients who received them from Neuromuscular &
Rehabilitation Associates of Northern Michigan filed a class-
action lawsuit against the doctors who injected them.

A jury in 2015 found the doctors not negligent. Patients appealed
the verdict to the Michigan Court of Appeals, court records state.

Eligible claimants must have received a tainted injection between
May 1 and Oct. 15, 2012, and developed a fungal infection as a
result, the release states.  They must have previously been
identified by the U.S. Attorney's Office or the FBI as a victim or
relative of a deceased victim of the outbreak and be on the U.S.
Department of Justice's Victim Notification System.

The deadline for submitting a claim application is Dec. 16.

Claimants can request applications by calling 617-573-5375,
emailing NECCAssistance@state.ma.us or visiting
mass.gov/ago/public-safety/resources-for-victims/necc-rfa.html.
[GN]


NEW JERSEY, USA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wolf" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Karin Wolf filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Karin Wolf v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case
No. 2-17-cv-02072 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark) on March 30, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Karin Wolf, Case No. 17-
2446, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner In re: KARIN WOLF, in propria persona; D and
G (by mother and next friend Karin Wolf); and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, in Albany, New York, appears pro se.

The Defendants-Respondents are STATE OF NEW JERSEY; COUNTY OF
BERGEN; NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURT; STUART
RABNER, Chief Justice, in his official capacity as Chief Justice
of the New Jersey Supreme Court; PETER DOYNE, Judge, in his
official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; BONNIE J.
MIZDOL, Judge, in her official capacity as Judge of the Bergen
County Court; WILLIAM R. DELORENZO, Judge, in his official
capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; GERALD C. ESCALA,
Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County
Court; KATHY KATONA, Esq., in her official capacity as court
mediator of the Bergen County Court; PETER F. VAN AULEN; JUDITH
BROWN GREIF; BERGEN FAMILY CENTER; NORTHEAST NEW JERSEY LEGAL
SERVICES; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY; FULL CIRCLE and Nominal
Respondent MADELINE C. ARLEO.[BN]


NEW YORK: Teachers' Retirement System Sued for Extra Pension
------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that the New York
City teachers who retire at the end of the school year still want
to get paid for the summer.

Former math instructor Irving Lieblich has filed a class action
lawsuit against the 200,000-member Teachers' Retirement System of
the City of New York for the extra pay.

Lieblich, 89, says the city "encourages prospective retirees to
retire on July 1 every year after the school year has concluded."

"Unfortunately for plaintiff and other TRS members heading this
advice will result in significantly less pension payments for the
rest of a retired teacher's life," he adds in the Manhattan
Supreme Court suit.

Teachers are shortchanged because the pension system does not
include the salary for the last year in the classroom, which is
almost always the their career-high pay, the suit says.

For example Leiblich, who taught for 24 years, retired in June
2011, when his salary for that year was $93,656.

But his benefits were calculated using his 2010 pay, which was
$90,054.

The Queens resident currently receives a $32,498 pension but if
the benefits were based on his 2011 salary he'd make $32,739 a
year.

A rep for the TRS said the agency "has not been served with the
papers and has no comment." [GN]


NIGERIA: Police Faces Class Action for Threatening Musician
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Ezeamalu, writing for All Africa, reports that a Lagos-based
lawyer, Malcom Omirhobo, has sued the Nigerian Police at a Lagos
Division of the Federal High Court for allegedly threatening to
arrest popular Nigerian musician, Tuface Idibia, over a mass
protest he planned last February.

The lawyer, in a class action, sued for himself and on behalf of
millions of Nigerians.

Joined as respondents in the suit are: The Inspector General of
Police, The Attorney General of the Federation.  The Commissioner
of Police Lagos State and The Attorney General of Lagos State.

Last January, Tuface had called for a nationwide protest, themed
'OneNigeria,' to raise awareness against worsening economic crisis
across the country.

But the police, after initially promising to provide security,
called on the musician to shelve the action in the "interest of
peace and security."

Two days to the protest, which had been scheduled for February
6th, Tuface announced the cancellation of the event citing
security concerns.

The protest, however, went ahead on the planned date with civil
society organizations and hundreds of Nigerians in Lagos and Abuja
marching around the cities protesting against harsh living
conditions.

In his suit marked FHC/CS/ 842/17, Mr. Omirhobo is seeking amongst
other reliefs, a declaration that by the combined provisions of
sections 39 to 41 of the constitution, it is the duty of the
Police to provide security for intending protesters.

He avers that a failure of the police to provide the requisite
security measures in favour of a planned protest which had been
slated, but rather intimidate intending protesters, constitutes a
breach of citizens fundamental right to peaceful Assembly.

On the day scheduled for the protest in Lagos, armed police
officers had blocked access to the National Stadium, the start-off
point for the protest.  The officers, however, were forced to
stand down after police commissioner, Fatai Owoseni, denied
authorizing the action.

At the resumed hearing of the case on July 3, Mr. Omirhobo
announced appearance for the applicant, while there was no legal
representation for the respondents.

He informed the court that he had yet to serve processes on some
of the respondents in Abuja, and urged the court for time to do
the needful.

Consequently, the trial judge, Chuka Obiozor, ordered that all
processes be regularised.

He adjourned the suit until October 11 for hearing.

In the suit, the applicant is seeking a declaration that the
coercion and intimidation of 2face, by threatening to arrest him
if he dared to lead the planned protest, amounts to a breach of
his freedom of association, expression, and movement.

Mr. Omirhobo also seeks a declaration that the intimidation of
2face by the police, leading to a cancellation of the planned
protest, which was meant to March against the rising wave of
hunger and recession in the country, constitutes a breach of
citizens right to freedom of expression.

He is, therefore, seeking an order of perpetual injunction,
restraining the respondents from further preventing the applicant
or other aggrieved citizens of Nigeria, from organising or
convening peaceful assemblies, meetings or rallies.

He is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining
the respondents from further issuing threat statements to members
of the public, and other interest groups from exercising their
fundamental rights.

The applicant is also, calling for a public apology from the
respondents to the generality of Nigerians, for frustrating a
planned peaceful protest. [GN]


ONEOK PARTNERS: Settled 2 Putative Class Action Lawsuits in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK Partners, L.P. settles two putative class action lawsuits in
June related to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2017.

On March 28, 2017 and April 7, 2017, two putative class action
lawsuits captioned Juergen Krueger, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ONEOK Partners, L.P., et al  (the
"First Complaint") and Max Federman, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. ONEOK Partners, L.P., et al  (the
"Second Complaint," and together with the First Complaint, the
"Complaints") were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma against ONEOK Partners, L.P. and
each of the members of the ONEOK Partners Board of Directors as
defendants.

The Complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by causing a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
March 7, 2017.  Both Complaints seek various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On June 1, 2017, the plaintiffs in the actions agreed to dismiss
their individual claims as moot, with prejudice, in return for
ONEOK Partners' agreement to make the supplemental disclosures.

On June 12, 2017, ONEOK Partners filed its Current Report on Form
8-K with the SEC making supplemental disclosures to the definitive
proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by ONEOK Partners with the
SEC on May 22, 2017 (the "Proxy Statement") in connection with the
solicitation of proxies for the Special Meeting.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs may seek an award of attorneys'
fees in connection with the lawsuits, and the parties have
reserved all rights and arguments in connection with any such
claim."

ONEOK Partners is electing to make the supplemental disclosures to
the Proxy Statement in response to the putative class action
complaints and solely for the purpose of mooting the allegations
contained therein.  ONEOK Partners denies the allegations of each
of the class action complaints, and denies any violation of law.
ONEOK Partners believes that the Proxy Statement disclosed all
material information required to be disclosed therein, and denies
that the supplemental disclosures are material or are otherwise
required to be disclosed.  ONEOK Partners is disclosing this
information solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/QWMLGw

ONEOK Partners, L.P. engages in the gathering, processing,
storage, and transportation of natural gas in the United States.
ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C. serves as the general partner of ONEOK
Partners, L.P.  The Company was founded in 1993 and is
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


PARTY ANIMAL: Sued Over Upscale "Cocolicious" Dog Food
------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
two companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of an
upscale dog food known as "Cocolicious" are the subject of a class
action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Court. The suit alleges
Party Animal Inc. of California and Evanger's Dog and Cat Food
Company of Illinois are responsible for selling cans of Party
Animal dog food that, according to a Texas A&M testing of the dog
food, contained the animal euthanasia drug pentobarbital.

Party Animal "Cocolicious" Dog Food Subject of Class ActionThe
lawsuit charges that the dog food was made using animals that have
been euthanized.

"The dog food definitely tested positive for pentobarbital," says
attorney Jane Braugh, Esq. from the firm of Sico, Hoelscher,
Harris & Braugh in Pasadena, California.

"From our research it shows that Evanger's was buying dead
carcasses that had likely been put to sleep by vets and mixed in
with that would supposedly be organic meats and vegetables. So
that is how the dog food became tainted," says Braugh who is the
attorney for the lead plaintiffs and other members of the class.

The class action documents, filed in Los Angeles County Court,
claim Party Animal Inc., in collaboration with Evanger's, "sold
canned pet food that contains substances that are toxic to animals
and have resulted in the serious illnesses or deaths of animal
around the United States."

It further alleges that "Party Animal is mislabeled as organic and
mislabeled as to its healthy ingredients such as fruits and
vegetables and simply does not contain the wholesome substances it
purports to contain."

"The FDA has regulations on what can and can't be added to dog
food and the labelling and that is part of the case as well. We
just don't believe from our initial investigation that the
labelling is appropriate and accurate. They are selling this as
healthful dog food and it is making animals sick," says Braugh.

In December of 2016, in San Antonia, Texas Wendy Black, the lead
plaintiff in the case, agreed to foster a little Schnauzer called
Bianca. Black had the dog groomed and took her to the vet for a
full checkup. She had some tumours removed and had some dental
work done. Bianca was good to go -- blood sugar levels were normal
and no sign of diabetes.

Black bought six cans of "Cocolicious" Party Animal organic dog
food -- three cans of Chicken/Beef and 3 cans Beef/Turkey for
Bianca and began feeding it to her.

By the beginning of February 2017 the dog was lethargic, slept all
the time and didn't even want to stand up. On February 3 Black
took the dog to the vet. Bianca was shivering, throwing up,
defecating, sweating and panting, dizzy and weak and refusing to
eat.

There was concern the dog might die. The vet put her on
intravenous fluids and by the end of the day Bianca managed to eat
a bit of Royal Canine canned dog food. She had another round of
intravenous fluids and improved.

Over the next month Black noticed Bianca was on roller coaster.
The dog's condition seemed to coincide with the type of food she
ate. She would be sick for few days. Black would switch the food
and she got better.

By March 2, the dog was again in serious distress. Her vomit
smelled extremely foul and she defecated non-stop. They went back
to the vet. The dog's blood sugar levels were elevated and she was
diabetic. Black now had bills totaling over $1,500 related to
Bianca's health.

Black began to suspect Party Animal dog food was the problem. She
stopped feeding Party Animal to Bianca.
She contacted the Pet store and arranged for a Texas A&M lab to
test the Party Animal canned food she had on hand.

Bianca is now an energetic normal little dog. However, Black
alleges the dog's diabetic issues are due to internal damage
suffered as a result of eating Party Animal.

Party Animal, in a statement on its website, says it has recalled
the lots in question and have subsequently tested other lots as
well. It is also in discussions about its manufacturing process
with its supplier Evanger's Cat and Dog Food. The company also
says, "The safety of pets is and always will be our first
priority. We sincerely regret the reports of the discomfort
experienced by the pet who consumed this food. As pet parents
ourselves, we take this matter seriously."

The lawsuit has eight causes of action including Breach of Express
Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Negligence, Negligent
Misrepresentation, Strict Product Liability, Violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Violation of Unfair
Competition Law and violation of False Advertising Law.

All persons in the United States who purchased Party Dog food
between April 2013 and April 2017 are eligible to join the class
action. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
all persons who suffered out of pocket costs, related to the
injury, illness or death of an animal who ate Party Animal dog
food.

It also asks that ingredients be clearly stated on the can and
that no euthanized animals be used in the production of dog food.

The class action has yet to be certified. [GN]


PATHEON NV: Suit over Oral Contraceptive Ongoing in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon N.V. continues to defend itself against a civil action in
Pennsylvania related to the recall of defective products it
manufactured, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2017.

The civil action is pending in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
against the Company and one of its customers in connection with
the recall of certain lots of allegedly defective products
manufactured by the Company for the customer. The customer has
given the Company notice of its intent to seek indemnification
from the Company for all damages, costs and expenses, pursuant to
the manufacturing services agreement between the customer and the
Company.

The action was filed in Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
Country, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in November 2015 on behalf
of 113 plaintiffs who were originally part of a putative class
action commenced in state court in Georgia in October 2011 on
behalf of 115 plaintiffs and removed by defendants to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
("Georgia District Court") under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"). Defendants opposed class certification and class
certification was denied. The Georgia action was ordered to
proceed as a two-plaintiff action in the Georgia District Court on
behalf of the two named plaintiffs, whereupon plaintiffs' lawyers
commenced a new action in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia on behalf of the remaining 113 plaintiffs. The two-
plaintiff action was dismissed by the Georgia District Court on
October 28, 2016 on a motion for summary judgment brought by
defendants.

Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Pennsylvania District
Court"). In September 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court
remanded the action back to the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia. Defendants appealed the order of remand and, in
February 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed and vacated the Pennsylvania District Court's
remand order and remanded the matter to the Pennsylvania District
Court for further proceedings. As the litigation is at an early
stage, the Company is unable to estimate the potential damages for
which the Company may be directly or indirectly liable.

Patheon N.V. provides outsourced pharmaceutical development and
manufacturing services in the Netherlands.  The Company operates
through three segments: Drug Product Services, Pharmaceutical
Development Services, and Drug Substance Services.  The Company
was formerly known as Patheon Holdings Cooperatief U.A. and
changed its names to Patheon N.V. in June 2016.  Patheon N.V. was
incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Durham, North
Carolina.


RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Gives Final OK to $150 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Keays, writing for V News, reports that a federal judge
has given final approval for a nearly $150 million settlement by
the financial services firm linked to the largest fraud case in
the federal EB-5 immigrant investment program's history.

Raymond James & Associates Inc. agreed to pay the money to the
court-appointed receiver now overseeing properties at the center
of the case.

The payout settles claims over the firm's alleged involvement in a
"Ponzi-like" scheme to defraud investors in development projects
at Jay Peak ski resort and other properties in Vermont's Northeast
Kingdom.

Raymond James admitted no wrongdoing.

Judge Darrin P. Gayles signed off on the agreement on June 30 in
federal court in Florida. The developer of the projects, Jay Peak
owner Ariel Quiros, lives in Florida, and many of the actions
against him were brought in court there.

The judge's approval was widely expected. He had granted
preliminary approval of the deal shortly after it had been
announced in April at a Statehouse news conference with Vermont
Gov. Phil Scott and Michael Goldberg, the receiver.

However, shortly after the deadline passed, a Chinese investor did
file a letter with the court raising objections to the settlement.

In response, Goldberg said the investor's criticisms, while
regrettable, weren't grounds for rejecting the agreement.

The settlement calls for the money to be used for a variety of
purposes. Those include paying contractors and vendors for
services that went unpaid, completing projects that remain
unfinished, and compensating some of the investors who put
$500,000 each into developments that never materialized.

The agreement also includes $25 million for attorneys representing
investors to compensate them for dropping lawsuits against Raymond
James. Several had been filed, including one proposed class-action
case.

The settlement calls for a "bar order," which protects Raymond
James from such lawsuits now that the agreement has been approved.

Raymond James is a financial services company Quiros used. Last
year, state and federal regulators lodged lawsuits against Quiros
and his onetime business partner, Bill Stenger, Jay Peak's former
CEO and president.

The lawsuits alleged the two developers raised more than $350
million through the EB-5 visa program for immigrant investors and
misused more than half of it. Money from investors meant to fund
specific projects was used to backfill earlier projects
experiencing shortfalls, regulators said.

Goldberg, in a lawsuit last year against Raymond James, alleged
the firm "aided and abetted" Quiros in a "Ponzi-like" scheme in
which he misused investor funds and "looted" more than $50
million.

"We believe this resolution is fair and representative of our
commitment to redressing the victims' losses in this case,"
Jonathan Santelli, Raymond James executive vice president and
general counsel, said in a statement after the settlement was
announced in April. [GN]


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sneed" Sues Over British American Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Hubert Sneed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reynolds American Inc., Susan M. Cameron, Debra A.
Crew, Jerome Abelman, John Boehner, Martin D. Feinstein, Luc
Jobin, Murray S. Kessler, Holly K. Koeppel, Jean-Marc Levy, Nana
Mensah, Lionel L. Nowell III, Ricardo Oberlander, Ronald S. Rolfe,
and John J. Zillmer, Case No. 1:17-cv-00584 (M.D.N.C., June 26,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public holders of the common
stock of Reynolds American, Inc., to enjoin the proposed merger
between RAI and British American Tobacco p.l.c. for approximately
$49 billion.

According to the complaint, Reynolds filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Reynolds stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) financial projections for the Company; and (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by RAI's Financial Advisors in support in of
their fairness opinions. The Complaint says the Proposed
Transaction will unlawfully divest Reynolds'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.

Reynolds American Inc. operates a tobacco company located at 401
North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Janet Ward Black, Esq.
      Nancy R. Meyers, Esq.
      WARD BLACK LAW
      208 W. Wendover Ave.
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 333-2244
      E-mail: jwblack@wardblack.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: jmonteverder@monteverdelaw.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Government Probe Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Bradson, writing for MaconDaily, reports that SeaWorld
Entertainment has disclosed that it was subpoenaed by the Justice
Department with regards to an investigation that was being
conducted about disclosures made concerning the 'Blackfish'
documentary impact and trading in the securities of the company.
The investigation revolves around the public statements and the
disclosures that were made by the firm, certain executives as well
as individuals in the days preceding August 2014.

In 2013 following the release of the 'Blackfish' documentary, the
marine park operator was widely criticized since in the film the
capture and the public exhibition of the killer whales came across
as being inherently cruel.  Animal rights activists argue that
keeping the killer whales in small tanks amounts to mistreatment
since their natural environment is the wide open seas.  As a
result the animal rights activists says the killer whales have a
short lifespan when in captivity compared to those in the wild.
When the 'Blackfish' documentary was initially released, the
marine park operator described the film as being a piece of
propaganda that was emotionally manipulative, false and
misleading.

No more breeding

Last year the marine park operator, which has been registering a
decline in revenues for the past three years disclosed that it
would halt the breeding of killer whales while in captivity.
SeaWorld has also redesigned its shows with a view to having them
depict the killer whales thriving in their natural environment
instead of exhibiting them while performing tricks.

And following the release of the documentary and the campaign
against it by PETA, an animal rights organization, SeaWorld also
engaged in a public relations exercise to enhance its image. The
marine park operator has for instance ran ads which show employees
of the firm talking about the care the killer whales get while at
the marine park.

Series of troubles

SeaWorld Entertainment also disclosed that it had been subpoenaed
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Consequently, the
marine park operator has formed a special committee which is made
up of independent directors charged with dealing with these
inquiries.

SeaWorld Entertainment also disclosed that David D'Alessandro, its
chairman who shareholders voted out, will still serve as the non-
executive chairman of the board until the end of the year.  Mr.
D'Alessandro had offered to resign immediately after failing to
win re-election but the board declined to accept his resignation
and postponed it by a few months.

Besides the campaign against the marine park operator by animal
rights activists, SeaWorld is also facing a class-action lawsuit
from some investors. [GN]


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sept. 2018 Trial Date in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that a scheduling order in the
Securities Class Action Lawsuit provided deadlines for expert
discovery and other pretrial deadlines, with a trial date of
September 18, 2018.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive
officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public
offering and secondary public offerings.  The amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration
statements filed contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  Plaintiffs
contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that
Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each
public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 31, 2016, the
Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its
entirety, without prejudice.

On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among
other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters
as defendants.  On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On
October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint. Written discovery has been propounded by both
sides but no depositions have been scheduled to date.

On March 2, 2017, following a case management conference held on
March 1, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order, which
provided that fact discovery be completed by October 20, 2017.

The scheduling order also provided deadlines for expert discovery
and other pretrial deadlines, with a trial date of September 18,
2018.

On March 6, 2017, the Court entered an amended scheduling order
providing that Plaintiff must file its motion for class
certification by May 19, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery
against the Company and Blackstone.  A hearing on the motion was
held on April 18, 2017.

Following the hearing, Plaintiff's motion was granted in part and
denied in part. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. ("SEA") (collectively, the
"Company"), owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United
States.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Awaiting Oral Argument Date
----------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal in a consumer class
action lawsuit has been fully briefed and is awaiting an oral
argument date.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its
orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and
purported class members.  The complaint further alleges that the
specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,
but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the
class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates.  The first three actions were
filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015,
respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK
(the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al.
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the
"Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").

On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.  On May
7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along
with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in an action
captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 15: cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of
these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief
sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.  The United States
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the
portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the
CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all
California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the
Company.  The United States District Court for the Southern
District of California granted leave to amend as to the remainder
of the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with
prejudice on February 25, 2016.  The United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered
judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on June 10,
2016.  The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting an oral
argument date.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. ("SEA") (collectively, the
"Company"), owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United
States.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Briefing in July Thru Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Marc Anderson, et.
al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., is in the
preliminary stages of discovery, with briefing on class
certification currently scheduled for July through September 2017.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter").  The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.  On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint").

The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition
Law and California CLRA.  Plaintiffs' claims are based on their
allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living
conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in
confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted
material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members.  The First
Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is
speculative until the size of the class is determined (if
certification is granted at all).  On May 14, 2015, the Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  On
September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion was fully
briefed.  On September 24, 2015, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion
to remand.

On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously
filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit,
which the Company opposed.  On October 14, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave.  Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was fully briefed.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case.
On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to
appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the
Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both
of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two
additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments.  The
Company opposed the motion.  On August 1, 2016, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order granting in part the Company's motion to dismiss and
granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by August
22, 2016, which they filed.

The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserted causes of action
based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law and California CLRA.  Essentially plaintiffs
allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company
about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to
purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases,
plush toys while in the parks.  The Company moved to dismiss this
on various grounds.

On November 7, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part,
and denying in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
found that one named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any
specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been
dismissed.  In addition, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California determined that plaintiffs did not
allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases,
which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys.  The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California also
found that certain plaintiff's conversation with SeaWorld's
trainers was not "advertising," and dismissed the false
advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 22, 2016.  The Company moved to dismiss portions of that
pleading, but the motion to dismiss was denied.  What remains at
this point are plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the
purchase of tickets; plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush
toys; and plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law based on the purchase of plush toys.  The case is in the
preliminary stages of discovery, with briefing on class
certification currently scheduled for July through September 2017.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. ("SEA") (collectively, the
"Company"), owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United
States.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: 11th Circuit Petition Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, EZPay Plan class
action lawsuit, the Company's Rule 23(f) petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is pending.

On December 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment,
Inc., captioned Jason Herman, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster,
as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Case no: 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-
JSS. The complaint alleges a single breach of contract claim
involving the Company's EZPay Plan which affords customers the
ability to pay for annual passes through monthly installments.
The plaintiff alleges the Company automatically renewed passes
beyond the initial term in violation of the terms and conditions
of the parties' contract which provided in part: "Except for any
passes paid in less than twelve months, THIS CONTRACT WILL RENEW
AUTOMATICALLY ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS until I terminate it."

On January 21, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint to include
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1693 et
seq. on behalf of three individual plaintiffs as well as on behalf
of a two classes: (i) individuals in the states of Florida, Texas,
Virginia and California who paid for an annual pass  in "less than
twelve months," had their passes automatically renewed and did not
use the renewed passes after the first year or were not issued a
full refund of payments made after the twelfth payment; and (ii)
all of these same individuals who used debit cards.

The Company has always considered the plaintiffs' argument to be
without merit and believes it has defenses to the action.  The
parties engaged in significant discovery and a motion was filed by
the plaintiffs for certification of the class.  In addition,
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and defendant in
turn filed for motion for partial summary judgment.  The Company
anticipated the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida would schedule a hearing on class
certification first, determine whether a class should be
certified, send notice to the certified class, and then entertain
the respective motions for summary judgment.

However, on March 10, 2017, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida issued an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for certification of the class without a
hearing and included in the order findings that the contract is
unambiguous and that it means that the Company could not auto-
renew the contract term if the customer paid in less than 365
days.

On March 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida issued another order, this time granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability and
denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment.  The
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
decided that the Company breached the contract by failing to
terminate the contract once the passes were paid in full.  No
determination of damages was made nor has the court entered any
final judgment. With regard to the order granting certification,
the Company filed a Rule 23(f) petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and that is pending.

In the meantime, pending the appeal, the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida has granted an order
staying the underlying case.  The Company intends to continue to
defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. ("SEA") (collectively, the
"Company"), owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United
States.


STRAIGHT PATH: $9.45M Zacharia Deal Awaits Definitive Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc.'s $9.45 million settlement of
the Zacharia Action is still subject to entering in a definitive
agreement and court approval, according to the Company's the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on June 9, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017.

On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey
against Straight Path Communications Inc., and Jonas and Rand (the
"individual defendants").  The case is captioned Zacharia v.
Straight Path Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-
MF, and is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 29, 2013, and November 5, 2015.  The complaint alleges
violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act
against the Company for materially false and misleading statements
that were designed to influence the market relating to the
Company's finances and business prospects; and (ii) Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for wrongful
acts by controlling persons.

The allegations center on the claim that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements in its public filings
and conference calls during the relevant class period concerning
the Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business.  The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, fees, and costs.  The case was reassigned to
Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3, 2016.

On April 11, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Charles
Frischer as lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as liaison counsel.

On June 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed his amended class action
complaint, which alleges the same claims.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint on
August 17, 2016; the plaintiff opposed that motion on September
30, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply brief in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016.

On March 7, 2017, the Company and lead plaintiff in Zacharia v.
Straight Path Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF
(D.N.J.), entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to
settle the putative shareholder class action and dismiss the
claims that were filed against the defendants in that action.
Under the agreed terms, the Company will provide for a US$2.25
million initial payment (the "Initial Payment") and a US$7.2
million additional payment (the "Additional Payment").  The
Initial Payment will be paid into an escrow account within 15 days
following preliminary court approval of the settlement, and will
be fully covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company.
The Additional Payment of US$7.2 million will be paid within 60
days after the closing of a transaction to sell the Company's
spectrum licenses as specified in the Consent Decree with the
Federal Communications Commission, or, in the event that the
Company pays the non-transfer penalty specified in the Consent
Decree, within 60 days after that payment is paid.  In any event,
the Additional Payment will be payable no later than December 31,
2018.  The settlement remains subject to entering in a definitive
agreement and court approval.

Straight Path Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation, was
incorporated in April 2013. Straight Path owns 100% of Straight
Path Spectrum, Inc. and Straight Path Ventures, LLC, and 84.5% of
Straight Path IP Group, Inc.  Straight Path Spectrum, LLC, holds
fixed and mobile wireless spectrum. Straight Path Ventures is
developing next generation wireless technology for 39 GHz.
Straight Path IP Group owns intellectual property primarily
related to communications over the Internet, and the licensing and
other businesses related to this intellectual property.


TAILORED BRANDS: Still Faces "Makhlouf" Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit by Peter Makhlouf, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2016, Peter Makhlouf filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Douglas S. Ewert, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838).  The
complaint attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that the Company and its CEO
made certain statements about the Company's acquisition and
subsequent integration of Jos. A. Bank that were false and
misleading and omitted material facts.

On March 23, 2017, the Court appointed Strathclyde Pension Fund
lead plaintiff in this matter and the parties subsequently agreed
on a case schedule through the motion to dismiss phase of this
matter.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit
and are defending the lawsuit vigorously.  The range of loss, if
any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada.  The Company operates
in two segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel.  The Company was
formerly known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name
to Tailored Brands, Inc. in February 2016.  Tailored Brands, Inc.
was founded in 1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.


TAILORED BRANDS: "Oliver" Suit over TCPA Claims Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Anthony Oliver v. The Mens Wearhouse, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-01100 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Terry J Hatter, Jr., is underway.

A Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff First Amended
Complaint and a Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of the
Motion for Summary Judgment were filed on June 23, 2017, by
Defendant The Mens Wearhouse.

On June 5, 2017, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr, entered an Order
granting a Stipulation to Brief Motions for Summary Judgment and
Stay Discovery.  Each Party has been given until July 21, 2017, to
file a Response brief; Reply briefs are not required but either
Party may choose to file a Reply brief by July 28, which shall be
limited to no more than five pages.  The motions for summary
judgment shall be limited to the issue of prior express written
consent, and will not serve to prejudice the parties from later
seeking summary judgment in this action. Discovery between the
Parties will be stayed pending a ruling on the Parties' motions
for summary judgment.  The Order was entered without prejudice to
either Party's ability to raise any arguments and/or motions
following the issuance of a ruling by the D.C. Circuit in ACA
International v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211
(D.C. Cir.).

On May 11, 2017, the Court entered an order setting final pre-
trial conference and referring discovery.  The Court held that all
discovery matters which become at issue are referred to Magistrate
Judge Alka Sagar for his/her consideration.  Please contact the
courtroom deputy clerk to the Magistrate Judge regarding these
matters.  Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures and Local Rule 16, the Final Pre-Trial Conference is
placed on the Courts calendar for December 18 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom No. 9B in the U. S. Courthouse on First Street.

Tailored Brands, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
putative class action filed by Anthony Oliver over alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:16-cv-01100-
TJH-AS).  The complaint attempts to allege claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In particular the complaint
alleges that the Company sent unsolicited text messages to
cellular telephones beginning October 1, 2013 to the present day.

After the Company demonstrated that it had the plaintiff's
permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the
number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2016.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss on February 13, 2017.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The range of loss,
if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada.  The Company operates
in two segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel.  The Company was
formerly known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name
to Tailored Brands, Inc. in February 2016.  Tailored Brands, Inc.
was founded in 1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.


THOMAS GIRARDI: Carson Residents Sue for Hoarding Fund
------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Mazza, writing for Daily Breeze, reports Carson residents
living for years atop an old oil-waste dump are suing the famed
personal injury attorney who negotiated their $120 million legal
settlement, claiming his firm is hoarding millions it should have
disbursed long ago.

Thomas Girardi, Esq., of Girardi-Keese who has won more than $1
billion for victims of severe pollution, prescription-drug side
effects and other hazards during a storied career, and his
powerhouse Los Angeles law firm, Girardi-Keese, are named in the
suit filed last month by residents of the polluted Carousel tract
neighborhood.

Some residents have been paid in full since the July 2016
settlement with those responsible for the toxic soup that lies
beneath their homes, while others have received only a fraction of
the proceeds. For months the Carousel residents have been waging a
war of words with Girardi-Keese, claiming the delays in getting
the funds to everyone are inexcusable.

"Almost a year later we received a piddly amount to placate us and
a bunch of unfounded excuses why they continue to hold onto our
money," said Barbara Post, president of the Carousel Tract
Homeowners Association. "We just want what is ours and to get
Girardi-Keese out of our lives forever."

No one in the Carousel tract neighborhood knows how much of the
total settlement has been paid out yet. Or, for that matter, what
the balance is in the trust account where Girardi is legally
required to hold their funds.

The 50-acre Carousel tract, in south Carson along the Wilmington
border, was built on land formerly occupied by a Shell Oil Co.
tank farm that was dismantled in the late 1960s. Tons of waste oil
and tank pieces were secretly buried by the property developer,
Barclay Hollander Corp., which has since dissolved into Dole Food
Co.

The oil, left just a few feet beneath the ground on a parcel where
285 homes would later be built, exposed residents to cancer-
causing benzene and other toxic chemicals for decades.

A few years after the pollution was discovered during routine
testing in 2008, Girardi was hired by 1,491 current and former
Carousel tract residents. Eight years of legal wrangling later,
his firm negotiated a $90 million settlement with Shell Oil for
health and property damage in the neighborhood. A second $30
million settlement with Dole Food Co., which owns the property
developer, is pending.

Girardi-Keese also negotiated more than $100-million in
environmental cleanup of yards across the neighborhood.

Dole and Shell are battling in court over who will ultimately have
to pay all the bills.

Girardi-Keese's share of the $90 million settlement will be at
least $36 million, and the firm will get another $12 million from
the Dole proceeds.

                        Interest Demanded

The suit against Girardi-Keese argues the firm refuses to give
Carousel residents a thorough accounting of the money. It also
demands that residents receive interest accrued on the large sum
sitting in the bank, but the law firm insists that money must be
turned over to the State Bar.

"Defendants knew that they had the obligation to invest the
settlement proceeds in interest-bearing accounts that would accrue
to the benefit of the plaintiff, but recklessly or intentionally
violated such obligation," the suit states.

Girardi has thus far not provided an accounting of the settlement
money to Woodland Hills attorney Peter Dion-Kindem, according to
his complaint. Dion-Kindem is now seeking court permission
to begin a class action against Girardi-Keese.

But Girardi and firm attorney Robert Finnerty say they are being
unfairly attacked by residents they're simply trying to help.

"This lawyer (Dion-Kindem) is the lowest-end lawyer in the
country," Girardi said in a phone interview. "He runs around, door
to door, trying to sue lawyers who have cases with many people."

Dion-Kindem also is seeking money from Girardi, in a separate
matter, for a former client who says the attorney still owes him
$5 million from a 1988 case against Lockheed Martin.

                         Residents Frustrated

Several residents say the firm either won't return their calls or
responds with nonsense or "double talk" when asked for an
accounting of their individual settlement proceeds.

"If there is a specific reason the full and final payment cannot
be made immediately, the courtesy of proper notification, in
writing, is expected. Make good on your promises NOW," one unnamed
resident wrote in a letter to the firm that was shared with the
Daily Breeze.

Girardi and Finnerty have repeatedly assured residents they are
working as hard as they can to process their funds. Delays, they
have said, are caused by inaccurate health insurance company
billings, and residents who failed to turn in forms needed to
process checks.

"We work about 12 hours a day, eight people, trying desperately to
get this done," Girardi said. "We would like some legal fees in
this case as much as the people would.

"This has nothing to do with anything inappropriate at our law
firm. Indeed, our State Bar record is totally clear. If we'd done
anything inappropriate, that would certainly be an issue."

Finnerty said that if residents would simply follow his
directions, checks would come sooner.

"They're not necessarily cooperating with us on any level other
than to tell us we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing,"
Finnerty said. "I think the only thing I can say is we are working
as diligently as possible to complete our tasks. They need to
continue to cooperate with us."

In April, after saying they were inundated with calls and letters
from angry Carousel residents, Girardi-Keese attorneys released a
few million dollars in payments.

"The complications are that, these people, if they did have any
medical expense, it was paid for by an insurance carrier,
Medicare, Medicaid. And we have to get rid of those liens to get
the money to the people," Girardi said.

"Medicare and Medicaid are impossible to deal with. They cause
these problems in any sort of mass-tort case like this. It's a
disaster. In one case, we have a maternity bill that had nothing
to do with (this matter).

One resident, however, said medical issues aren't a factor in her
case, yet Girardi-Keese still hasn't released her settlement.

"I have no medical claims, so that is a moot point in my case, yet
still I'm getting the runaround on my check," said the woman, who
asked not to be named. "I sent off the demand letter and got a
generic response. It's unfathomable to me that Girardi-Keese has
had our settlement money since May of 2016 and has not dispersed
it."

PAST CLIENT DISPUTES

Girardi, whose law firm proclaims itself a "voice of the injured
since 1965," rocketed to fame as part of the legal team that won a
$333 million settlement from Pacific, Gas & Electric for poisoning
the desert town of Hinkley with a chromium-6-laced drinking water
supply. The lawsuit saga was dramatized in the 2000 feature film
"Erin Brockovich," which earned actress Julia Roberts a best-
actress Oscar.

For Girardi-Keese, like other major law firms, disputes with
clients are not uncommon, and some have led to legal action over
the years.

Girardi has been sued for malpractice, fraud or breach of contract
at least 22 times since 1995, according to court records. Because
most of the disputes were settled, many case details are not
available to the public.

At least seven of those suits came from former clients who alleged
their cash settlements were withheld or misappropriated.

Girardi acknowledges no wrongdoing in any of the cases his firm
has handled. Such cases can be complicated, he said, so delays are
common. However, he declined to discuss the details of specific
cases.

In one case, a group of elderly women who developed cancer after
taking the hormone-therapy drug Prempro accused Girardi in 2014 of
hoarding 6 percent of funds they won in a 2011 settlement he
helped reach with Pfizer Inc. The women settled the lawsuit
against Girardi-Keese last year for an undisclosed amount.

Like the Prempro clients, many of Girardi's former Lockheed Martin
clients sued the veteran attorney for settlements that were not
dispersed. Some later were given additional money from Girardi,
while at least one former client is still seeking $5 million
through the courts.

Girardi helped litigate the Lockheed case in a series of identical
lawsuits throughout the 1990s because it involved so many
plaintiffs -- former Burbank-area workers who were sickened
building fighter jets from the 1960s to the 1980s. The
multimillion-dollar settlement in the case included payment for
punitive damages from Lockheed suppliers Exxon and Shell.

In the years following the Lockheed settlement, Girardi's former
clients repeatedly came forward alleging they didn't receive all
the money they were owed, according to legal records.

Additionally, an undisclosed settlement was reached with a group
of former Lockheed clients in 2005. Following that win, dozens
more of Girardi's former clients filed suit for fraud and breach
of contract.

Former Lockheed worker Luis Gutierrez and 25 others sued Girardi
in 2008 for unpaid settlement funds. They argued it took them
years to realize they were owed more money than they received,
alleging Girardi concealed that fact. But a Los Angeles Superior
Court judge threw the case out on grounds that there weren't
enough clients involved to constitute a class action.

Last year, another former Lockheed worker, Paul Kranich, filed
allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of
the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against
Girardi in U.S. District Court.

But his case was dismissed for exceeding the three-year statute of
limitations for filing a fraud allegation. Kranich, who claims
Girardi still owes him $5-million from his 1988 case against
Lockheed Martin, is now appealing that ruling.

"The judge basically said, 'You should have known you were being
cheated,' " Dion-Kindem said. "We alleged that they defrauded our
client, took excessive fees and costs and concealed that. The
clients don't know what their costs were. They would get a check
in the mail saying, 'Here's your share of this settlement.'" [GN]


TRANS WORLD: Bid to Transfer "Spack" Suit to N.D.N.Y. Opposed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-02687 (D.N.J.), Plaintiff filed on July 12, 2017, a Reply
Brief to Opposition to the Motion filed by all Defendants seeking
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York.

Judge Brian R. Martinotti oversees the case.

Trans World Entertainment faces two class actions filed by two
former store managers alleging claims of entitlement to unpaid
compensation for overtime, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

In one action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same
position (Store Manager and Senior Assistant Manager) while the
other plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated employees who performed the same position (Store
Manager.)

Specifically, Carol Spack filed a complaint against Trans World
Entertainment Corporation (Trans World) in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, on April 20, 2017 (Case
No.: 3:17-cv-02687-BRM-LHG) alleging that she is entitled to
unpaid compensation for overtime under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).  She brings a nationwide collective action
under the FLSA on behalf of all Store Managers and Senior
Assistant Managers.  She also brings class action claims under New
Jersey and Pennsylvania law on behalf of all persons who worked as
Store Managers in New Jersey or Senior Assistant Managers in
Pennsylvania.

On May 19, 2017, Natasha Roper filed a complaint against Trans
World in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York (Case No.: 1:17-cv-0553-TJM-CFH) in which she also alleges
that she is entitled to unpaid compensation for overtime under the
FLSA.  Ms. Roper brings a nationwide collective action under the
FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated Store Managers.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products.  The Company operates in two segments, fye and etailz.
The Company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany,
New York.


TRANSPORTATION SECURITY: Age Discrimination Class Action Advances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a federal
judge partially upheld claims from a group of agents with the
Transportation Security Administration who say they were
transferred based on their ages.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found on June 30 that the agents had
sufficiently argued the TSA used a reorganization and cost-saving
plan as cover to weed out some of the agency's older employees.

The class action, filed in June 2015, claims the TSA specifically
targeted older marshals when it closed a number of field offices
in cities such as Cleveland, Tampa, San Diego, Cincinnati,
Pittsburgh and Phoenix.

"Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the Service's preferred reasons for the closure decisions
were pretext for age discrimination," Tigar's 18-page opinion
states.

While the ruling is a victory for the TSA agents, many of whom
resigned rather than take new assignments that would have uprooted
their families, Tigar also handed the TSA a win when he found the
agents' disparate impact claim would not move forward.

To prove disparate impact, the plaintiff must show an outwardly
normal or neutral employment policy and then show how a given
company has taken action that could have a significantly
detrimental impact on people of a certain age category.

"The statistical analysis offered by the plaintiffs' expert, which
reveals an age difference between plaintiffs and their comparators
of less than three years, does not show a significantly adverse or
disproportionate impact on persons of a particular age," Tigar
wrote.

The lead plaintiff, who sued under his initials K.H. due to
concerns about national security, claims at least 90 percent of
air marshals in the targeted offices are older than 40. Those
marshals have been reassigned.

"It is the TSA's intent to force older workers from federal
service and it is the TSA's desire that the older workers will in
fact quit due to the closure of the field offices and the
mandatory office reassignment," K.H. claims.

He says the TSA wants to "purge" its workforce of older air
marshals so it can "hire two young field air marshals for every
older field air marshal," according to the complaint. The move
could affect approximately 300 older air marshals.

In addition, he says, "The TSA is making any potential move to
other offices extremely difficult, expensive, unpalatable, and
problematic."

K.H. says he suffered severe stress about uprooting his family
from Florida and moving to California when the TSA decided to
close the Tampa office, where he had worked.

He says he filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which failed to act within 180 days.

Tigar gave the plaintiffs 14 days to amend and submit a new
complaint that includes only remedies appropriate to age-
discrimination cases.

The agents are represented by Nicholas Wieczorek, Esq. --
nwieczorek@mpplaw.com -- with Morris, Polich & Purdy in Las Vegas.
[GN]


TRAVELERS: Wants Connecticut Homeowners' Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Collins, writing for Associated Press, reports that
Connecticut residents whose home foundations are crumbling are
facing a perplexing problem with their insurance policies: The
damage won't be covered unless their homes collapse.

More than two dozen insurance companies being sued in federal
court by 40 homeowners recently filed court documents asking a
judge to dismiss the class-action lawsuit for a variety of
reasons, including that the plaintiffs are only covered if their
houses fall down.

The motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed June 2 are adding to the
dismay of the homeowners, who face living in potentially unsafe
homes with plummeting values that can't be sold and would cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix.

"A house has to fall down before it's covered for anything? That's
just preposterous," said Jeannette Lesperance, a plaintiff in the
lawsuit whose Manchester home's foundation has large cracks.
"There's nothing you can say to that."

State officials say possibly 30,000 or more homes and condominiums
built in central and northeastern Connecticut from the mid-1980s
to 2016 could be affected by the problem, which has been linked to
the mineral pyrrhotite.  The mineral naturally reacts with oxygen
and water, causing concrete foundations to crack and crumble.

The problem, first discovered in the mid-1990s, has been traced to
a Willington quarry that provided material to a concrete maker
whose product was used in thousands of homes.

Ms. Lesperance and her husband, Alfred, are retirees.  They say
they can't afford the estimated $400,000 it would cost to repair
their home.

Many other homeowners besides those in the class-action lawsuit
also have been told their policies only cover collapse and not
cracking or crumbling, said Ryan Barry, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit.

"These houses are all in state of collapse," Mr. Barry said.  "You
shouldn't have to wait for the house to fall into rubble, to cave
into itself, to qualify for coverage."

Mr. Barry said the average cost of repairs was around $200,000 per
home.

One of Mr. Barry's arguments in the lawsuit involves a 1987
decision by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the word
"collapse" in homeowners' insurance policies did not just mean a
home falling down but also "substantial impairment in the
structural integrity of a building."

Insurance companies later amended their homeowners' policies
across the country in response to that ruling and other court
decisions, changing the definition of collapse to mean an "abrupt"
or "sudden" falling down, Mr. Barry said.  He also alleged the
insurance companies made those changes without properly notifying
homeowners as required by state law -- a claim the insurance
companies deny.

Representatives from several insurance companies being sued in the
class-action lawsuit, including Travelers and Allstate, declined
to comment.

While insurers have sympathy for the homeowners, they have to
follow the letter of insurance policies, said Eric George,
president of the Insurance Association of Connecticut, a trade
organization that represents insurance companies that do business
in the state.

"Policies are envisioned to cover accidents," Mr. George said.
"Things that take place over time because of defective products
are not covered.  My heart goes out to the homeowners.  It's an
absolutely devastating situation."

Homeowners had hoped that the legislature and Democratic Gov.
Dannel P. Malloy would step in and help them, but a bill that
would have set aside $15 million in assistance died during this
year's legislative session.  They're now hoping lawmakers take up
the issue again during a special session expected this summer.
[GN]


TURTLE BEACH: Appeal in Nevada Supreme Court Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the denial of VTBH and the Company's
motion to dismiss a shareholder class action is currently under
review by the Nevada Supreme Court.

On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric)
announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant
to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership
interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately
20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the
announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in
California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs
in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited
to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015.

After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested supplemental
briefing, which the parties completed on October 13, 2015. The
Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law Section of the
Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by December 3, 2015 and
briefing was completed on that date. The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio technology company with expertise and experience in
developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products
across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle
Beach(R) and HyperSound(R) brands. Turtle Beach is a worldwide
leading provider of feature-rich headset solutions for use across
multiple platforms, including video game and entertainment
consoles, handheld consoles, personal computers, tablets and
mobile devices. HyperSound technology is an innovative patent-
protected sound technology that delivers immersive, directional
audio offering unique potential benefits in a variety of
commercial settings and consumer devices.

VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH"), the parent holding company of the
headset business, was incorporated in the state of Delaware in
2010 with operations principally located in Valhalla, New York.
Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. ("VTB") was incorporated in the state
of Delaware in 1975.

In October 2012, VTB acquired Lygo International Limited ("Lygo"),
a private limited company organized under the laws of England and
Wales, which was subsequently renamed Turtle Beach Europe Limited
("TB Europe").


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Drivers Sue Over Employee Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Marc Rodriguez, writing for Dallas News, reports that Uber
considers drivers to be independent operators, but a federal
class-action lawsuit filed on June 30 in Houston charges that the
company's grip on them is so extensive that they should be deemed
employees.

The suit on behalf of 19 Texas drivers in Dallas, Houston and
Austin, if successful, could make drivers Uber staffers and
disrupt the ride-calling app's business model, the Houston
Chronicle reported. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

"Uber tracks every move that a driver makes," Houston lawyer Kevin
Michaels told the newspaper. "As long as they are on the app, they
are under Uber's control."

For instance, drivers who don't often make themselves available by
activating the app can be deactivated, as can drivers who cancel
too many rides.

The lawsuit challenges the San Francisco-based company's
assertions, in promotional materials, that drivers can earn
$100,000 annually, saying that when calculations take into account
drivers' waiting for fares, their earnings are actually below
minimum wage.

"An individual would have to drive an exorbitant number of hours
on a daily, weekly and monthly basis to even approach gross fares
totaling this amount, much less earn this amount," the lawsuit
states. "Uber knew such statements were fraudulent and misleading
and also knew that individuals would rely on such
misrepresentations when deciding to become Uber drivers."

The claims are similar to others made in widely publicized
lawsuits around the country, including California, Massachusetts
and Illinois, that could ultimately drive the issue to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

In addition to demanding that drivers be given full-employee
status with benefits, the suit asks for back pay of accrued
overtime.

As of June 30 afternoon, Uber officials had not responded to
several requests for comment. [GN]



UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gets Red Light in Bid to Settle Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that in its
attempt to settle wage claims affecting more than 1 million of its
drivers, Uber just ran into a red light.

At a hearing on June 30, a Los Angeles judge tentatively rejected
a $7.75 million settlement that would have resolved claims that
its drivers have been misclassified under California law as
independent contractors, rather than employees. At a hearing on
June 30, lawyers for both Uber and the plaintiffs in the case
vehemently fought back against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Maren Nelson's concerns that the deal might have been the result
of collusion.

In court, Nelson focused on the fact that both sides failed to
produce a range that estimated generally how much the claims,
brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
were actually worth. PAGA allows private parties to pursue labor
violations under California law.

"My concern in looking at the adequacy of the settlement is I
didn't see what the high side or the low side is," she said.
"To suggest that somehow that's the result of collusion leaves me
nearly speechless," said plaintiffs attorney Christopher Morosoff,
a solo practitioner in the Los Angeles area. "There was absolutely
no collusion here."

Uber attorney Keith Jacoby agreed. He also suggested that Uber was
being unfairly targeted by California regulators, who haven't
intervened in similar cases involving Lyft, Jacoby said.

"I really feel like Uber is not getting a level playing field
here," Jacoby said. "And I'm not sure why."

Jacoby is co-chairman of the class action practice group at
Littler Mendelson and a shareholder in Los Angeles.

Nelson, who tentatively rejected the settlement in March, appeared
persuaded by an amicus brief filed by California Labor
Commissioner Julie Su, whom she asked to weigh in on the proposed
accord. In the June 16 brief, Su chose not to delve into the
particulars of the deal but, at the same time, outlined a number
of red flags that the judge should consider.

Unlike many of the other driver suits, which had tacked on class
claims, the case before Nelson brought only alleged statutory
violations under PAGA. The PAGA claims are critical in the driver
suits, though, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled last year that class claims had to be arbitrated.
Lawyers in other driver suits, many of whom were in court on June
30, have opposed the settlement, which they claim could wipe out
their PAGA claims at little expense to the ride-hailing company.
One plaintiffs attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, said in court that the lawyers in the Los Angeles
case were "forum shopping" to get around a ruling in her case.
Last year, an attorney from California's Department of Industrial
Relations, under which the commissioner works, wrote a letter to
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who is overseeing her case in the
Northern District of California, estimating PAGA claims against
Uber could be worth more than $1 billion. The letter was a key
factor in Chen's decision to reject a proposed $84 million
settlement, of which $1 million involved PAGA claims.
In court, Liss-Riordan said she planned to go to trial on whether
Uber was misclassifying its drivers should Nelson reject the Los
Angeles deal.

But it was the lawyers behind the settlement that spent most of
the hearing's two hours trying to convince Nelson to approve the
deal.

Nelson also said the release provisions in the settlement were too
broad, encompassing claims beyond what was alleged in the
complaint, and that $54,000 in incentive payments to the two lead
plaintiffs in the case appeared too high. Under PAGA, 25 percent
of the civil penalties would go to all drivers, including the lead
plaintiffs.

"I don't mean to suggest that the court should second-guess every
little number," she said of the incentive payments. But she found
the amounts "quite troubling" given the lack of evidence to
support them.

Morosoff said the incentive payments were far from a "sweetheart
deal."

As for the release provisions, he noted that the commissioner
doesn't "have the authority to tell us how to litigate the case."
Jacoby said Uber shouldn't be forced to litigate PAGA claims one
case at a time. In the end, he questioned the commissioner's
motives.

"$7.75 million is an awful lot of money," he said. "More than the
labor commissioner has ever received. I feel like she's egging you
on to try to get a little more."
If the judge rejects the deal, it would cap a tough month for
Uber.

Its chief executive, Travis Kalanick, resigned in the wake of an
internal investigation led by Covington & Burling into allegations
of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination at the San
Francisco-based ride-hailing firm.

Covington & Burling's report came with numerous recommendations to
heal Uber's allegedly toxic workplace culture.
The developments in the Los Angeles case are another problem for
its legal department, which already has a lot on its plate. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NLRB Urges Court to Revive Contract Worker Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that the National Labor
Relations Board on June 29 asked the Sixth Circuit to revive a
proposed class action accusing Uber of pocketing drivers' tips and
misclassifying them as independent contractors, saying it's
illegal to force employees seeking collective action into
individual arbitration.

In an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs Artur Zawada and Nashat
Farha's appeal of their proposed collective and class action
against San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc., the NLRB said
Uber's practice of waiving contract employees' rights to jointly
bring work-related disputes doesn't hold up to the law, even if
the employees had a chance to opt out of the individual
arbitration agreements they had signed as a condition of
employment.

"As this court explained, contractual provisions that 'restrain'
employees under the NLRA are unlawful, and thus '[c]ontracts . . .
. stipulat[ing] . . . . the renunciation by the employees of
rights guaranteed by the [National Labor Relations Act]' are
unenforceable as a 'continuing means of thwarting the policy of
the [NLRA],'" the board said in its brief.

Zawada and Farha launched their suit in Michigan federal court in
April 2016, alleging they'd been denied tips, minimum wages and
even health insurance because Uber had misclassified them as
independent contractors rather than employees.

A Michigan district judge tossed those claims in December and
granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that
"the contract . . . . included a conspicuously presented opt-out
provision, by which plaintiffs could have avoided arbitration."
The drivers in June appealed the lower court decision, which had
effectively forced drivers who hadn't opted out of arbitration to
individually arbitrate their grievances.

Weighing in with its support for the appeal on June 29, the NLRB
said the NLRA prohibits employers from forcing employees into
individual arbitration agreements, saying contract employees have
the right to "collectively pursue litigation of employment claims
in all forums, arbitral and judicial."

These rights hold regardless of whether an employment contract
included an opt-out procedure, the board said, noting that fact
has been reflected in board and court precedent.

Modeling much of their claims after those put forth in a bevy of
other labor lawsuits filed against Uber across the country, Zawada
and Farha in their original complaint asserted claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as Michigan's unfair competition
and wage statutes.

The suit alleged that Uber had misled its customers and
misappropriated gratuities and other fees from its drivers while
also labeling its drivers as independent contractors to avoid
having to pay proper wages; cover expenses for things like fuel,
car repairs and mobile phone bills; or provide health insurance.

Zawada and Farha sought to represent a proposed class of "all
individuals who are currently working or have worked as drivers,
including Uber Black, UberX, UberXL, for defendants [Uber and its
subsidiary Raiser LLC] within the state of Michigan."

They also pursued a collective action under the FLSA with claims
of failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, in addition to
asserting claims under the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act.

Counsel for the parties were not immediately reached for comment
on June 30.

The NLRB is represented by Kira Dellinger Vol, Esq. Eric Weitz,
Esq. Richard F. Griffin Jr., Esq. Jennifer Abruzzo, Esq. John H.
Ferguson, Esq. and Linda Dreeben, Esq. of the NLRB.

The Michigan drivers are represented by Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. -
- oreodriguez@hooperhathaway.com -- of Hooper Hathaway PC.

Uber is represented by Edward H. Chyun, Esq. -- echyun@littler.com
-- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Artur Zawada, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et
al., case number 17-1092, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Cayugas Awarded Proceeds in Federal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
David L. Shawm, writing for Finger Lake Times, reports that the
leadership dispute within the Cayuga Indian Nation has spilled
over into federal litigation out of New Mexico.

The Cayugas are one of nearly 700 Indian tribes and organizations
across the country that have been awarded more than $862.2 million
by a federal district court in New Mexico.

The figure represents money the federal government would have
allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of
Interior to provide a host of programs and services to Indian
tribes. A 1975 federal law gives that money directly to the tribes
under terms of contracts for services with the federal government.

But before a tribe can be given its allocation, the federal
government needs to know which leadership officials represent the
tribe in claiming its share of class action proceeds.

Distribution of the money to hundreds of other tribes is being
held up until the Cayuga Nation and other tribal leadership
disputes have been settled.

The Ramah Navajo Chapter, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Pueblo of
Zuni, as representatives of a class of plaintiffs, have sued
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and the Cayuga Nation along with
Cayuga Nation members Clint Halftown, Timothy Twoguns, Gary
Wheeler, Donald Jimerson, Michael Barringer, Samuel George,
William Jacobs, Justin Bennett, Samuel Campbell, Karl Hill and
Chester Isaac.

They must respond with answers or motions. If they fail to
respond, judgment by default would be entered against them for the
relief demanded in the complaint.

Michael Gross, Esq. -- mgross@grossesq.com -- of Giordano,
Halleran & Ciesla, P.C., a lawyer from Santa Fe, New Mexico, is
representing the plaintiffs. He said this action is to determine
who is entitled to act for the Cayuga Nation in claiming its share
of the class action proceeds, which are for housing, health and
other services to tribal members.

There are two factions vying for official recognition by the
federal government as the governing body of the Cayugas. The
dispute has been ongoing for several years.

In December 2016, the Bureau of Indian Affairs recognized a
faction headed by Halftown as the Nation's governing body.

That decision has been stayed by an appeal by the other faction,
headed by Jacobs. A decision on the appeal is pending. [GN]


VECTRUS INC: Still Defends Employee Class Suit in W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vectrus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to vigorously defend a
class action employment lawsuit.

The Company said, "we are defending a purported class action
employment lawsuit that was initiated in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington in April
2010 against our Former Parent by individuals who worked on a
particular contract in Kuwait after April 12, 2009. The plaintiffs
are alleging a breach of employment contract by our Former Parent
due to an alleged violation of Kuwait labor law."

"On November 3, 2016, following an interlocutory appeal by
Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision certifying a class of plaintiffs. Vectrus
continues to vigorously defend the case, and filed a petition for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on the class certification
decision in March 2017."

Vectrus, Inc. is a provider of services to the U.S. government
worldwide.  Vectrus operates in one segment and offer facility and
logistics services and information technology and network
communications services.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. still defends itself against a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Israel, the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint
was filed against us in Israel alleging similar claims as the
dismissed Israeli class action and alleging that Israeli
shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class action
settlement proceedings. We are opposing the new class action and
plaintiff's class certification motion on substantially the same
grounds on which the previous case was dismissed. The court held a
pretrial hearing on that motion on May 19, 2016, at which it
requested additional information including expert reports, a
position paper from the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") and
further briefing. In July 2016, the ISA submitted a position paper
supporting our position regarding applicable law. Other requested
information has also now been submitted, but the court has not yet
ruled."

VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global leader in payments and
commerce solutions.  The Company provides expertise and solutions
that add value at the retail point-of-sale and enable innovative
forms of commerce.  For 35 years, the Company has been a leader in
designing, manufacturing, marketing and supplying a broad range of
innovative payment solutions, including customer payments
acceptance, connectivity between merchants and financial
institutions, as well as security and comprehensive payment and
commerce services.


VIVINT SOLAR: Oral Arguments Heard in Appellate Case
----------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments
on the appeal in a class action lawsuit.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015.

On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on December 10, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On January 5,
2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 25, 2016, the Court of Appeals
heard oral arguments on the appeal.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an
unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible
that the impact could be material to the Company's results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.

The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers
through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase
agreements ("PPAs") and legal-form leases ("Solar Leases").


VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal in Kern County Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal of a court order remains
pending.

On September 9, 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689
of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks: (1) rescission
of their PPAs along with restitution to the plaintiffs
individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief.

On October 16, 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of
the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
PPAs, which the Court granted and dismissed the class claims
without prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the Court's order. It
is not possible to estimate the amount or range of potential loss,
if any, at this time.

The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers
through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase
agreements ("PPAs") and legal-form leases ("Solar Leases").


VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration of New Plaintiff Claims Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company has moved to compel arbitration
of the new plaintiff's claims in a class action lawsuit.

In November 2016, a customer of the Company filed a putative class
action lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, California,
purportedly on behalf of all customers of a particular Company
sales representative in California, claiming that the
representative's sales practices were improper under California
consumer protection law. The Company moved to dismiss that action
to compel arbitration.

On March 17, 2017, the original plaintiff filed an amended
complaint adding an additional plaintiff, purporting to expand the
proposed class to include all customers who are eligible for the
California Alternate Rates for Energy program, and adding claims
of misconduct in the Company's sales practices apart from the
individual representative identified in the original complaint.

The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the new plaintiff's
claims as well. The Company disputes the allegations in both the
original and amended complaints and intends to defend itself in
the action.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an
unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible
that the impact could be material to the Company's results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.

The Company primarily offers solar energy to residential customers
through long-term customer contracts, such as power purchase
agreements ("PPAs") and legal-form leases ("Solar Leases").


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Merkin & Smith, et al. class action
lawsuit remains pending.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On
February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to
compel arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for
rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February
29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district
court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition
for rehearing.

On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration. A joint status report was filed with the District
Court on December 23, 2016. A second joint status report was filed
with the District Court on March 23, 2017.

Vonage is a provider of cloud communications services for
business.


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Simoni" Suit Over Unsolicited Robo-Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Simoni, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Walgreen Co., XYZ Telemarketing Company, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-04660 (D.N.J., June 26,
2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
practice of contacting the Plaintiff by a pre-recorded telephone
call to his telephone number to solicit purchases of
pharmaceutical drugs including vaccinations without prior express
written clear and conspicuous consent and failing to provide the
Plaintiff an automated, interactive voice -- and key press-
activated opt-out mechanism at the outset of the Robo-Call for
Plaintiff to immediately terminate the call and prevent further
Robo-Calls.

Walgreen Co. owns and operates a pharmacy store chain in the
United States.

XYZ Telemarketing Company operates a telemarketing services and
lead generation company in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
      SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
      c/o Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C.
      30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 201
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Telephone: (917) 621-5795
      E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com


WAYFAIR INC: Still Faces "Zouzout" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. continues to defend against the case by Naomi
Zouzout, Wayfair said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

In September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of
Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809-
166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of
various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other
remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money
damages, costs, and various fees.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. At this
time, based on available information regarding this litigation,
the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of
this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of
potential losses.

Wayfair Inc. (the "Company") is one of the world's largest online
destinations for the home. Through its e-commerce business model,
the Company offers visually inspired browsing, compelling
merchandising, easy product discovery and attractive prices for
over eight million products from over 10,000 suppliers.


WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Apollo Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. West Corporation, Tom Barker, Lee Adrean,
Donald Casey Jr., Anthony Dinovi, Paul Garcia, Laura Grattan,
Jeanette Horan, Michael Huber, Diane Offereins, Gregory Sloma,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, Mount Olympus Holdings, Inc., and
Olympus Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03080 (D. Neb., June
26, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 9,
2017, pursuant to West Corporation will be acquired by affiliates
of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Mount Olympus Holdings, Inc. and Olympus Merger
Sub, Inc. for $23.50 per shareholder's share in cash.

According to the complaint, West filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Specifically, the Preliminary Proxy Statement fails to
disclose the; (i) "Background of the Merger"; (ii) "Recommendation
of the Board"; (iii) "Reasons for Recommending the Adoption of the
Merger Agreement"; and (iv) "Interests of Directors and Executive
Officers in the Merger."

West Corporation is a global provider of communication and network
infrastructure services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Rowe, Esq.
      Robert D. Kinsey Jr., Esq.
      KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP
      3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 100
      Lincoln, NE 68502
      Telephone: (402) 438-1313

         - 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

         - and -

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


WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Wyant" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Wyant, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
West Corporation, Tom Barker, Lee Adrean, Donald Casey Jr.,
Anthony Dinovi, Paul Garcia, Laura Grattan, Jeanette Horan,
Michael Huber, Diane Offereins, Gregory Sloma, Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Mount Olympus Holdings, Inc., and Olympus Merger
Sub, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03081 (D. Neb., June 26, 2017), stems
from a proposed transaction announced on May 9, 2017, pursuant to
West Corporation will be acquired by affiliates of certain funds
managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Mount
Olympus Holdings, Inc. and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc. for $23.50 per
shareholder's share in cash.

According to the complaint, West filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Specifically, the Preliminary Proxy Statement fails to
disclose the; (i) "Background of the Merger"; (ii) "Recommendation
of the Board"; (iii) "Reasons for Recommending the Adoption of the
Merger Agreement"; and (iv) "Interests of Directors and Executive
Officers in the Merger."

West Corporation is a global provider of communication and network
infrastructure services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Rowe, Esq.
      KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP
      3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 100
      Lincoln, NE 68502
      Telephone: (402) 434-9050
      Facsimile: (402) 438-1654
      E-mail: drowe@krbklaw.com

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
              mackerman@brodskysmith.com


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin June 2018 in "Doppelt" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. and Windstream Services, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a
trial is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2018, in the case, Doppelt
v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 - the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") -
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' Board of Directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages. On February
5, 2016, the Court dismissed Windstream as a named party and also
dismissed the plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-off, but
otherwise denied Windstream's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking class certification which the Court granted on
April 17, 2017. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2018.

Windstream is a provider of advanced network communications and
technology solutions for consumers, businesses, enterprise
organizations and wholesale customers across the United States.


XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims
remain pending.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed
claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should
be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer
in seven of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the
decision to California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo
trial was held on the merits of those claims.

On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.9 million
plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.

The Company appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance
that such appeal will be successful. Separate decisions were
rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims
involving five additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for
the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately $0.9
million, following which the Company has appealed the decisions in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
These proceedings are currently in the discovery phase. The
remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") have been
transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions
involving approximately 200 claimants, including the approximately
150 claimants mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments:
Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the so-called Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims remain pending.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they
should be classified as employees, rather than independent
contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to
case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek
reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.,
filed in May 2005, currently in the Federal District Court,
Southern District of California; Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry
Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO
Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016 in the Federal District
Court, Northern District of California; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and
XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016 in Superior Court of the
State of California, Alameda County; and Kevin Kramer v. XPO
Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016 in Superior Court of the
State of California, Alameda County); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre
v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in
March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey -- the
Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation, which
is waiting for Court approval); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v.
XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal
District Court, Connecticut -- the Company has reached an
agreement to settle this litigation, which is waiting for Court
approval).

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments:
Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Says "Leung" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that in the case, Leung v. XPO Logistics, the
court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a
class action.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation
(Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S.
District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer
call system used by a last mile logistics business that the
Company acquired. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and
the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as
a class action.

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments:
Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Sept. 29 Final Approval Hearing on "Pina" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE ALBERTO FONSECA PINA and ROGELIO VIGIL,
Plaintiffs, v. CON-WAY FREIGHT INC. and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 10-00100 (N.D. Cal.), a further
status report was filed June 9 regarding the final approval
hearing.

According to the Status Report, after extensive review, Con-way
was able to determine that, when aggregating driver days the
"requirements" in the batch sorting excluded a substantial number
of driver days. Con-way believes the issue has been resolved. The
total driver days is still well under the 2.6 million rough
estimate based upon which the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement (i.e., the ratio of settlement amount to driver days
has not decreased from the rough estimate initially provided to
the Court).

Because the data has been revised somewhat, Con-way believes it
should issue revised CAFA notices under 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1715(b).
Under 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1715(d), it does not appear that final
approval can be granted until at least 90 days after the revised
CAFA notices are issued.

The parties have conferred and propose this timeline:

     -- June 26, 2017 Last day to issue revised CAFA notices

     -- July 10, 2017 Last day to issue revised letters and
        notices to client

     -- September 29, 2017 Hearing on final approval

The Final Fairness Hearing was first set for March 24, 2017, to
determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

Without admitting any wrongdoing and to avoid litigating these
claims, Defendant has agreed to pay $3,500,000 to settle this
Action. Out of the Gross Settlement Fund, Plaintiffs Jose Alberto
Fonseca Pina and Rogelio Vigil will ask for $20,000 and Plaintiff
George A. Avila will ask for $7,000 for their services as the
Class Representatives.  Class Counsel will ask for $1,166,666 for
attorney fees and up to $50,000 for costs, and the Claims
Administrator will ask for approximately $21,500 for administering
the settlement. An additional $15,000 will be deducted from the
Gross Settlement Fund for penalties that may be sought or are
otherwise available under the Private Attorneys' General Act of
2004, pursuant to Labor Code section 2698, et seq. The Court may
approve these payments or a smaller amount. The money remaining in
the settlement fund will be available for distribution to Class
Members who submit a valid and timely Claim Form, based on the
number of Driver Days that the Class Members worked for Defendant
in California in City Pickup & Delivery assignments at any time
from November 3, 2005 (four years prior to the filing of this
action) through May 31, 2016.

XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company's LTL subsidiary is a party to
several class action litigations alleging violations of the state
of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to
provide drivers with required meal breaks and rest breaks.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way
Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was
initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court
and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle the Pina case,
which has been tentatively approved by the court, and no
interested parties have timely filed objections to the proposed
settlement. The Company has accrued the full amount of the
proposed settlement.

Additional information is available at:

             http://www.cptgroup.com/ConwaySettlement/

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class are:

     R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
     Cat N. Bulaon, Esq.
     WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES
     444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 432-2551

          - and -

     Michael L. Carver, Esq.
     Michelle M. Lunde, Esq.
     LABOR LAW OFFICE, APC
     1395 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 300
     Chico, CA 95928
     Telephone: (530) 891-8503

          - and -

     Jonathan Che Gettleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN C. GETTLEMAN
     323 River Street, Suite D
     Santa Cruz, CA 95065
     Telephone: 831-427-2658
     Facsimile: 831-515-5228

Attorneys for Defendant are:

     Barrett K. Green, Esq.
     Courtney Hobson, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
     Telephone: (310) 553-0308
     E-mail: bgreen@littler.com
             chobson@littler.com

The Claims Administrator is CPT Group:

     Con-way Action Case
     C/O CPT Group
     16630 Aston
     Irvine, CA 92606
     Phone: 1-888-567-6079

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments:
Transportation and Logistics.


ZAFGEN INC: Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
-------------------------------------------
Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the dismissal of a class action lawsuit has
been affirmed.

On October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E.
Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E.
Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-13618. An amended complaint was filed on
February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials
for its drug beloranib. On August 9, 2016, the District Court
granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice. On August 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and on April 7, 2017,
the dismissal with prejudice was affirmed.

The Company may periodically become subject to other legal
proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business
activities, including claims or disputes related to patents that
have been issued or that are pending in the field of research on
which the Company is focused. The Company is not aware of any
material claims as of March 31, 2017.

Zafgen, Inc., or the Company, was incorporated on November 22,
2005 under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company is a
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly improving the
health and well-being of patients affected by metabolic diseases
including type 2 diabetes and obesity.


* Diesel Scandals to Impact Future of Big Automakers
----------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for Wired, reports that the most immediate
impact of the emissions cheating scandal that has engulfed
Volkswagen and may be spreading to automakers like Fiat Chrysler
is an environmental and public health crisis. Worldwide, diesel
vehicles are producing about 50 percent more nitrogen oxide than
regulations allow, according to a new study, which links those
emissions to 38,000 premature deaths in 2015.

But, in the long run, the diesel fallout could reach further,
helping set up carmakers as the next industry to be upended by
Silicon Valley.  As shifts like autonomy, electrification, and
shared ownership change the way people use and buy cars, these
companies will have enough trouble navigating the coming decades.
Dedication to diesel adds to the challenge, chaining automakers to
a losing technology.  And for those caught breaking the rules,
expensive legal settlements and fines, which for Volkswagen have
exceeded $22 billion in the United States alone, will divert funds
from research and development just as these changes in driving
technology threaten to render traditional carmakers obsolete.

In the past century, few industries have been as closed to new
entrants as the car business, with its massive overhead costs,
complex supplier networks, and slim profit margins.  That's
changing as self-driving technology, electric propulsion, and
manufacturing advances create an opening for disruptive new
competitors. Tesla is the first new car company to gain a foothold
in decades, it's unlikely to be the last.

This opportunity arrives just as a growing number of the
traditional carmakers stand accused of using engine software to
fool regulators and hide excess emissions of nitrogen oxides.  In
May, the Department of Justice sued Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for
allegedly programming about 100,000 Jeep SUVs and Ram pickup
trucks to hold back emissions just long enough to pass the
standard Environmental Protection Agency tests.  Fiat Chrysler has
denied doing anything illegal.

General Motors faces a class action suit, filed in May, that
accuses the company of rigging some of its large pickups to cheat
on emissions tests.  GM calls the allegations baseless. Even
Daimler, the maker of Mercedes-Benz cars synonymous with German
engineering prowess, is under investigation for possible emissions
cheating in Germany and the United States.

These automakers are unlikely to suffer the same financial damage
as Volkswagen, which between 2009 and 2015 sold 11 million cars
equipped with illegal, emissions-cloaking software, then
compounded its sins with a blitz of false advertising.  But fines
and settlements could easily amount to billions of dollars they
need to be spending on research and development.  Moreover, these
scandals make the carmakers look like polluting dinosaurs of the
past, not purveyors of exciting new technology.

Even carmakers not swept up in the diesel scandals are vulnerable.
They tend to operate on thin profit margins --
Fiat Chrysler's return on sales in 2016 was less than 2 percent.
Google, which is preparing to bring autonomous vehicles to market,
is worth more than three times as much on the stock market as all
the German carmakers combined.  In April, Tesla's market
capitalization surpassed Ford's. Investors have made it very clear
who they think owns the future.

Meanwhile, diesel looks more and more like a losing bet.  It now
accounts for about half of all cars sold in Europe (thanks to
superior fuel economy and de facto subsidies), but that market
share is dropping as consumers realize the tech is not as clean as
advertised. Studies by the German, French, and British governments
in the wake of the Volkswagen revelations have shown that
virtually all diesel cars emit significantly more smog-causing,
asthma-inducing nitrogen oxides in normal use than during tests.
Cities like Madrid, Paris, and Athens, frustrated by chronically
high pollution levels, are talking about banning diesel from urban
centers.  No one wants a car that might be stopped at the city
limits.

As consumers in Europe abandon diesel, carmakers will need to
speed up introduction of electric cars to meet stricter limits on
greenhouse gases. (Diesel cars produce more nitrogen oxides than
gas-powered models, but less planet-warming carbon dioxide.) At
the same time, these companies can't just shutter their factories
and go all-in on electricity, at least not anytime soon.  Diesel
is a classic legacy technology, a dead weight on traditional
companies trying to defend themselves against new challengers not
burdened by the same fixed costs.

The traditional carmakers certainly recognize the threat.  They
are investing in autonomous driving research, battery technology,
and car sharing services.  "Our industry is undergoing a
fundamental transformation," Harald KrĂ…ger, the chief executive of
BMW, said in May.  GM CEO Mary Barra told The New York Times the
Detroit automaker is a tech company.  In May, Ford -- which calls
itself an automaker and a mobility company -- pushed out Mark
Fields as chief executive and replaced him with Jim Hackett, who
had been leading its autonomous driving push.  Mr. Hackett's
appointment was a clear statement by the board of directors that
Ford needs to meet the challenge from Silicon Valley more
aggressively.

European auto executives still have vivid memories of how Apple's
iPhone laid waste to Nokia, once one of the Continent's most
profitable and admired companies.  Whether they can avoid the same
fate is an open question.  For all their talk about going
electric, the big automakers are yet to match newcomer Tesla for
range, autonomous features, or sheer excitement.  Chevy's long-
range, $30,000 Bolt EV has sold modestly.  Tesla's Model 3
inspired hundreds of thousands of buyers to plunk down $1,000
deposits before the cars even existed.

The traditional carmakers argue that mass producing cars is a
complex industrial ballet, and they won't be displaced so easily.
They have other advantages, too.  Volkswagen, trying to rebuild
its reputation after the emissions scandal, has promised to
introduce 30 electric models within a decade.  They include a line
of battery powered Porsches that, the company says, will have a
range of 300 miles and require only 15 minutes to charge. No
startup could credibly set such ambitious goals.

Yet, after some early growing pains, Elon Musk and his crew at
Tesla seem to be mastering the manufacturing challenge.  And
there's no reason that a company like Apple -- whose intentions in
the auto industry are unclear -- couldn't apply the iPhone model
to vehicles, outsourcing the production and assembly to
contractors.  It wouldn't be the first.  Valmet, a Finnish
company, has built Boxster sports cars for Porsche.  BMW has
outsourced assembly of some models to Magna Steyr, based in
Austria, and VDL Nedcar in the Netherlands.  Advances in 3-D
industrial printing will further lower the cost of getting into
manufacturing.

The challenges facing the auto industry would be near overwhelming
under any circumstances.  Costly, reputation-destroying diesel
emissions scandals threaten to make the coming battle with Silicon
Valley even more difficult than it already is. [GN]


* NSW Health Investigates Pelvic Mesh Company Rep Amid Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy at Newcastle Herald reports that NSW Health is
investigating how a male pelvic mesh company representative was in
a private hospital operating theatre during a woman's intimate
pelvic mesh surgery, without her knowledge or approval.

The investigation, initiated on June 30 after Newcastle Herald
questions to Health Minister Brad Hazzard, is the second
investigation launched by state health authorities in a week
involving surgery by former University of Newcastle associate
professor of gynaecology, Richard Reid.

They are in addition to a NSW Health Care Complaints Commission
investigation of Dr Reid that will be heard by the NSW Civil and
Administrative Tribunal in December, and at least five civil suits
by women patients involving pelvic mesh surgery by him.

The Sydney Private Hospital investigation will include how NSW
Health initially did not pursue a complaint in 2015 after
incorrectly advising the woman patient that the man's company was
a member of a professional association, the Medical Technology
Association of Australia (MTAA), which bound him by its code of
conduct.

When the information was independently checked the MTAA said the
company was not a member.

"NSW Health takes the concerns raised by the Newcastle Herald very
seriously.  The matter is being actively investigated," a
spokesperson said on June 30.

The woman was implanted with the Australian-manufactured Tissue
Fixation System (TFS) pelvic mesh device in July, 2013 at Sydney
Private Hospital by Dr Reid and device inventor Dr Peter Petros,
only weeks after Dr Reid is alleged to have assisted with TFS
surgery at Victoria's Northern Hospital in June, 2013, without the
public hospital's knowledge or approval.

The woman had another three repair surgeries at the hospital
between July and December, 2013 after serious complications.

NSW Health takes the concerns raised by the Newcastle Herald very
seriously.  The matter is being actively investigated.
- NSW Health spokesperson

After a complaint about the male company representative in the
operating theatre, NSW Health advised he was not from Adelaide-
based TFS Manufacturing, but from another pelvic mesh device
company.

"The hospital director of the Sydney Private Hospital has advised
that medical representatives are permitted admittance to the
operating theatre at the discretion of the theatre manager in
consultation with the surgeon. They are present to provide
technical advice to the surgeon," NSW Health's private health care
unit wrote in June, 2015.

The unit named the mesh device company and gave the incorrect
advice that "all representatives from this company are members of
the MTAA and are bound by their code of conduct".

A NSW tribunal has heard evidence Northern Hospital gynaecologist
Dr Max Haverfield trained Dr Reid in TFS surgery only weeks before
the woman's surgery.

Victoria's new public hospital watchdog, Safer Care Victoria, is
investigating allegations Dr Petros and Dr Reid assisted Dr
Haverfield with TFS surgery at the hospital in 2010 and 2013
respectively, without the hospital's knowledge or approval. It is
investigating a separate allegation that Dr Haverfield conducted a
TFS trial on 40 women at the hospital, without the hospital's
knowledge.

Safer Care Victoria is also investigating how a research paper on
the trial was published by Dr Haverfield in 2015 saying the TFS
trial had Northern Hospital ethics committee approval, when the
hospital could find no record of such an approval.

The investigation followed Herald questions about the Northern
Hospital surgery to Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy.

The investigations are in addition to a Senate inquiry into how
the controversial pelvic -- or transvaginal -- mesh devices for
prolapse surgery were cleared for use in Australia from 2003/04
without evidence of safety and efficacy.  Prolapse surgery in
women generally follows complications from childbirth.

The Senate inquiry was established after Victorian Senator Derryn
Hinch compared transvaginal mesh devices with the drug
Thalidomide, and told Federal Parliament mesh was "one of the
greatest medical scandals and abuses of mothers in Australia's
history".

A landmark Australian legal class action by 450 women implanted
with just one company's pelvic mesh devices, Johnson & Johnson,
was set to start on July 4.  It is estimated to run for six
months.

Dr Reid did not respond to questions.

Sydney Private Hospital did not respond to questions.
Correspondence seen by the Herald shows the hospital changed some
procedures after the woman's complaint, including requiring
company representatives to sign a code of conduct on entering an
operating theatre and wear identifying theatre clothing.  Patients
are also advised in writing that "it may be necessary to have a
medical representative present during my surgery to provide
technical support".[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  * * *