CAR_Public/170725.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, July 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 145



                            Headlines

AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 30 Final Hearing to Approve Accord
AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: "Sham Contracting" Class Action May Expand
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinson" Suit
APPLE INC: Former Workers Want Court to Revive Class Action
ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by Sept 18

ARRIS INT'L: Oct. 25 Case Management Conference in Reyna Suit
AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. to Respond to Class Action in Aug.
AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents File Class Suit v. Defense Department
AUSTRALIA: IMF to Fund Class Action Against Defense Department
B COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports

B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Bezeq Merger
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Still Defends Class Suit by Depositor
BUDGET AIR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Rader" Class Action
CHAPIN SCHOOL: Singer Equipment Suit Sues over Bond Funds

CITIZENS INC: Amended Complaint Due July 31 in "Gamboa" Case
COCA COLA: Court Grants Stipulation to Dismiss "De LaRosa"
CONAGRA BRANDS: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Class Action Ruling
CONNECTICUT: Class Action Challenges Dog Death Penalty
COVISINT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action

DAN HOSSEINI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers
DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Suit v. Milk Processors Dismissed
DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Farash Says
DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Gas Royalty Class Action Certification
DUN & BRADSTREET: Supplemental Briefing in O&R Suit Extended

DUN & BRADSTREET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Terminated
EZCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
FIRST BANCORP: Still Defends Against "Torres" Class Suit
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Says Parties Negotiating Settlement
FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Settlement Has Final Approval

GALLAGHER BASSETT: First State Orthopaedics Sues over Workers Pay
GERON CORPORATION: $6.25 Million Settlement Has Final Approval
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Cases at Early Stage
HC2 HOLDINGS: Still Defends DBMG Class Action
IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 2018 Trial in Solodyn Antitrust Actions

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Case Ongoing
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss AWP Litigation Underway
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suit by Family Medicine Underway
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Medicine To Go's Suit Underway in Alabama

IMPAX LABORATORIES: NY Hotel Trades Securities Action Underway
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Objections to Discovery in "Barker" Overruled
J2 GLOBAL: Court Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Paldo Claims
J2 GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Free-Vychine Case Settlement
J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending

JM ROMICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Livaudais" Remanded to Missouri State Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Reppell" Remanded to Missouri State Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Swann" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
LANDEC CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in California Case

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Appeal Pending in 3rd Circuit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Still Defends Class Action in New York
MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 21
MDL 2371: Federal Circuit Appeal Remains Pending

MERCK & CO: Working on Definitive Settlement with Direct Buyers
MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Litigation Fully Briefed
MICHAEL FOODS: Nov. 6 Egg Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MIDLAND CREDIT: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carieri" Class Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims

OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces Securities Class Action
OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Dismissal
ORIGINAL W. HARGROVE: Settles Towing Class Action for $281,000
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Underway in SEPTA Case
PATHEON NV: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits over Line 901 Incident
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Misleading Opioids Label
REGENCY CENTERS: Still Faces Merger Class Action
REMINGTON: State AGs Seek Reversal of Gun Safety Settlement
SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM & NRC Still Face Deepwater Oil Spill Claims

SKULLCANDY INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Paprakis" Suit
SLATER & GORDON: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $36.5MM
SOUTHERN GLAZER: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Stewart Appeals W.D. Okla. Order to 10th Cir.
STATE FARM: Denied to Certify Question to Colorado Supreme Court

STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Partners' Class Action Discontinued
STRADMONT OAK: "Knight" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Arizona Over Proposed Knight Merger
SYNGENTA AG: Settles Nebraska Farmer's Corn Suit Ahead of Trial
TATA GROUP: Bombay High Court Wont' Hear Shareholder Class Action

TAQUERIA HECHO: "Mateo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TAURUS: 11th Circuit Affirms Pistol Class Action Settlement
TD BANK: Judge Rejects Cellphone Users' Class Action
TESORO CORPORATION: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed
TG THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Litigation Dismissed

UBER TECH: Aug. 10 Deadline to Submit Email Test Design
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Improper Pay Practices
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in "Bauserman" Flipped
UNITED RENTALS: Bid to Junk S&S Construction's Suit Partly OK'd
UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Lambert" Subclass I Gets Final Nod

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Basile" Status Conference on July 25
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Securities Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Class Suits Ongoing
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing on RICO Class Actions Completed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn Case

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Liability Case Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Case Pending in Canada
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Afexa Case Appeal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sprout Litigation in Discovery

WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Stayed
WALTER INVESTMENT: Lee Case Remains Pending in Nevada
WALTER INVESTMENT: Bonomi and Petrovets Actions Dismissed
WATTS WATER: Settlements of Connector Class Actions Approved
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Case Pending

WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Katz" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger
WOLVERINE STATE: Retiree Wants High Court to Revive Class Action
WV AMERICAN: Judge Nixes Elk River Chemical Spill Settlement
XOMA CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Case Still Pending
YUM! BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Wage and Hour Actions

ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motion Pending in Class Action
* CFPB Adopts Rule Prohibiting Class Action Arbitration
* Issue Over Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Ongoing




                            *********


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 30 Final Hearing to Approve Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the case, KBC Asset Management NV, et al. v.
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10105-MLW
(D. Mass.), was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 29,
2017.  The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for
November 30, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.

The settlement provides for the payment of $22,250,000 for the
benefit of eligible Class Members.  Lead Plaintiffs KBC Asset
Management NV, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and
Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund alleged that Defendants
violated Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by, among other things, issuing false and misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that Aegerion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had been illegally marketing JUXTAPID beyond
its FDA-approved label, Aegerion was experiencing a higher than
expected drop-out rate for JUXTAPID and more patients than
expected were not filling their JUXTAPID prescriptions, and,
relatedly, issues existed concerning the performance and potential
market for JUXTAPID that were not consistent with Defendants'
public statements.

The Class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aegerion publicly traded common stock between April 30,
2013 and May 11, 2016, inclusive.  Excluded from the Class are:
Defendants, the officers and directors of Aegerion during the
Class Period, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.  Also
excluded from the Class is any Class Member that validly and
timely requests exclusion in accordance with the requirements set
by the Court.

                           *     *     *

Novelion Therapeutics 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 settlement of a Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit remains pending.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Aegerion and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court")
alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the
marketing of JUXTAPID and Aegerion's financial performance in
violation of the federal securities laws. The case is captioned
KBC Asset Management NV et al. v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., No. 14-cv-10105-MLW.

On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. Co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 1,
2015. Aegerion filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second
amended complaint.  On September 4, 2015, Aegerion moved to strike
the second amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure
to seek leave of court to file a second amended pleading.

Oral argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016.
On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend.

Aegerion opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing on
April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement.

On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint
motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs
could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion,
which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting
defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading
and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
pleading.  The Court also entered a briefing schedule for
defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to
file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs.

A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22,
2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to
stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation, which the
Court granted on August 10, 2016. Through mediation, the co-lead
plaintiffs and defendants reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation on November 29, 2016.

On January 17, 2017, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a stipulation of
settlement with the Court that contained the settlement terms as
agreed upon by the parties, including that Aegerion and its
insurance carriers would contribute $22.3 million to a settlement
fund for the putative class. The insurance carriers have agreed to
cover $22.0 million of this amount, with Aegerion responsible for
the remainder of $0.3 million.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of procedural steps
and is subject to approval by the Court.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this action or when it will be
resolved.  The Company has recorded a loss contingency of $22.3
million and an insurance proceeds receivable of $22.0 million at
March 31, 2017.

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     JACK REISE, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: 561/750-3000
     Fax: 561/750-3364

          - and -

     GREGG S. LEVIN, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: 843/216-9000
     Fax: 843/216-9450

Counsel for Defendant Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

     RANDALL W. BODNER, Esq.
     MARK D. VAUGHN, Esq.
     ROPES & GRAY LLP
     Prudential Tower
     800 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02199-3600
     Tel: 617/951-7000
     Fax: 617/951-7050
     E-mail: randall.bodner@ropesgray.com
             mark.vaughn@ropesgray.com

          - and -

     NICHOLAS M. BERG, Esq.
     ROPES & GRAY LLP
     191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: 312/845-1200
     Fax: 312/845-5500
     E-mail: nicholas.berg@ropesgray.com

Counsel for Defendant Marc D. Beer:

     CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
     R.J. CINQUEGRANA, Esq.
     Two International Place
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: 617/248-5000
     Fax: 617/248-4000
     E-mail: rcinquegrana@choate.com

Counsel for Defendant Mark J. Fitzpatrick:

     IAN D. ROFFMAN, Esq.
     NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
     Seaport West
     155 Seaport Boulevard
     Boston, MA 02210
     Tel: 617/439-2000
     Fax: 617/310-9000
     E-mail: iroffman@nutter.com

Counsel for Defendant Craig Fraser:

     WILLIAM H. KETTLEWELL, Esq.
     GREGORY F. NOONAN, Esq.
     LAUREN A. GRABER, Esq.
     COLLORA LLP
     100 High Street - 20th Floor
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: 617/371-1000
     Fax: 617/371-1037
     E-mail: wkettle@collorallp.com
             gnoonan@collorallp.com
             lgraber@collorallp.com

Additional information in the case is available at:

           http://www.aegerionsecuritieslitigation.com/

Novelion is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing
new standards of care for individuals living with rare diseases.


AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: "Sham Contracting" Class Action May Expand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trask, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a looming court battle involving Airservices Australia is set to
expand to cover allegations of "sham contracting" and the use of
outlawed "zombie agreements".

In June, The Canberra Times revealed almost 80 employees had
registered for a class action against the government entity,
centred around a controversial redundancy process that slashed
more than 500 jobs last year.

At the time lawyers alleged that a number of staff members had
been made redundant while employed on unlawful contracts, and
could therefore be eligible to claim up to $130,000 in additional
payouts.

Rory Markham, the employment litigation director at the Canberra-
based Chamberlains law firm, said the class action was now likely
to expand to cover additional concerns.

"We have multiple claimants that have raised concerns about sham
contracting arrangements being undertaken at Airservices in the
period of 2010 to date," he said.

"In certain situations, people have been made redundant after
between 10 and 30 years of employment with Airservices and then
re-employed in a matter of weeks on the same or comparable duties
under an independent contractor agreement."

Impacted workers could be due additional compensation for the
alleged use of such "strictly forbidden" practices, Mr Markham
said.

A further 10 individuals had come forward with allegations that
the redundancy program was used to make them accept cheaper
contracts while performing the same job, he added.
Business AM Newsletter

"We have received instructions from at least 10 individuals that
the redundancy process was in fact no more than an option to take
a pay cut of approximately $20,000 to do the same duties, or to be
made redundant without further consultation."

If true, such allegations showed the redundancy program was a
cost-cutting exercise with little connection to whether jobs were
actually needed or not, Mr Markham said.

Lawyers were also investigating the alleged use of so-called
"zombie" Australian Workplace Agreements, a form of individual
contract discontinued by the Federal Government in 2008.

"The only relevance for the existing AWAs appear to be to prevent
employees becoming a part of the enterprise agreement and
receiving higher redundancy benefits," he said.

"It would be highly embarrassing to the Commonwealth to continue
to engage people on AWAs in these circumstances."

The total bill for the action, including corporate penalties,
could sting Airservices as much as $12 million.

To date 116 individuals had registered for the class action, with
Chamberlains currently retained by 45 individuals.

Mr Markham said he was currently engaged with representatives of
Airservices in a bid to resolve the dispute before it went to the
Federal Court.

If no settlement was reached in these discussions, it was likely
the class action would be filed in late July, he said.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said the entity was, and
always had been, a responsible employer.

"We have a total commitment to our duty of care for all
Airservices employees," she said.

"As The Canberra Times is fully aware, a number of issues have
been foreshadowed as part of potential legal actions and these
issues will be examined and determined as part of that process.

"We are not aware of any additional claims of the nature you
raise."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robinson, et al. v.
American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 5:17-CV-00426-F, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma
City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(Case No. CJ-2017-1562), was removed from the Oklahoma County
District Court on April 13, 2017, to the District Court.  The
nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

American Airlines Inc. operates an airline company headquartered
in Fort Worth, Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Robinson, et al. v. American
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 17-6166, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Fee, transcript order form, and docketing statement are due
      on July 27, 2017, for Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson;
      and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on July 27, 2017, for American
      Airlines, Inc., Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LYNN ROBINSON and JUDITH ROBINSON, and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq.
          JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES
          1611 South Utica Avenue, Suite 173
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Telephone: (918) 583-4165
          Facsimile: (918) 583-4166
          E-mail: jm8069337@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., DBA American Airlines,
is represented by:

          Edward J. Main, Esq.
          James K. Secrest, II, Esq.
          SECREST HILL BUTLER & SECREST
          7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 900
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 494-5905
          Facsimile: (918) 494-2847
          E-mail: emain@secresthill.com
                  jsecrest@secresthill.com

               - and -

          Mark Wayne Robertson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6524
          Telephone: (212) 763-7732
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com


APPLE INC: Former Workers Want Court to Revive Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that former workers
at Apple Inc. retail stores were set to ask a federal appeals
court to revive their class action claiming that California law
requires the technology giant to pay them for their time spent in
security checks.

The workers, represented by Kimberly Kralowec of the Kralowec Law
Group, would try to convince the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
at oral argument that the time spent in security checks is
compensable under California law because they were under Apple's
control during that time and the checks benefited the company.


ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by Sept 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY MAURER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARGOS THERAPEUTICS INC.,
JEFFREY ABBEY, LORI HARRELSON and RICHARD KATZ, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-216 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Thomas D Schroeder on
July 19, 2017, entered a scheduling order, providing that:

     1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or
        before September 18, 2017;

     2. Defendants shall move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise
        respond to the amended complaint within 60 days after Lead
        Plaintiffs file such complaint with the court;

     3. Lead Plaintiffs shall file any opposition papers to any
        motion to dismiss filed by Defendants within 60 days after
        Defendants file their motion to dismiss; and

     4. Defendants shall file any reply papers within 30 days
        after Lead Plaintiffs file their opposition papers to
        Defendants' motion to dismiss.

     5. If a motion to dismiss is filed, discovery shall be stayed
        during the pendency of the motion.

On June 23, 2017, the Hoey Trusts and the Argos Investor Group
were appointed co-lead Plaintiffs for the class and the co-lead
Plaintiffs selection of the law firms of Wolf Haldenstein and Levi
& Korsinsky was approved.

Argos Therapeutics, 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 securities class action lawsuit was
commenced on March 14, 2017, in the United States District Court,
Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming the
Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants, and
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the defendants between February 7, 2014 and February 21, 2017 (the
"Class Period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
Class Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other
relief as determined by the Court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that similar
lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name
the same or additional defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janet Ward Black, Esq.
     Nancy Meyers, Esq.
     WARD BLACK LAW
     208 West Wendover Avenue
     Greensboro, NC 27401-1307
     Phone: 336-333-2244
     Fax: 336-379-9415
     E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com
             nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
     LEVI & KORINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: 203-992-4523
     Fax: 212-363-7171
     E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
             sbartone@zlk.com

Argos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), was incorporated in the
State of Delaware on May 8, 1997. The Company is an immuno-
oncology company focused on the development and commercialization
of individualized immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer and
infectious diseases based on its proprietary precision
immunotherapy technology platform called Arcelis.


ARRIS INT'L: Oct. 25 Case Management Conference in Reyna Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Carlos Reyna v. ARRIS International plc, Case No.
5:17-cv-01834 (N.D. Cal.), pending before Judge Lucy H Koh, a
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on July 21, 2017, against
ARRIS International by Joseph Palma, Brian Alexander, John
Matsayko, Greg Knowles, Carlos Reyna, Jon Walton, Wes Tilley,
Marco Fernandez, Christopher Stevens, Matthew Penner, Andrew
Prowant, Michael Person, Kaci Roar, Tony Romeo, Tom Kisha, David
Eisen, Kelly Smith, Timothy Oefelein, Damien Probe, Paul Dubey,
Callan Christensen, Michael Bresline, Christopher Bullard,
Giovanni Murphy, William Haworth, Rodney Bryant, Yong Jae Lee,
Larry Bavry, William Rosenberg, Jean Pierre Crespo, and Mike
Alexander.

On July 5, the Court entered a Case Management Order.  A further
Case Management Conference is set for Oct. 25 at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose.  A Class Certification Hearing
set for July 12, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

A Hearing on Dispositive Motions set for Jan. 17, 2019.  A Final
Pretrial Conference is set for March 14, 2019.  A Jury Trial (6-
day estimate) is set for April 1, 2019.

ARRIS 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 continues to defend against
the case, Reyna v. ARRIS International plc, C.A. 5:17-cv-01834,
Northern District of California.

On March 31, 2017, Carlos Reyna, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated filed a putative class action lawsuit against
ARRIS alleging that the SB6190 modem which includes the Intel Puma
6 chipset is defective. The plaintiff alleges violation of the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and
California Unfair Competition Law.

The Company says, "It is premature to assess the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS
may be required to pay damages."

ARRIS considers itself a leader in entertainment and
communications technology.  It is headquartered in Suwanee,
Georgia and operates in two business segments: Customer Premises
Equipment ("CPE") and Network & Cloud ("N&C").


AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. to Respond to Class Action in Aug.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toby Mann, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports
that one of 450 people exposed to toxic firefighting foam in
Queensland says a class action against the Department of Defence
isn't a grab for cash but money needed to move his family to a
safer home.

Brad Hudson won't let his two girls play on their lawn at Oakey
because he's forced to sprinkle it with bore water which he says
contains chemicals leached from the foams used at a local army
aviation base until last decade.

It's estimated 4000 Oakey residents have been impacted by
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
but the federal government claims there's no consistent evidence
the chemicals harm humans.

Mr Hudson, the lead plaintiff in the Shine Lawyers' class action,
however says he is under a "s***load of stress" worrying about
what the chemicals could do to his family.

"It's just the not knowing of having to endure a chemical everyday
of your life and to hope like hell it doesn't have any long-term
health effects on me or my family," he said.

The Hudsons still use the potentially-dangerous bore water every
day.

"We certainly don't drink it anymore," he said.

"We try to limit our exposure to it but unfortunately the
government won't allow us to use town water outside which is just
mind boggling.  They're just penny pinching."

The contamination also affected property prices in town, leaving
locals unable to sell up and move, Shine Lawyers' special counsel
Peter Shannon said.

Mr Hudson would love to pack his family up and move but he is
stuck in Oakey.

"I definitely can't sell my property . . . no one's putting their
hand up and making any offers," he said.

"We've asked for a relocation thousands of times, it just falls on
deaf ears."

Despite a Senate inquiry recommending compensation three years ago
and "extensive promises" coming from ministers and people
assisting the prime minister, the residents of Oakey haven't
received any money, Mr Shannon said.

He said he was open to settling the matter with the federal
government outside court.

"But if they're taking refuge behind the court process, well then
that's how we have to go," he said.

Damages would be determined by the court after hearing expert
evidence, but Mr Shannon estimated they would total about $200
million.

The class action, which has been filed in the Federal Court in
NSW, is expected to take about two years.

The Department of Defence will lodge its response in the next few
months.

Australian stock exchange-listed litigation funder IMP Bentham is
backing the Oakey case. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents File Class Suit v. Defense Department
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Miko, writing for The Chronicle, reports that Shine Lawyers
special counsel Peter Shannon maintains the class action against
the Department of Defence was filed with "considerable
reluctance".

Mr Shannon said filing the 70-page statement of claim sought
compensation for Oakey residents "in relation to the contamination
that was announced three years ago".

Labelling the class action, to which more than 450 residents have
signed up to, as a "definite path to a definite outcome",
Mr Shannon said he was confident of an outcome and would welcome a
settlement with the Department of Defence.

"If Defence manage to do the right thing in the meantime, our door
is open but if we've got to go, if they're taking refuge behind
the court process, then that is how we have to go," he said.

Oakey resident and father-of-three Brad Hudson is the lead
plaintiff on the suit which seeks compensation for the loss of
property values, as well as covering relocation costs.

Mr Shannon said an exact figure would be determined by expert
evidence likely to be called throughout the legal process.

"We'll be seeking damage for compensation, that is the financial
loss suffered by our clients," he said.

"I can say from my experience I would be surprised if it was less
than $200 million or something in that effect.

"But I don't want to pre-empt the valuer."

Litigation costs have been funded by IMF, a litigation funding
firm with which an agreement was struck before the action was
filed to ensure Oakey residents would not be liable for legal fees
if the action fails.

"We would not be taking this action if we weren't confident of the
outcome, but there's no certainty in any litigation,"
Mr Shannon said.

"If we lose, our litigation funder is severely out of pocket, our
firm is severely out of pocket, but the clients have no exposure."

Lawyers will recover about 70% of their charges from the
litigation funder and carry the rest and recover it if the suit is
successful.

He said about 450 residents had signed up to the action but
expected more to come on board now the official legal process had
started.

"Not all people want to relocate however most do and we would be
saying that a proper compensation approach is the value of your
property, the value of you relocating, the dislocation costs, the
costs of moving, the cost of going into new schools, all those
things," he said.

"This is not a personal injuries claim because personal injuries
claims of this nature is not suitable for a class action.

"It's not like a product that has had a particular outcome,
however the common questions that are determined in this will be
of assistance for those kinds of claims.

"There aren't 450 people suffering a direct medical condition but
it's directly relevant to why people don't want to buy in Oakey so
the health issues are vitally important."

Lawyers have filed a class action suit against the Department of
Defence over groundwater contamination in Oakey following decades
of use of toxic firefighting foam chemicals.

Shine Lawyers special counsel Peter Shannon on July 11 filed the
suit launching the claim, representing hundreds of Oakey
residents.

In a statement to The Chronicle this morning, Shine said more than
4000 Oakey residents had been impacted by firefighting foam
chemicals, classified as PFAS chemicals, leaching into groundwater
supplies, impacting land, water and food sources, and residents'
bloodstreams.

More than 450 Oakey residents have signed up to be part of the
class action.

"While we believe this is the worst contamination site in
Australia, there are more than 60 Defence bases around the country
which have exposed locals to the same toxic chemicals," Mr Shannon
said.

"This action and the Williamstown action will pave the way to
justice for those communities which have suffered.

"In Oakey, hundreds of innocent families have been, and continue
to be, exposed.

"Many have invested everything they have into this town and now
all their hard work means nothing.

"They're effectively trapped and can't sell their properties or
move their kids out of the contamination zone."

Mr Shannon said filing the class action suit marked the "first
step towards justice" for Oakey.

The Chronicle has contacted the Department of Defence for comment.
[GN]


AUSTRALIA: IMF to Fund Class Action Against Defense Department
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth McCosker, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that an
investigation into the contamination of land and water around a
Defence site at Oakey has escalated, with a class action lawsuit
filed against the department.

On July 11, global litigation funder IMF released a statement that
said it would fund the lawsuit against the Department of Defence
in connection to any land contamination alleged to have occurred
from the use of firefighting foam.

More than 4000 residents have been affected by contamination
caused by the use of toxic firefighting foams at the Oakey army
base, which had leached into the groundwater.

Oakey residents have been found to have chemical levels 44 times
the national average in their blood.

Oakey resident Brad Hudson said it was a shame the situation had
led to class action, but he had already endured three years of
stress over the unknown effects of exposure to the chemicals PFOS
and PFOA found within the toxic foams.

"It's just the not knowings of having to endure a chemical
everyday of your life and to hope like it hell it doesn't have any
long term health affects on me or my family," Mr Hudson said.
Advertisement

"As a parent, that's pretty hard to endure. I just hope it doesn't
upset my children's health down the path."

Mr Hudson said the unknown meant he did not allow his two young
daughters to play on the lawn because it had been watered with
potentially contaminated water.

"I don't think my children deserve to have to put up with
chemicals caused by the Australian government," he said.

"It's still scary, I'd hate for them to say in a couple of years
time that there's definitely evidence out there this is going to
affect you and we've just sat there in limbo fighting with the
government to get a resolution."

The class action has been filed to the Federal Court of Australia
in New South Wales and is being conducted by Shine Lawyers in
Queensland.

Shine Lawyers special counsel Peter Shannon said he believed Oakey
was the worst contamination site in Australia but he added that
more than 60 Defence bases around the country had exposed
residents to the same toxic chemicals.

"This action and the Williamstown action will pave the way to
justice for those communities which have suffered," Mr Shannon
said.

"In Oakey hundreds of innocent families have been, and continue to
be, exposed. Many have invested everything they have into this
town and now all their hard work means nothing.

"They're effectively trapped and can't sell their properties or
move their kids out of the contamination zone.

"The community has suffered under this cloud of contamination for
years with no end in sight until now.

"Today marks the first step towards justice for the people of
Oakey."

450 Oakey residents are involved in the class action.

Mr Shannon said Shine Lawyers would be seeking damages for
compensation.

"That is the financial loss suffered by our clients," he said.

"The amount of that I can't specify at the moment because it's
actually expert evidence that determines that, so a valuer gets in
the box and does an evaluation.

"I can say that from my experience I would be surprised if it was
less than $200 million -- something in that effect, but i don't
want to pre-empt the valuer's domain."

It was expected the Federal Court would call both parties to set
down a plan for how the case would be heard and then the
Department of Defence was expected to file its defence within
months.

Williamtown Class Action Steering Committee spokesman Linday Clout
said the committee welcomed the class action Oakey residents had
filed against the department.

Williamtown residents filed class action against the department
last year.

"There is no question that this will continue to build as the
scientific evidence about the dangers of PFOS and PFOA mounts," he
said.

"Rather than drag this on, defence needs to do the right thing and
take action to help the families and businesses impacted by its
contamination"

A Defence spokesman said the department was aware IMF Bentham had
issued a release to the ASX on July 11.

"At this time, no formal documentation has been served on the
Commonwealth and Defence is not aware of the details of the
proceeding," the spokesman said.

"Any claim will be handled in accordance with the Attorney-
General's Legal Services Directions 2017.

"It is inappropriate for Defence to make further public comment at
this stage." [GN]


B COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne P. Maleeff, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. B Communications Ltd, Doron Turgeman, Itzik
Tadmor, and Ehud Yahalom, Case No. 1:17-cv-04937 (S.D.N.Y., June
29, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) Elovitch had engaged in illegal conduct in connection with the
Bezeq-YES Merger; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would
subject B Communications and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory
scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, B Communications' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

B Communications Ltd provides various communications services for
business and private customers in Israel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Bezeq Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 10 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against B Communications Ltd. ("B
Communications" or the "Company") for possible violations of
federal securities laws between November 7, 2013, and June 19,
2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the August 28, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

You can call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-
1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, B
Communications made false and/or misleading statements, and/or
failed to disclose that: Shaul Elovitch, the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq and B Communications, engaged in illegal
conduct relating to the Bezeq-YES Merger; that discovery of this
conduct would subject the Company and/or Bezeq to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and that as
a result of the above, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 20, 2017, The Times of Israel reported that the Israel
Securities Authority ("ISA") raided the offices of Bezeq and
detained Mr. Elovitch.  The ISA stated that it was investigating
"suspicions of violations of the securities law and the penal code
relating to transactions connected to" Mr. Elovitch.  The Israeli
publication Globes reported that the ISA is investigating
the Bezeq-Yes Merger, as well as payments the unit made to Eurocom
under pressure from Mr. Elovitch.  Upon release of this
information, B Communications' share price lowered materially,
which caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

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


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Still Defends Class Suit by Depositor
------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. continues to defend against a class
action lawsuit by a depositor in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, 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 April 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served
with a complaint filed in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was
filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to
have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of
Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.

On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported
claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory,
and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the
allegations contained in the complaint and are vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


BUDGET AIR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Morales, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Budget Air Supply, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01565-JDW-AEP (M.D.
Fla., June 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay Sales Representatives' overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Budget Air Supply, LLC is an air conditioning contractor in Haines
City, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      James J. Henson, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor
      P.O Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 428-6241
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3342
      E-mail: jjhenson@forthepeople.com


CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Rader" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Centrue Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that Centrue, Midland, Merger
Subsidiary and the individual members of the Centrue board of
directors have been named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of Centrue in the Circuit
Court of LaSalle County, Illinois: Rader v. Centrue Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 17L16 (filed February 3, 2017). The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Centrue breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
entering into the merger agreement and that Centrue, Midland and
Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary
breaches. Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that Centrue's
board of directors failed to ensure that Centrue's shareholders
would receive maximum value for their shares, utilized preclusive
corporate and deal protection terms to inhibit an alternate
transaction and failed to conduct an appropriate sale process, and
that Centrue's largest shareholder and its representative on
Centrue's board of directors exerted influence to force a sale of
Centrue at an unfair price. The action seeks a variety of
equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things,
enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of Centrue shareholders and awarding
plaintiff its costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants believe
that the claims asserted in the litigation are wholly without
merit and they intend to defend them vigorously. Other potential
plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits challenging the proposed
transaction.


CHAPIN SCHOOL: Singer Equipment Suit Sues over Bond Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
SINGER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CHAPIN SCHOOL,
LTD., IBEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC and ANDY FRANKL,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 654538/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
Ct., 2017), is brought pursuant to the provisions of Lien Law on
behalf of plaintiff and on behalf of all other Lien Law trust
beneficiaries who may seek to be vouched in.  The proposed class
consists of all beneficiaries of Lien Law article 3-A trust funds
received by Chapin and IBEX in connection with a Project. There
are other subcontractors, architects, engineers, surveyors,
laborers or material men who, like plaintiff, performed work on
the Property constituting permanent improvements thereto and that
their work was not paid for due, in whole or in part, to the
unlawful trust fund diversions.

Chapin and IBEX entered into an agreement on October 24, 2014,
pursuant to which IBEX agreed to begin construction on a multi-
phase renovation and construction project for Chapin.

According to the complaint, the purpose of Lien Law is to make
certain that laborers, materialmen, and subcontractors on an
improvement are paid from project funds, and it is essential that
these protected classes be fully aware of whether an owner or
contractor has funds available to pay their claims as trust
beneficiaries.

The lawsuit seeks that Chapin be declared a trustee of Bond Funds
aggregating at least $2,393,787, or so much as may be necessary to
pay all of the claims of the Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries.

Chapin School is a domestic not-for-profit education
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Allan Reeve, Esq.
          REEVE BROWN PLLC
          3380 Monroe Avenue, Suite 200
          Rochester, NY 14618
          Telephone: (585) 310 1610
          Facsimile: (585) 287 5272
          E-mail: careeve@reevebrownlaw.com


CITIZENS INC: Amended Complaint Due July 31 in "Gamboa" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gamboa v. Citizens, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00241 (W.D. Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that a
Consolidated Complaint must be filed by July 31, 2017; and
Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the
Consolidated Complaint by September 14.

Citizens, 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 or about March 16, 2017, Juan Gamboa filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and five of
its current and former directors and executive officers in the
United States District Court, Western District of Texas. The
lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.  The complaint seeks an award
of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between March 11, 2015 and March 8, 2017, inclusive.

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

Citizens, Inc. is an insurance holding company incorporated in
Colorado serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the
United States since 1969 and internationally since 1975.


COCA COLA: Court Grants Stipulation to Dismiss "De LaRosa"
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss without prejudice the
case captioned LUIS A. DE LAROSA, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE COCA COLA
COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-
02603-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on April 3,
2017, in the Superior Court for County of Napa.  On May 5, 2017,
the Defendant timely removed the action to this District Court on
the basis of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff intends to amend the
complaint to add a cause of action for civil penalties under the
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  His intended PAGA cause of
action is not a "class action" under CAFA.

Given the anticipated amendment by the Plaintiff to add a PAGA
cause of action, and for other procedural reasons, the Defendant
has agreed that the claims may be properly litigated in state
court.

So that the Plaintiff may proceed to litigate his original and
PAGA claims in state court, the parties mutually request that the
Court dismiss this action without prejudice, with each party to
bear its own respective costs and fees, with the statute of
limitations on the Plaintiffs' claims to be tolled such that he
may file a new complaint in state court without any change to the
alleged liability period for his claims based on the April 3,
2017, filing date of his original complaint.  Accordingly, the
Court granted the parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, order is available
at https://is.gd/tJlhqD from Leagle.com.

Luis A Delarosa, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Dastan.

Luis A Delarosa, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm.

Coca Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer B. Robinson
-- jenrobinson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Maria R.
Harrington -- mharrington@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Gayle Gonad -- ggonda@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on June 30, U.S.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts disclosed an intriguing
tidbit about how he reads briefs to hundreds of federal judges and
appellate lawyers gathered at a federal judicial conference in
Pennsylvania.

According to Twitter posts by lawyers who were there, the chief
justice said he reads reply briefs first, especially in
complicated cases.  And according to followup tweets from former
Supreme Court clerks, the chief is not alone.  Several lawyers
said they write reply briefs assuming judges and justices will
read them first.

That's bad news for Conagra and other class action defendants.

Here's why.  Conagra, as you may recall, has asked the Supreme
Court to grant review of a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals that affirmed certification of a class of Wesson Oil
purchasers claiming the product was falsely advertised as all
natural.  The 9th Circuit, like the 6th and 7th Circuits before it
(and the 8th Circuit afterward), rejected Conagra's argument that
plaintiffs must offer a "reliable and administratively feasible"
method to identify class members, deepening a split among the
federal circuits on the hot-button issue of whether the federal
rules governing class actions contain an implied
"ascertainability" requirement.

The 3rd Circuit was the first to discern this implied requirement,
but Conagra told the Supreme Court in its petition for review that
the 2nd, 4th and 11th Circuits have endorsed the 3rd Circuit's
interpretation of class action rules. Class action defendants,
obviously, are eager for the Supreme Court to do the same,
imposing a new and difficult obstacle for class certification,
especially in low-dollar consumer cases.

But first, defendants need to persuade the Supreme Court to grant
review of the ascertainability issue -- which the justices have
already twice declined to do, in the 7th Circuit case that
initially created a split with the 3rd Circuit and the 6th Circuit
case that deepened the divide.  In their brief opposing Supreme
Court review, the plaintiffs suing Conagra, represented by New
York University professor Samuel Issacharoff, said the company had
exaggerated the magnitude of the circuit split, which, they said,
might well resolve itself under the Supreme Court's 2016 class
action decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. According to the
plaintiffs, the 3rd Circuit is really the only appeals court on
the other side of the divide, and it may come around without the
Supreme Court getting involved.

Conagra, represented at the Supreme Court by Jones Day, filed its
reply brief on July 5.  The brief skewered plaintiffs for
suggesting the 3rd Circuit stands alone on ascertainability.
There's also strong precedent from the 2nd Circuit, Conagra said,
in 2015's Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, which held that
plaintiffs have to propose an "objective" and "readily
identifiable class" in order to be certified.

Even if the 3rd Circuit were to backtrack on ascertainability,
Conagra argued, the 2nd Circuit's Brecher precedent means "there
would still be a split," the reply brief said. "This entrenched
split isn't going away."

But to the extent that Conagra relies on the 2nd Circuit's Brecher
decision, it just did.  On July 7, a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel
used its decision in parallel securities class actions against the
Brazilian energy company Petrobras to clarify the circuit's
holding on ascertainability.  And contrary to what Conagra argued
at the beginning of its reply brief at the Supreme Court, the 2nd
Circuit in Petrobras said its Brecher precedent did not create an
independent ascertainability requirement.

In fact, the 2nd Circuit said in Petrobras, it agrees with the
6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits that courts should not impose the
3rd Circuit's ascertainability test.  "With all due respect to our
colleagues on the 3rd Circuit, we decline to adopt a heightened
ascertainability theory that requires a showing of administrative
feasibility at the class certification stage," wrote U.S. District
Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn, sitting by designation on a
panel that also included Judges Peter Hall and Debra Livingston.
"The reasoning underlying our decision in Brecher does not suggest
any such prerequisite, and creating one would upset the careful
balance of competing interests codified in the explicit
requirements of Rule 23."

Moreover, the 2nd Circuit referred to "growing consensus" among
the federal circuits that the 3rd Circuit misinterpreted the
federal rules on class action procedures.  That's a powerful
endorsement of one of the arguments plaintiffs made in opposing
Supreme Court review of ascertainability.

It's a very good bet that plaintiffs will submit a brief to the
Supreme Court, informing the justices of the essential flaw in
Conagra's reply brief now that the 2nd Circuit has clarified what
it really meant in the case Conagra cited.  Supreme Court rules
allow supplemental briefing "calling attention to new cases, new
legislation or other intervening matter not available at the time
of the party's last filing."

In fairness to Conagra, the company quoted the 2nd Circuit's 2015
Brecher decision entirely accurately.  In Brecher, the 2nd Circuit
held that "a class is ascertainable when defined by objective
criteria that are administratively feasible and when identifying
its members would not require a mini-hearing on the merits of each
case."

You can see why Conagra, in its petition for Supreme Court review
(and I, in recounting Conagra's argument), interpreted that
language to require plaintiffs to provide an administratively
feasible method of identifying class members, which is the 3rd
Circuit's standard for ascertainability.

But in Petrobras, the 2nd Circuit said that what it really meant
in Brecher was only that judges must be sure "a class is defined
using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite
boundaries," the court said.  "This modest threshold requirement
will only preclude certification if a proposed class definition is
indeterminate in some fundamental way."

The appeals court said the two classes of Petrobras debt and
equity investors certified to proceed with fraud claims against
Petrobras met ascertainability requirements.  It also said,
however, that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan
committed legal error in certifying a class of noteholders to sue
under the Securities Act.  Only noteholders whose purchases have a
tangible connection to the U.S. can bring claims in U.S. courts
under the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank.

The 2nd Circuit said Judge Rakoff hadn't taken sufficient account
of whether noteholders could meet the Morrison test when he held
that class issues predominate over individual inquiries.  It
remanded the case so the trial judge can reconsider that question.
The Petrobras class is represented by Pomerantz. Petrobras has
counsel from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, and its
underwriters are represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom.

To be clear, the 2nd Circuit's Petrobras opinion does not erase
the split between the 3rd Circuit and the five other federal
appellate courts that have now explicitly rejected its heightened
ascertainability requirement.  There's still a clear divide among
the circuits, so if the Supreme Court now wants to take up this
issue -- despite having passed up two previous opportunities --
it's well justified.

Just not as well justified as it was on July 7.

Conagra Supreme Court lawyer Shay Dvoretzky said in an email
statement that the 2nd Circuit's Petrobras decision "recognizes
and itself reflects the persistent circuit split regarding
ascertainability and administrative feasibility at the class
certification stage."  Vacating Judge Rakoff's class certification
in the Securities Act case, he said, contravenes the approach of
the 9th Circuit, "which upheld certification in Conagra's case
even though there is no way besides mini-trials to identify those
who bought Wesson Oil in the past ten years." [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Class Action Challenges Dog Death Penalty
------------------------------------------------------
Pat Eaton-Robb, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge is being asked to decide whether Connecticut has
violated the rights of dog owners by holding animals deemed
dangerous for years on what amounts to a canine death row.

There was a hearing in a lawsuit involving dogs from Waterbury,
Manchester and Southington.  But it seeks class-action status and
an injunction that would prevent the destruction of any animal
under a disposal order while the court decides if the state law is
constitutional.

Kim Miller hopes it will lead to a reprieve for her dogs, Kato and
Kleo, Rottweilers who have been held since being ordered destroyed
in October 2012.  Ms. Miller said the pair, who were 1 and 2 years
old at the time, got out of her Hamden yard and bit a neighbor
only after they were attacked with sticks and bats.

"My dogs were just puppies when they were taken," she said outside
the courthouse.  "The kennel they are in isn't set up for their
long-term care.  They are suffering."

Attorney Thompson Page argued the state has no standards for
determining when an animal should be euthanized, leaving it to the
discretion of local animal control officers.

He argues that is a violation of due process and an unreasonable
seizure of property.

Animal owners are given 14 days after a destruction order to ask
for an appeal hearing before Animal Control Division of the state
Department of Agriculture.  The owner can seek additional appeals
in court.

But Mr. Page said it can take months just to schedule a hearing
and the process forces the owner to prove their animal did nothing
wrong, rather than force the state to prove the animal deserves to
die.

"In America, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty,"
Ms. Miller said outside the courthouse.  "When it comes to dogs,
you are guilty until you can prove they are innocent."

Steven Reviczky, the state's agriculture commissioner, testified
the appeals process actually required the towns prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the disposal order is
necessary.

He said his department provides extensive training to animal
control officers, but acknowledge there are no specific standards
that need to be met to determine if an animal deserves to die.  He
said he often sees evidence such as pictures of a victim's nose on
the floor or chest torn open.

"I think the standard in most cases is common sense," he said.

But Mr. Reviczky also acknowledged that neither he nor his hearing
officers are attorneys and that he supports legislation that would
shift the decision in life or death appeals to the courts.

A separate federal lawsuit on Kato and Kleo's individual case was
dismissed on July 7.  But Judge Thompson told Hamden's attorney he
expects the dogs won't be euthanized at least for 10 days to give
Mr. Page time to file a motion for an injunction.

He did not indicate when he might rule in the larger case, which
seeks to include a class of about 50 dog owners, such as
Ms. Miller.


COVISINT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of current stockholders of
Covisint Corporation("Covisint" or the "Company") in connection
with the planned acquisition of the company by OpenText.

On June 5, 2017, Covisint Corporation announced it had entered
into an agreement in which OpenText, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Cypress Merger Sub, Inc., would acquire all
outstanding shares of Covisint common stock for $2.45 per share.
The lawsuit, entitled Keuning v. Covisint Corp., et al. (Case No.
2:17-cv-11958), alleges that defendants solicit stockholder votes
in connection with the sale of the Company to OpenText through a
proxy statement that omits material facts necessary to make the
statements therein not false or misleading.  Stockholders require
this material information to make an informed vote.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 8, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Joseph E. Levi, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500, or via
e-mail at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com, or visit
http://www.zlkdocs.com/COVS-Info-Request-Form-ma-5858. 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.

A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


DAN HOSSEINI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
John Ralph, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Dan Hosseini d/b/a "HJ Enterprises, Inc.," Shane Casey
d/b/a "D.O.S. Pizza, Inc.," North County Pizza, Inc., Pizzafella,
LLC, Pizza Enterprises, Inc., Pizza Enterprises II, Inc., Pizza
Enterprises III, Inc., Syriani & Seryani, Inc., Slammed Pizza,
Inc., Slammed Pizza Jr., Inc. and Does 1-25, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01332-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., June 29, 2017), arises out of the flawed
method the Defendants used to determine reimbursement rates that
provides an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses the drivers incur that unreimbursed
expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal and
California minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 74 Domino's franchise
stores in Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Malcolm B. Roberts, Esq.
      John K. Landay, Esq.
      LANDAY ROBERTS LLP
      101 West Broadway, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-5712
      E-mail: mroberts@landayroberts.com
              jlanday@landayroberts.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Suit v. Milk Processors Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that a class action lawsuit in Tennessee has been
dismissed.

On August 9, 2007, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action
antitrust complaint against Dean Foods and other milk processors
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs alleged generally that we, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk
purchasers."

"On January 25, 2016, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
petition for permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification. That petition was denied by the Sixth
Circuit on June 14, 2016. Although the courts refused to certify
the case as a class action, the two original plaintiffs decided to
pursue their individual claims for damages.

"The case was scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. Prior to
trial, the plaintiffs agreed with us to settle the lawsuit. We
agreed to pay settlements to the plaintiffs and the parties
resolved all outstanding claims in the litigation and agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the litigation. The litigation was dismissed
on March 21, 2017 with respect to one plaintiff, and on March 26,
2017 with respect to the other plaintiff. We have recorded a
charge and a corresponding liability in connection with the
settlements in the first quarter of 2017."

Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and the largest
processor and direct-to-store distributor of fresh fluid milk and
other dairy and dairy case products in the United States, with a
vision to be the most admired and trusted provider of wholesome,
great-tasting dairy products at every occasion.


DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Farash Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Farash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Delta Management Associates, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, Case No. 6:17-cv-06428-GWC (W.D.N.Y., July 4, 2017),
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in Chelsea, Massachusetts, Delta Management provides
debt collection and recovery services for financial, educational,
and governmental entities in the United States.  The Company
offers campus based collection services for Perkins collections,
cohort defaults, nursing/health care profession loans, private
loan collections, tuition collection services, and alternative
loans; and guarantee agency services, including title IV FFELP
collections, pre-claims assistance, and rehabilitation monitoring
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET LLC
          11 Alger Dr.
          Rochester, NY 14624
          Telephone: (585) 703-9783
          Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
          E-mail: alex@gp-nola.com


DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Gas Royalty Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Esq. -- tciarlone@krcl.com -- of
Kane Russell Coleman Logan PC, in an article for Lexology, reports
that increasingly, class actions are -- for all intents and
purposes -- won or lost at the certification stage.  After all, if
a class is certified, especially under the heightened standards
for class treatment that have been articulated by the United
States Supreme Court in recent years, the exposure for defendants
in the vast majority of cases is simply too great to risk a jury
trial on the merits. This is, of course, why lucrative settlements
often follow so closely on the heels of successful motions for
class certification.

By and large, class certification motions will rise or fall based
on whether the representative plaintiffs can demonstrate
"commonality" to the trial court's satisfaction.  At the risk of
oversimplifying what can sometimes be a highly nuanced concept,
commonality exists when there is a critical mass of factual and
legal issues that are generally constant across the entire class.
Commonality is closely related to, and often confused with, the
further requirement of "predominance," which turns on this
slightly different question: even assuming there is a nucleus of
common questions of law and fact shared by most class members, do
they sufficiently outweigh the factual and legal wrinkles that are
unique to individual members of the class? Both commonality and
predominance are codified in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and, without exception, in all of its state-law
equivalents.

All of these dynamics were recently on display when, according to
an appeal filed by Devon Energy in the Fifth Circuit (Seeligson v.
Devon Energy Production LP, No. 17-10320), a Texas federal judge
ran afoul of the commonality and predominance requirements by
certifying a class of natural gas royalty owners who alleged that
the company had for many years shortchanged them on royalty
payments by failing to obtain the best available market prices for
their gas.  According to Devon's appeal brief, "if it is allowed
to stand, the certification order will compel [Devon] to face the
fundamental unfairness of attempting to defend thousands of
disparate individual claims in a single trial."

On the surface, at least to a casual observer, it looked as though
the trial court had done what it was obligated to do under the
Supreme Court's seminal decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,
564 U.S. 338 (2011).  Namely, District Judge Edward Kinkeade
determined that the putative class representatives had isolated no
fewer than two questions of classwide applicability. The problem,
however, as was aptly observed by the Texas Oil and Gas
Association in an amicus curiae brief, was that the court stopped
its analysis too soon.  In particular, it did "not take the
additional step of comparing those classwide questions to the
method by which, under Texas law, plaintiffs must prove breach of
an implied covenant to market."

Put another way, even crediting that the questions identified by
the plaintiffs have classwide applicability, the answers to the
questions would not nearly dispose of the class claims.  The
questions -- however "common" they might be -- are ultimately red
herrings that do nothing to meaningfully advance the plaintiffs'
burden of proof. Identifying a similar flaw in logic in another
royalty underpayment case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in
EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014), reprimanded
"the district court [for] plac[ing] an inordinate emphasis on the
sheer number of uniform practices without considering whether
those practices are relevant to assessing the defendants' ultimate
liability." Id. at 366.

The TXOGA's amicus brief perhaps put it best when it explained
that:

"In short, it is abundantly clear Rule 23 requires putative class
representatives to do more than propose a classwide common
question.  They must also show that, under the applicable
substantive law, the answer to that question will further their
burden of proof.  Because their common questions are irrelevant to
their burden of proof under Texas law, the [class representatives]
failed to meet this burden."

The lesson learned here should be obvious: before engaging in a
debate over whether a fact or a legal principle is "common" to the
class, or whether it "predominates" over individual issues, be
sure to first ask these fundamental threshold questions: "So what?
Why do we care? Does this even matter?" If the answer is no, the
class representatives need to move on to greener pastures, if
there are any.  As obvious as this may seem, it is surprising just
how often capable defense counsel allow themselves to get drawn
into commonality and predominance arguments about matters that
are, in the final analysis, either irrelevant or ancillary to the
core matters with respect to which the plaintiffs bear the burden
of proof. [GN]


DUN & BRADSTREET: Supplemental Briefing in O&R Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet 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 company continues
to defend against the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ)
(W.D. Wash.).

On July 21, Judge Thomas S. Zilly approved a Stipulation providing
that:

     -- Deadline for parties to file a supplemental brief, revised
        proposed forms of notices to class members, a revised
        stipulation of settlement, and any proposed opt-out form
        is further extended to August 25, 2017;

     -- renoting the deferred portion of the plaintiffs' Third
        Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Second
        Amended Class Action Settlement; the Noting Date is
        August 25.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court
heard the motions and denied DBCC's motion but granted the
Company's motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract
claim against the Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the
remaining claims against the Company without prejudice. On
September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to
CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and
deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC
filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014,
the Court heard argument on the defendants' motions. It dismissed
with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company's
motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair
practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the
SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff
informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a
nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder
purchasers in Washington. On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions
for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On July 29,
2015, Defendants filed oppositions to the motions for class
certification.

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of
the motions for class certification. At the request of the
parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking
plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and
striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a
written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties
entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016
the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to
Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On
August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.
On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days.

On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended
settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second
amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed
motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement.
On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for
settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement
amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and
administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to
file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration
issues the Court identified.

                           *     *     *

On May 5, Judge Zilly entered an order directing that Case Nos.
C12-2184, C14-855, C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404 are
consolidated into Case No. C12-2184.  The Clerk closed Case Nos.
C14-855, C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404. All future filings
shall bear the cause number C12-2184.

     -- Die-Mension v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al.,
        No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
        1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.))

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to
waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington.

On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.
On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended
complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on May 22,
2015, Die-Mension filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants
filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension
filed motions for class certification against the Company and
DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10,
2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11,
2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet,
and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9,
2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and
directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an
amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-
monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed
with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an
unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties
entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same
day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement
together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the second amended settlement.

On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for
settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement
amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and
administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to
file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration
issues the Court identified.

     -- Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v.
        Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-
        01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D.
        Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec.17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. At
the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered
an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions and
DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all
upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written
settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered
into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the
parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to
Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an
amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-
monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiffs filed
with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an
unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs'
renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or
a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the
parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the
same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement
together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court
preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the
settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain
changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions.
Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers
addressing the notice and administration issues the Court
identified.

     -- Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.,
        et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
        7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington.

On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion
to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to
the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered
on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was
coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases
transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6,
2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the
case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions to the motions.
Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015,
Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification against the
Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court
entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and on
October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to
dismiss. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the
Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On
February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement
term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement
agreement, which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9,
2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and
directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an
amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-
monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed
with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an
unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties
entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same
day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement
together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court
preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the
settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain
changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions.
Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers
addressing the notice and administration issues the Court
identified.

     -- Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et
        al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
        2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.))

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3,
2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions.
Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015,
Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company
and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an
order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19,
2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11,
2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet,
and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff
filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class
Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's
motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the
parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which
amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the
same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement
agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement.

On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion
and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties
entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same
day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement
together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval
of the second amended settlement.

On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for
settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement
amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and
administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to
file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration
issues the Court identified.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Terminated
-------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet 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 appeal in the
case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No.
2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), has been terminated.

On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
written consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS.
DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court
denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its
Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery commenced and
the Court issued a schedule for amended pleadings, discovery, the
filing of any class certification motion and trial.

During the discovery period, the parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation. On June 2, 2016, the parties
conducted one day of mediation, and shortly after the mediation,
the parties reached an agreement to settle the dispute on a class-
wide basis. Since that time the parties have finalized a written
settlement agreement and all attendant documents. The Court
granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement on
September 26, 2016 and, entered an Order conditionally certifying
a settlement class, approving the class action settlement and
approving the parties' plan to give notice to class members.

After the close of the claims period, on February 17, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking final approval of the
class action settlement. On March 20, 2017, the parties appeared
before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final
approval. Shortly after the hearing, on March 22, 2017, the Court
entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
the class action settlement.

On March 29, 2017, the Court entered a Final Judgement Order by
which it dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs,
except as provided for in the Court's Final Approval Order, and
terminated the case from the Court's docket. On April 11, 2017, a
class member filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the District Court's Orders
that granted final approval, awarded counsel's fees and entered a
final judgment in the case.

On April 21, 2017, the class member filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss its appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the class member's
motion on May 1, 2017 thereby terminating the proceedings in the
appellate court. The appeals deadline has passed. The District
Court's Final Judgment Order is effective and there are no further
Court-mandated deadlines or proceedings at this time.

Additional information in the case is available at:

             http://www.credibilitytcpasettlement.com/


EZCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 10
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against EZCORP,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division. The complaint is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of EZCORP securities between October 27, 2014 and
July 16, 2015, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by EZCORP's officers and directors.  EZCORP provides
pawn loans in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/ezcorp-inc

EZCORP Accused of Issuing Inaccurate Financial Statements

According to the complaint, EZCORP emphasized positive financial
results, strong performance, and solid foundation for growth in
its public filings and press releases.  On April 30, 2015, EZCORP
announced that it would delay its earnings release for the second
quarter of fiscal 2015 due to an ongoing review of certain
elements of its Grupo Finmart loan portfolio.  The announcement
caused EZCORP's stock to drop over 8% to close at $8.41 per share
on May 1, 2015.  Then, on May 20, 2015, EZCORP revealed that
management and the Audit Committee would likely conclude that the
company had a material weakness in internal control over financial
reporting and deficiencies in its disclosure controls and
procedures, and that the company had received a deficiency notice
from The Nasdaq Stock Market due to its failure to timely file its
Form 10-Q.  As a result, the company's stock declined further to
close at $8.33 per share on May 21, 2015.  On July 17, 2015,
EZCORP announced that it would restate its financial statements
for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and that the
previously issued financial statements for those periods should no
longer be relied upon.  On this news, EZCORP's stock fell $0.26
per share, or nearly 4%, to close at $6.48 per share on July 17,
2015.

EZCORP Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or
via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.


FIRST BANCORP: Still Defends Against "Torres" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp. 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 defend against the
case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et
al.

FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a class action
complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class
against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and other financial
institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance
Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers
to obtain a reimbursement on their insurance premium for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their fiduciary duties as insurance
producers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants
unlawfully failed to comply with their fiduciary duty to disclose
the existence of this new insurance benefit from this carrier, as
well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a
determination that defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Says Parties Negotiating Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial 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 parties in a class
action lawsuit are negotiating the terms of a definitive
settlement agreement.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The
plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs
who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages
under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act.

First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to oppose class certification.

The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract,
set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and
as representatives of the putative class.  The Bank and counsel
for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation during the second quarter of 2016.  The parties are
negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which
would be subject to court approval and other customary conditions.
The estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a
liability in the second quarter of 2016.


FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit
styled, Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., has been granted
final approval.

On April 8, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a class action
lawsuit against Cascade Microtech, its directors and others,
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
acquisition of Cascade Microtech by the Company. The lawsuit,
captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., was filed in
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon.

On March 17, 2017, the court entered an Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and filed a General Judgment
in the case which provided for a payment of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and the dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted in
the action.

In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Alameda, alleging violations of California's wage and
hour laws and other claims on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated current and former employees at the Company's Livermore
facilities from August 21, 2009, onward.

On March 14, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
parties' stipulation under which the parties have agreed to settle
the lawsuit, subject to court approvals and other conditions. The
stipulation provides for payment by the Company of $1.5 million in
settlement of the lawsuit.

"As of April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we have accrued in our
Consolidated Financial Statements and Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements, respectively, $1.5 million in respect of the
potential payment under the stipulation of settlement," the
Company said.

on. On June 24, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of
Cascade Microtech Inc. ("Cascade Microtech"), headquartered in
Beaverton, Oregon.


GALLAGHER BASSETT: First State Orthopaedics Sues over Workers Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 60781019 (Del. Super. Ct., June 27,
2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages (in the form of
statutory interest under 19 Del. C. section 2322F), statutory
interest, punitive damages and other relief arising from Gallagher
Bassett Services' violations of the Delaware Workers' Compensation
Act.

According to the complaint, Gallagher Bassett routinely and
wrongfully fails to pay statutory interest under 19 Del. C.
section 2322F(h) on claims against which the interest is
indisputably owed, either because Gallagher Bassett failed to
contest a claim within 30 days of its receipt or because Gallagher
Bassett resorted unsuccessfully to utilization review, thereby
allowing the statutory 30-day deadline to pass.

Gallagher Bassett provides risk management services to clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Telephone: (302) 235 7745


GERON CORPORATION: $6.25 Million Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of California, on July 21, 2017, granted
final approval of the settlement reached in In re Geron Corp. Sec.
Litig., No: 3:14-CV-01224-CRB.  The settlement provides for a cash
payment of $6.25 million in exchange for plaintiffs' release of
all claims alleged in the action.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP served as sole Lead Counsel on behalf of the
Class.

This is an excellent recovery for the Class and constitutes a
material percentage of the likely provable damages suffered by the
Class, the firm said in a press release.

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/7YmA8w

A copy of the Court's fee order is available at
https://is.gd/KzsNpo

Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that, "On March 14, 2014, the first of two
substantially similar purported class action securities lawsuits,
or the Class Action Lawsuits, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, or the
California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of
our officers. The second such lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014.
On June 6, 2014, a securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This
lawsuit was based on the same factual background as the Class
Action Lawsuits."

"On June 30, 2014, the Class Action Lawsuits were consolidated for
all purposes into a single case, and on November 4, 2014, the
securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court was
transferred and also consolidated into the Class Action Lawsuits.
The California District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for the Class Action Lawsuits on June 30, 2014. On
September 19, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated
amended complaint which alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us, including that we allegedly
failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent
low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in
the Phase 2 clinical trial of imetelstat in essential
thrombocythemia, or the ET Trial, and the potential risk of
chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California
District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some
of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and
denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false
and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed
our answer to the consolidated amended complaint.

"On September 9, 2016, the California District Court signed an
order temporarily staying the Class Action Lawsuits to enable the
parties to seek to resolve the Class Action Lawsuits. On November
23, 2016, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding that
set forth material deal points of resolving the Class Action
Lawsuits. On December 13, 2016, the parties filed a notice of
settlement, which the California District Court signed on December
16, 2016, staying the Class Action Lawsuits pending final approval
of a settlement.

"On March 2, 2017, the parties to the Class Action Lawsuits,
through their respective counsel, executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, or the Stipulation, and related documents
formalizing an agreement to settle the Class Action Lawsuits.
Under the Stipulation, in exchange for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants in connection with
the Class Action Lawsuits, we agreed to settle the Class Action
Lawsuits for $6.25 million in cash. We and our insurance providers
have agreed that $6.0 million of the settlement amount will be
paid by our insurance providers and the remaining $250,000 will be
paid by us. The settlement does not constitute any admission of
fault or wrongdoing by us or any of the individual defendants.

"On March 2, 2017, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and on April 7, 2017, the
California District Court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement proposed in the Stipulation and directed that
notice of the Settlement, or the Notice, be given to certain
purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 10,
2012 through and including March 11, 2014, or the Class Members.
The Notice includes, among other things, the general terms of the
settlement, the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement
amount, and the terms of the plaintiff's counsel fee application.
In April 2017, following the preliminary approval by the
California District Court of the settlement and in accordance with
the Stipulation, we paid $250,000 and our insurance providers paid
$6,000,000 to a settlement escrow account. These amounts will be
held in escrow until finalization of the settlement. In accordance
with the Stipulation, upon full payment of the settlement amount
to the escrow account, we have no further liability or obligation
to make any further payments related to the Stipulation or the
Class Action Lawsuits.

"The California District Court scheduled a settlement fairness
hearing on July 21, 2017 to, among other things, make a final
determination whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and should be approved by the California District Court.
Class Members may opt out of the settlement and they may object to
the settlement in advance of and/or at the settlement fairness
hearing. The settlement and the Stipulation remain subject to
final approval by the California District Court and certain other
conditions.

"The Class Action Lawsuits, including the settlement proposed in
the Stipulation, remain subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
actual defense and disposition costs may depend upon many unknown
factors. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the Class
Action Lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on our
business, cash flow, results of operations or financial position.
It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or
allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these
same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and
directors as defendants. Monitoring, initiating and defending
against legal actions is time-consuming for our management, likely
to be expensive and may detract from our ability to fully focus
our internal resources on our business activities. In addition,
despite the availability of insurance, we may incur substantial
legal fees and costs in connection with litigation and such
amounts could be material to our financial statements. We may
expend significant resources in the settlement or defense of any
additional lawsuits, and we may not prevail in such lawsuits. We
have not established any reserve for any potential liability
relating to any additional lawsuits. Lawsuits could result in
judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us
from certain activities, or otherwise negatively affect our legal
or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse
effect on our business. In addition, the inherent uncertainty of
such litigation could lead to increased volatility in our stock
price and a decrease in the value of our stockholders' investment
in our common stock."

Geron Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports
the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc., or Janssen.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Cases at Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Golden 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 two separate purported class action
lawsuits are at an early stage in the proceedings.

The company said, "In February and April 2017, several former
employees filed two separate purported class action lawsuits
against us in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals employed by us in the
State of Nevada. The lawsuits allege we violated certain Nevada
labor laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The
complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award
of attorneys' fees, interest and costs."

"These cases are at an early stage in the proceedings, and we are
therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable
loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these
matters. Therefore, we have not recorded any amount for the claims
as of the date of this filing. While legal proceedings are
inherently unpredictable and no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, we believe
that these proceedings should not have a material adverse effect
on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

Golden Entertainment is a diversified group of gaming companies
that focus on distributed gaming (including tavern gaming) and
casino and resort operations.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Still Defends DBMG Class Action
---------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that DBMG Class Action remains pending.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBMG was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt,
Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").  On November 17, 2014, a
second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc.
Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill,
Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings,
Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.  On February 19, 2015, the court
consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and
counsel.  The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed
by Mark Jacobs.  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that
in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the
DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder
of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the
plaintiff class.  The Complaint also purports to challenge a
potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation
that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders
of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer.  The
Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory
damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.

The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On
February 24, 2017, the parties agreed to a framework for the
potential settlement of the litigation.

On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an order vacating the
current scheduling order and directing the parties to submit a
stipulation of settlement or status report to the Court by April
21, 2017.

In late March 2017, plaintiff's counsel took three depositions to
assess the fairness of the potential settlement framework. On
April 24, 2017, plaintiff's counsel submitted a status report to
the Court indicating that they continued to analyze the potential
settlement framework and would submit a stipulation of settlement
or further status report to the Court by June 8, 2017.

There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized or
that the Court would approve such a settlement even if the parties
were to enter into a settlement stipulation or agreement. The
Company believes that the settlement under discussion would not
have a material effect on the Company's financial condition or
operating results.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company which seeks to
acquire and grow attractive businesses that we believe can
generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive
returns. While the Company generally intends to acquire
controlling equity interests in its operating subsidiaries, the
Company may invest to a limited extent in a variety of debt
instruments or noncontrolling equity interest positions. The
Company's shares of common stock trade on the NYSE MKT LLC under
the symbol "HCHC".


IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 2018 Trial in Solodyn Antitrust Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that trial is set for March 22, 2018, in the
Solodyn(R) antitrust class actions.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to
be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trial
is set for March 22, 2018.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the Opana ER(R)
Antitrust Class Actions.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor
(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to
dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Case Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 is defending itself against
the case, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation.

From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
these generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three
complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against manufacturers of generic
lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix,
maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
this generic drug.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated
against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the
Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize
prices of this generic drug.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re
Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation."

On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class
action complaints. With respect to doxycycline, the plaintiffs
dropped their allegations against the Company. On March 28, 2017,
the Company, separately and along with other defendants, filed
motions to dismiss the digoxin class action complaint. Briefing
has been taken off calendar by the court.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving
allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic
pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been
renamed In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation. No schedule has been set.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss AWP Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that briefing has been completed on a motion
to dismiss and no court decision has been received in the AWP
Litigation.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against several
generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and
others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs.

The case has since been removed to federal court in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By
virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit
has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party
payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic
drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws
of other states in addition to Pennsylvania.

On May 17, 2016, this case was stayed. On January 18, 2017, the
Company, along with the other defendants, filed a joint motion to
dismiss the complaint. Briefing has been completed and no court
decision has been received.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a
lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution
of the federal court action.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suit by Family Medicine Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Impax Laboratories,
Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00053 (S.D. Ala.), Impax on July 21 filed a
Response to Order to Show.

Earlier this month, Judge William H. Steele an Order directing the
parties to show cause by July 21 why this case should not be
consolidated with Case No. 17-310 commenced by Medicine to Go
Pharmacies, Inc.  The Show Cause Order was entered July 7.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC
filed on January 31, 2017, a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone
Consumer Protection Act").

On March 27, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10,
2017.

In an Order dated April 11, Judge Steele found the Motion to
Dismiss as moot, and directed Defendant's answer or Rule 12(b)
motion in response to the Amended Complaint to be filed by April
25.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Medicine To Go's Suit Underway in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEDICINE TO GO PHARMACIES, INC. v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00310 (S.D. Ala.),
Plaintiff on July 21 filed a Response to Order to Show Cause.

Earlier this month, Judge Steele directed the parties to show
cause by July 21 why this case should not be consolidated with
Case No. 17-53 commenced by Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC.  The
Show Cause Order was entered July 7.

On July 6, the case was transferred from the District of New
Jersey (Case No. 3:17-cv-00986).

Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies,
Inc. filed on February 14, 2017, a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On
April 17, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, transfer,
or stay this case in light of the Family Medicine Pharmacy case.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: NY Hotel Trades Securities Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades
Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund
filed on April 17, 2017, an amended class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated
against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The
Company's response to the amended complaint was due on June 1,
2017.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and
distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products.


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Objections to Discovery in "Barker" Overruled
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-07186-BLF (HRL)(N.D.
Cal.), Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, ordered
Insight to provide substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos.
1-5 and produce the information sought in Request for Production
No. 71.

Former employee Barker sues the Defendant, a staffing company,
both for allegedly unpaid compensation as well as for a
declaration that his employment agreement's restrictions on his
mobility and activities after termination are unlawful and void.
With respect to the latter claim, he seeks class action relief on
behalf of other Insight employees who were subject to the same or
similar agreements.  Discovery has been proceeding apace even
though the pleadings are not settled.  In fact, Insight's motion
to dismiss Barker's current complaint is set for hearing in
September.  However, in view of the presiding judge's admonition
to promptly tee up class certification, the Plaintiff filed his
class certification motion on June 20, 2017 and set it for hearing
in November, less than 4 months from now.

Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #3 is about the Plaintiff's
efforts to obtain class discovery.  Barker propounded
interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the
Defendant back in March 2017.  He seeks typical discovery on the
size and scope of the putative class and documentation on common
legal and factual issues.  He also wants contact information on
the putative class members.  Insight objected to producing any
class discovery because, it argued, Barker is not an adequate
class representative, thus lacking standing.  And, even if he had
standing, the alleged class claims fail to measure up to what Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 requires.  At this time, the Plaintiff is entitled
to discovery on the class claims.

As a fall back, in the event that the Court does conclude that
contact information on the putative class members should be
disclosed, Insight urges the Court to order implementation of a
preliminary "opt-out" process.  That is, the class members would
be contacted and told that, unless they opted out, their contact
information would be disclosed to the Plaintiff.  Then, the
Plaintiff would only get the information for those who did not say
they wanted "out."  This, argues the Defendant, would protect the
privacy of the class members who did not want to get involved.

Given the relative complexity in implementing such a procedure, as
well as the substantial time it probably would consume, the Court
will not require it.  The Court ordered Insight to provide
substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and produce the
information sought in Request for Production No. 71.  Insight's
objections are overruled.  (Objections, if any, based on attorney-
client privilege or the work product doctrine, are not overruled,
subject to defendant producing an informative privilege log.)
Responses and production will be made within 10 days from the date
this order is filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/0GToXB from Leagle.com.

John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I. Fink, Berman
Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice.

John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler Mark Paetkau,
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl
Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Matthew Mittman,
Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP,
pro hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew
Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Matthew
Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and
Bird LLP, pro hac vice.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer
Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


J2 GLOBAL: Court Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Paldo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois has granted summary judgment dismissing all claims
against the j2 Global affiliates in a class action lawsuit by
Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. filed an amended
complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as
additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-cv-01896). The
amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion,
arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of a j2 Global
affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions.
The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and
conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of
Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal
jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc.,
was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for
summary judgment. The Northern District of Illinois granted
summary judgment on March 10, 2017, dismissing all claims against
the j2 Global affiliates. The time for appeal has not yet lapsed.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice
and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the
technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets,
reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and
business-to-business space.


J2 GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Free-Vychine Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 parties in the case filed by Andre Free-
Vychine awaits court approval of a settlement.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among
other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class
action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and
consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015,
a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015,
the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a
settlement agreement.

On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case brought by LEO and
Dancel reached a tentative class-based settlement.

On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified
the class for settlement purposes only and provided its
preliminary approved the settlement. The court was slated to
consider final approval of the settlement in early 2017, according
to the Company.

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

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice
and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the
technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets,
reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and
business-to-business space.


J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that Davis Neurology's appeal in a class action
lawsuit remains pending.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the TCPA. The case was ultimately removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (the
"Eastern District of Arkansas") (No. 4:16-cv-00682).

On June 6, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

On March 20, 2017, the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed all
claims against the j2 Global affiliates. On April 17, 2017, Davis
Neurology filed a noticed of appeal to the Federal Circuit (No.
17-1820).

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice
and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the
technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets,
reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and
business-to-business space.


JM ROMICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crandall Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Everdry
Waterproofing of Upstate New York and all other entities
affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by J.M. Romich
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-06424 (W.D.N.Y., June 29,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper
minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread-of-hours
compensation and failure to comply with wage notice and wage
statement requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing of
Upstate New York provides waterproofing services for residential
properties in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter O. Brian Dellinger, Esq.
      Elizabeth Koo, Esq.
      EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
      1 West Main Street, Suite 200
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Telephone: (585) 295-5728
      Facsimile: (585) 454-2518
      E-mail: pdellinger@empirejustice.org
              ekoo@empirejustice.org

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Livaudais" Remanded to Missouri State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case GLEN LIVAUDAIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1851 SNLJ (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court.

This case was originally filed on March 18, 2015, in Missouri
state court.  The 69 plaintiffs from 36 states -- including
Missouri, New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family
member, were each injured as a result of their use of the
Defendants' talc products.  The Defendants, citizens of New
Jersey, Delaware, and California, removed this action to this
Court on June 29, 2017 based on diversity jurisdiction.  The
problem, however, is that the parties are not diverse on the face
of the complaint.  To address this issue, the Defendants argue
that many of the out-of-state plaintiffs are procedurally
misjoined.  Further, they maintain that the court should address
personal jurisdiction before addressing subject matter
jurisdiction.  Apparently, this group of Plaintiffs, like many
others, were purposefully, but legally, created as a strategic
means to avoid this Court's subject matter jurisdiction both under
diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act.

On June 29, 2017 -- nearly two and a half years after this case
was initially filed in state court -- the Defendants removed the
action to this Court.  They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
contend that many of the Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and
should be dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse
parties, enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Further, they maintain that removal is proper because the
Plaintiffs engaged in bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a
forum that plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and
more hostile to the out-of-state defendants like those in this
action.  The Plaintiffs move for remand, alleging, inter alia,
that they have in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith
giving the Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a), well outside of a year after this case was filed.

Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants'
arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before
subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain
reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1).  This Court is required
to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly two and a half
years ago and the Defendants have not established bad faith on
behalf of the Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court and
ordered that all other motions are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/xqymbK from Leagle.com.

Sharon Livaudais, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder --
onder@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Sharon Livaudais, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Quillin --
quillin@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn
Rados -- rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William
Wylie Blair -- blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Deborah Kay Adams, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER
AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON,
L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William
Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Judy Addelston, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER
AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON,
L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William
Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Mary Alzamora, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.,
Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie
Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Stavroula Bennington, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON,
L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William
Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Lucy Boyer, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.,
Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie
Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Cindy Butterworth, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER
AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON,
L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William
Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Christy Cain, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.,
Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie
Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Sandra Clark, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.,
Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie
Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer --
bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & David M. Bays --
dbays@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & David M. Bays, HEPLER BROOM.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., formerly known as Luzenac America,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost --
mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C..

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Anne
Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von
GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com --
SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C..


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Reppell" Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Easter District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand the case captioned BRENDA
REPPELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1858 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), to state court.

This case was originally filed on Jan. 19, 2016 in Missouri state
court.  The 77 Plaintiffs from 31 states -- including Missouri,
New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family member,
were each injured as a result of their use of the Defendants' talc
products.  The Defendants, citizens of New Jersey, Delaware, and
California, removed this action to this Court on June 29, 2017
based on diversity jurisdiction.  The problem, however, is that
the parties are not diverse on the face of the complaint.  To
address this issue, the Defendants argue that many of the out-of-
state Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined.  Further, they
maintain that the Court should address personal jurisdiction
before addressing subject matter jurisdiction.  Apparently, this
group of Plaintiffs, like many others, were purposefully, but
legally, created as a strategic means to avoid this Court's
subject matter jurisdiction both under diversity jurisdiction and
the Class Action Fairness Act.

On June 29, 2017 -- nearly 17 months after this case was initially
filed in state court -- the Defendants removed the action to this
Court.  They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., contend that many
of the Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and should be
dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse parties,
enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  Further, they
maintain that removal is proper because the Plaintiffs engaged in
bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a forum that the
Plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and more hostile
to the out-of-state defendants like those in this action.

The Plaintiffs move for remand, alleging, inter alia, that they
have in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith giving the
Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a), well outside of a year after this case was filed.  The
removing Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to remand;
alleging that this Court should address the issue of personal
jurisdiction, in light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, before
addressing subject matter jurisdiction.

Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants'
arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before
subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain
reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1).  This Court is required
to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly 17 months ago
and the Defendants have not established bad faith on behalf of the
Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, this Court granted the Plaintiffs'
emergency motion to remand case to state court and ordered that
all other motions are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/qVNj6q from Leagle.com.

Brenda Reppell, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados --
rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Brenda Reppell, Plaintiff, represented by William Wylie Blair --
blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Diana Abbate, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Nancy Askew, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER
AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON,
L.L.C..

Gayle-Jean Angelo, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Juanita Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Sarah Elizabeth Bailey-Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie
Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER
AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Elizabeth Baxter, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Shanterria Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn
Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Donna Bianco, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer --
bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Thomas J. Magee --
tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & Thomas J. Magee, HEPLER BROOM.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost
-- mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C., Mary Anne
Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von
GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com --
SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C..


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Swann" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case ROBERT SWANN, individually and on behalf of the Estate
of VALERIE SWANN, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1845 SNLJ (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted he
Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court.

This case was originally filed on July 31, 2014 in Missouri state
court.  The 62 plaintiffs from 28 states -- including Missouri,
New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family member,
were each injured as a result of their use of the Defendants' talc
products.  The Defendants, citizens of New Jersey, Delaware, and
California, removed the action to federal court on Sept. 10, 2014,
based on diversity jurisdiction.  The problem, however, was that
the parties were not diverse on the face of the complaint.  To
address this issue, the Defendants argued that many of the out-of-
state plaintiffs were procedurally misjoined -- having no
connections to the state of Missouri.  Further, they maintained
that the court should have addressed personal jurisdiction before
addressing subject matter jurisdiction.  Apparently, this group of
Plaintiffs, like many others, were purposefully, but legally,
created as a strategic means to avoid this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction both under diversity jurisdiction and the Class
Action Fairness Act.

Some two and a half years ago, this Court, citing the non-
diversity of the parties and ruling against the Defendants'
misjoinder arguments, remanded the action back to the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis. Swann v. Johnson & Johnson, Case
No. 4:14-CV-1546 CAS, 2014 WL 6850776 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2014).
The Court ruled, as many have in this district, that subject
matter jurisdiction was a straightforward legal issue as compared
to the fact-intensive inquiry of personal jurisdiction.  The
parties then engaged in several contentious years of litigation in
state court.

On June 29, 2017 -- nearly three years after this case was
initially filed in state court -- the Defendants again removed the
action to this Court on substantially the same grounds as they did
before.  They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., contend that many
of the plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and should be
dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse parties,
enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  Further, they
maintain that removal is proper because the Plaintiffs engaged in
bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a forum that the
Plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and more hostile
to the out-of-state defendants like those in this action.  The
Plaintiffs moved for remand, alleging, inter alia, that they have
in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith giving the
Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a), nearly three years after this case was filed.

Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants'
arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before
subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain
reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1).  This Court is required
to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly three years
ago and the Defendants have not established bad faith on behalf of
the Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to
remand case to state court and ordered that all other motions are
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/BsJUkM from Leagle.com.

Robert Swann, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados --
rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Robert Swann, Plaintiff, represented by William Wylie Blair --
blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C..

Sheryl Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Brenda Jean Bartley, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn
Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Margarita Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Michael Blaes, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Shelia Perro Booker, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn
Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Claudine Brunson, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Lisa Marie Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Margie Carson, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados,
ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND
SHELTON, L.L.C..

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer --
bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Booker T. Shaw --
bshaw@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Gerard T. Noce
-- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & Gerard T. Noce, HEPLER BROOM.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost
-- mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C., Mary Anne
Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von
GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com --
SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.


LANDEC CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in California Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Apio, Inc. ("Apio"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Landec
Corporation ("the "Registrant"), reached an agreement in principle
on March 27, 2017 to settle (a) discrimination and wrongful
termination claims before California and Federal agencies and in
individual arbitrations and (b) wage and hour claims as part of
two Private Attorney General Act cases in state court and in
individual arbitrations (collectively, the "Actions") made against
Apio and its labor contractor.

On May 5, 2017, the parties to these actions executed a Settlement
Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") formalizing an
agreement to settle the Actions, Landec said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission May 10.

Landec said the settlement agreement will be filed with the
Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County, for
preliminary approval.  The deal was scheduled to heard on, or
about, June 14, 2017.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of $5.91 million
by the defendants in settlement of all claims by non-exempt
employees who worked at Apio's Guadalupe, California facility at
any time between September 30, 2011 and the date the Superior
Court of California grants preliminary approval of the settlement.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiffs are to be paid in
three installments:  $2.37 million by July 2017, $1.77 million in
November 2017 or 10 days after final approval, whichever comes
later, and $1.77 million in July 2018 or 10 days after final
approval, whichever comes later.  Apio is responsible for half of
these payments with the labor contractor being responsible for the
other half.

The Settlement Agreement remains subject to final approval by the
Superior Court and certain other conditions.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Appeal Pending in 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff's appeal
in a securities litigation to the Third Circuit remains pending.

In 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") assisted various
breaches of fiduciary duties based on the Company's purchase of a
licensing interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical program
from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in 2010 and the Company's
subsequent sale of half of its interest in the transaction to
Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2015, which
the Company moved to dismiss in March 2015.  The district court
granted the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2015.

The plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit.  The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO.  The outcome of the matter
is not presently determinable.

Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover
and develop medicines.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
John Trania, the Lead Plaintiff, filed on May 16 a notice of
voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of the case, Jie v. Ligand
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02832 (S.D.
Cal.).  The Hon. Gonzalo P Curiel oversees the case.

Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed November 17, 2016, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company, its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer. The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 9, 2015
and November 14, 2016, inclusive. The complaint's allegations
relate generally to the Company's November 2016 restatement of
certain prior period financial statements.

In March 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for lead plaintiff and the class. The lead plaintiff's
amended complaint, or election to designate the previously filed
complaint as the operative complaint, was due May 15, 2017, and
the Company's response to the complaint was due thereafter. No
trial date has been set.

Ligand Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing and acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical
companies discover and develop medicines.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Still Defends Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. 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 believe that the
Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to defend against
those claims vigorously.

On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its then Chief Executive Officer, Gerald
Vento, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo (together, "the
Defendants"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Thereafter, on August 18, 2016, the
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that the Company and Mr. Gordo made false and misleading
statements regarding the financial performance and guidance during
the alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014.
The Plaintiff asserted claims that (i) the Company and Mr. Gordo
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5; and (ii) that Mr.
Vento and Mr. Gordo violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
virtue of their control over the Company.  For himself and for the
class, the Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court
deems proper.

The Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on December 23,
2016.  The Defendants believe that the Plaintiff's claims are
without merit and intend to defend against those claims
vigorously.

The Company cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the
amount of potential damages, if any.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the court has set the
deadline for the plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification for August 21, 2017.

The Company said, "In November 2015, Derrick Byrd, a former hourly
employee in California, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against us in California Superior Court alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws with respect to meal periods and
rest breaks and other technical wage and hour issues."

"In January 2016, we removed the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and on
February 25, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety.

"On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which we moved to dismiss, and we moved to strike several of the
plaintiff's causes of action. On July 7, 2016, the court dismissed
several of the plaintiff's causes of action and gave the plaintiff
leave to amend. On July 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint containing a narrower version of nine of the
eleven original claims.

"We answered this amended complaint on August 12, 2016, and
amended our answer on September 14, 2016. On November 28, 2016,
the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint to add an additional
individual as a plaintiff. On December 19, 2016, we answered this
amended complaint. The plaintiffs continue to allege violations
with respect to overtime pay, meal periods, rest breaks, minimum
wage, timely pay, wage statement detail and reimbursement of
business expenses. The lawsuit seeks damages, penalties,
attorney's fees and an award under the California Private Attorney
General Act. Discovery is underway.

"The court has set the deadline for the plaintiff to file his
motion for class certification for August 21, 2017, and the trial
date has been set for November 28, 2017, although those dates may
be extended. The parties have engaged in preliminary settlement
negotiations and a mediation session was scheduled to be held in
May 2017.

"While we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, there can be no
assurance that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will not
have a material, adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or results of operations."

Masonite International Corporation is one of the largest
manufacturers of doors in the world, with significant market share
in both interior and exterior door products. Masonite operates 65
manufacturing locations in 8 countries and sells doors to
customers throughout the world, including the United States,
Canada and the United Kingdom.


MDL 2371: Federal Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 multi-district litigation
pending in the Northern District of Illinois is pending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-
1611). The appeal is pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or
the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its
Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to
third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division
includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice
and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the
technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets,
reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and
business-to-business space.


MERCK & CO: Working on Definitive Settlement with Direct Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 and Upsher-Smith are working with
the class of direct purchasers on a definitive settlement
agreement of its claims.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation
(Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively,
relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough's long-acting
potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients,
for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications (ANDAs). Following the commencement of an
administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in
2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements
(which was resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), putative class
and non-class action suits were filed on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith
and Lederle and were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. These
suits claimed violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as
well as other state statutory and common law causes of action, and
sought unspecified damages.

In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their
case. In February 2016, the District Court denied the Company's
motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct
purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all
of the direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with
Lederle. In anticipation of trial, the parties filed motions to
exclude certain expert opinions and other evidence, and defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.

In February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in
principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to
the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the
aggregate towards the overall settlement. On April 5, 2017, the
claims of the opt-outs were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a
written settlement agreement with those parties. Merck and Upsher-
Smith are working with the class of direct purchasers on a
definitive settlement agreement of its claims, which will be
subject to approval by the District Court.


MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Litigation Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International 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 the MGM MIRAGE Securities
Litigation has been fully briefed and is awaiting an order from
the court of appeals.

In 2009 various shareholders filed six lawsuits in Nevada federal
and state court against the Company and various of its former and
current directors and officers alleging federal securities laws
violations and/or related breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during
the period August 2007 through the date of such lawsuit filings in
2009 (the "class period"). In general, the lawsuits asserted the
same or similar allegations, including that during the relevant
period defendants artificially inflated the Company's common stock
price by knowingly making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions to the investing public about the
Company's financial statements and condition, operations,
CityCenter, and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
that these alleged misstatements and omissions thereby enabled
certain Company insiders to derive personal profit from the sale
of Company common stock to the public; that defendants caused
plaintiffs and other shareholders to purchase Company common stock
at artificially inflated prices; and that defendants imprudently
implemented a share repurchase program to the detriment of the
Company. The lawsuits sought unspecified compensatory damages,
restitution and disgorgement of alleged profits and/or attorneys'
fees and costs in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as
injunctive relief related to corporate governance.

The state and federal court derivative actions were dismissed
pursuant to defendants' motions. In November 2009, the U.S.
District Court for Nevada consolidated the remaining cases Robert
Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL,
filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19, 2009)
putative class actions under the caption In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL. The
consolidated case names the Company and certain former and current
directors and officers as defendants and alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2,
2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015,
the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company
and the named former and current directors and officers will be
dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75
million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurers.

On March 1, 2016, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Judgment") of the two cases
consolidated under In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation. Of the
thousands of putative class members, only one objected to the
adequacy of the settlement. The court entered the Final Judgment
over his objection, finding that the settlement was fair,
reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all respects,
and dismissed the actions and all released claims with prejudice
as to all defendants, and expressly provided that neither the
settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings constitute
an admission or evidence of liability, fault or omission by the
defendants.

On March 25, 2016, the sole objector to the adequacy of the
settlement filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Final Judgment and
related orders entered by the court concerning the plan of
settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees and expenses
to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. The appeal has been fully briefed
and is awaiting an order from the court of appeals.

If the Final Judgment is reversed on appeal, the case would be
remanded and the Company and all other defendants plan to continue
to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these
securities cases.


MICHAEL FOODS: Nov. 6 Egg Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Shell Eggs or Egg Products produced in the United
States directly from any producer, you could be a Class Member in
a proposed class action settlement

The following statement is being issued by Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC; regarding the In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation.

Legal Notice

This legal notice is to announce certification of a Litigation
Class; to provide information regarding a new settlement with
Michael Foods, Inc. ("MFI"); and to provide information for
submitting claims in connection with previously-approved
settlements with National Food Corporation ("NFC"), Midwest
Poultry Services, L.P. ("Midwest"), United Egg Producers and
United States Egg Marketers ("UEP/USEM"), NuCal Foods, Inc.
("NuCal"), and Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc. and Hillandale-
Gettysburg, L.P. ("Hillandale") in In re Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litig., No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.).

What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to decrease the supply
of eggs which caused the price of eggs to artificially increase
and direct purchasers to pay more for Shell Eggs and Egg Products
than they would have otherwise paid.  Defendants have denied all
liability for this conduct and asserted that their conduct was
lawful and/or exempt from the antitrust laws, among other
defenses.

Who is included in the Litigation Class?

The Litigation Class includes individuals/entities that purchased
Shell Eggs in the U.S. directly from Defendants from 9/24/2004
through 12/31/2008.  If you exclude yourself, you will not be
entitled to share in any future distributions if Plaintiffs obtain
money from a trial or future settlements. The deadline to exclude
yourself is October 9, 2017.

Who/what is included in the MFI Settlement?

The MFI Settlement Class includes individuals/entities that
purchased Shell Eggs in the U.S. directly from Defendants from
9/24/2004 through 12/31/2008.  MFI will provide the Class with $75
million and cooperation.  Plaintiffs will release all claims
against MFI.  The deadline to submit a claim, submit an objection,
or submit an exclusion is October 9, 2017.

Who may submit a claim in connection with the NFC, Midwest,
UEP/USEM, NuCal & Hillandale Settlements?

If you did not previously exclude yourself from these Settlements,
and you purchased Shell Eggs and/or Egg Products in the U.S. from
1/1/2000 through 12/19/2014 directly from any Producer, you may be
entitled to submit a claim form postmarked no later than October
9, 2017.

Who represents you?

The Court appointed Stanley Bernstein (Bernstein Liebhard LLP);
Michael Hausfeld (Hausfeld LLP); Mindee Reuben (Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC), and Stephen Susman (Susman Godfrey LLP) as Class
Counsel. You do not have to pay them to participate.  You may hire
your own attorney at your expense.

When will the Court decide whether to approve the MFI Settlement?

A hearing to determine the fairness and adequacy of the MFI
Settlement is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2017 at the
U.S. District Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106-1797.  The Court will also consider a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs and any objections. The Court may change the
date/time of the hearing without notice.

Check www.eggproductssettlement.com for updates and more
information. This notice is a summary only.


MIDLAND CREDIT: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carieri" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vincent Carieri filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Vincent Carieri v. Midland Credit Management
Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-0009, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Vincent Carieri v. Midland
Credit Management Inc., Case No. 17-2504, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant VINCENT CARIERI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. is represented
by:

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2765
          Facsimile: (215) 575-0856
          E-mail: amschwartz@mdwcg.comm


MONSANTO COMPANY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Perez-Perez and Armando Nieves, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly-situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
3:17-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the legal minimum wage and to comply
with the disclosure, record-keeping, wage statement, wage payment,
and working arrangement requirements of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Monsanto Company operates an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation in Springfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY Ste. 300
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Telephone: (847) 701-5290
      E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

         - and -

      Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
      MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT INC.
      1104 Fuller Ave. NE
      Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371
      Telephone: (616) 454-5055
      E-mail: thenricks@migrantlegalaid.com

         - and -

      Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
      KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
      85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 500-6114
      Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
      E-mail: pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 10 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc.
("Ocular" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: OCUL) concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between May 5, 2017 and July
6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should
contact the firm prior to the September 5, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

You can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-
1033, or you can e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Ocular
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that the Company's management has been misleading investors about
DEXTENZA manufacturing issues, including that more than 50% of
lots manufactured by Ocular contain bad product; that such
manufacturing issues could endanger the approval of DEXTENZA by
the FDA; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. Upon release of this news, shares of Ocular fell in value
materially, which caused investors harm according to the
Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.


OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International 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 "Ba" class action
lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice and the "White" class
action lawsuit is awaiting the Court's dismissal.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in
alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance
arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance
subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the
anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and
8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. A
class has not been certified in either remaining suit. Those two
remaining suits seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the
return of the allegedly improper payments were settled with an
agreement to make nominal payments. Ba has been dismissed with
prejudice and White is awaiting the Court's dismissal.


ORIGINAL W. HARGROVE: Settles Towing Class Action for $281,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a city firm has
agreed to pay $281,000 to resolve claims in a class-action lawsuit
over vehicles towed here during a two-year period.

The proposed payment by The Original W. Hargrove Demolition Co.
includes $66,000 for eligible motorists and $15,000 for a Cherry
Hill man whose dispute over a bill led to the federal lawsuit.

Hargrove, the operator of Camden Towing Inc., also would pay up to
$200,000 to the law firm representing the motorists, court records
show.

The plan would not take effect, however, until it receives final
approval from U.S. District Judge Renee M. Bumb in Camden.  She
has scheduled an Oct. 17 hearing.

The suit accuses Hargrove of overcharging motorists between
October 2013 and November 2015 under a contract to remove and
store "abandoned, disabled or impounded vehicles" from city
streets.

The suit also contends Camden officials failed to monitor the
Cramer Hill firm's activities, allowing the alleged overbilling to
continue.

Both the company and the city deny any wrongdoing, the proposed
settlement says.

According to a court filing, the city contract allowed a charge of
only $89 for most tows.  Hargrove could charge $160 if flatbed
trucks were needed -- but only for vehicles involved in accidents,
according to the filing by Lisa Rodriguez, a Cherry Hill attorney
for the motorists.

The suit was filed in November 2015 after the Cherry Hill man,
Troy Oglesby Sr., was twice charged $160 for flatbed tows.
Oglesby's vehicle had not been in an accident before either tow,
according to Ms. Rodriguez's filing.

Oglesby paid $160 after the first tow in May 2015, but balked at
the charge when his vehicle was towed again in July.

"Hargrove refused to release his car," the filing notes.  "After
attempts to resolve the dispute failed, this litigation followed."

The settlement would offer money to motorists towed by Hargrove in
Camden between Oct. 15, 2013, and Nov. 4, 2015, and "whose tow was
not required because of an accident, and who were charged for a
flatbed tow in excess of $89."

According to the proposal, the payment would be $78.10 per
motorist -- or the difference between the $160 charged by Hargrove
and $89, plus 10 percent.

The proposed deal would fund reimbursements for around 845
motorists.

Hargrove would identify affected motorists through its records,
the proposed settlement says.

In her filing, Rodriguez alleged Hargrove failed to file required
monthly reports to the city.

It says the city "as a result was unaware that Hargrove was
systematically overcharging for towed vehicles that were not in an
accident."

Under the proposed settlement, Camden will "incorporate standard
inspection and reporting requirements across all of its
contracts."

The city would not have to contribute to payments under the plan,
which received preliminary approval from the judge on June 5.

Ms. Rodriguez and Richard F. Klineburger III, an attorney for
Hargrove, could not be reached for immediate comment.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Underway in SEPTA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that document discovery has
begun in the SEPTA case and is ongoing.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and he intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserted
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification,
unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or
injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff
in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant
and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extended the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's
March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all
of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all
defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions
to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument
on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the
pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on
April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States
Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The
Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second
amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the
proposed second amended complaint were essentially the same or
similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The
proposed second amended complaint also alleged that the Orrstown
Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of
internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and
financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation
of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court
granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its
second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016
Order stayed all discovery and other deadlines in the case
(including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification)
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-
finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.
As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27,
2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related
matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to
December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the SEC's
administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist
order, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial
Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit
Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil
money penalties to the SEC. The Company agreed to pay a civil
money penalty of $1,000,000. The Company had previously
established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the
second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with
the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations of
Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act
Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20,
13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the
Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the
settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's
cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company
believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny
settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the
Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did
not support dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to
dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the
motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all
defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn,
Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also
denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 20(a)
claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation. The Case Management
Order, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact
discovery closes on November 3, 2017, and SEPTA's motion for class
certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes
March 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by April 27,
2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for
September 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled for the month of
October 2018. Document discovery has begun in the case and is
ongoing.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this
time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of
reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

The Company, headquartered in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, is a
one-bank holding company that has elected status as a financial
holding company. The consolidated financial information presented
herein reflects the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the
Bank and Wheatland. At March 31, 2017, the Company had total
assets of $1,453,946,000, total liabilities of $1,316,477,000 and
total shareholders' equity of $137,469,000.


PATHEON NV: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, case no. 1:17-cv-04604, on behalf
of shareholders of Patheon N.V. ("Patheon" or the "Company")
(NYSE:PTHN) who held Patheon securities and have been harmed by
Patheon's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
14d-9 in connection with the proposed acquisition ("Proposed
Transaction") of the Company by Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.a
r.l.

On May 31, 2017, Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.a r.l., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., commenced a
tender offer for Patheon shares scheduled to expire on August 10,
2017.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/PTHNnotice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Patheon shareholders stand to
receive $35.00 per share in cash for each share they own.  The
complaint claims that this offer is inadequate given Patheon's
recent financial performance and strong growth prospects and
alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement (the "14D-9") provides materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning Patheon's financial projections
and the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, in violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 10, 2017.  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.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel.: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits over Line 901 Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that suits related to the
Line 901 Incident remains pending.

The Company said, "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release
from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil
reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a
drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline
and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command,
which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the
California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa
Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the
response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect
to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the
Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved. Our estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, we estimate that 598 barrels reached the
Pacific Ocean."

"Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims
line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release
to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a
number of claims through the claims line and we are processing
those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have
also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which
have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish
different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by
the release, including potential classes such as commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas,
retail businesses located in and around Santa Barbara, certain
owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific
Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and
businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. To date,
only the commercial fisherman and seafood reseller class has been
certified by the court. We are also defending a separate class
action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line
901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as
well as compensatory damages.

"There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership
and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The
Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the
allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. On March 29,
2017, the Court ruled in our favor dismissing all claims against
all defendants. Plaintiffs may appeal or refile. Consistent with
and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents
(and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are
indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and
directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also
indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters
pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously
entered into with such underwriters."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. ("PAA") is a Delaware limited
partnership formed in 1998.  It owns and operates midstream energy
infrastructure and provide logistics services for crude oil,
natural gas liquids ("NGL"), natural gas and refined products.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Misleading Opioids Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ray Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P, Purdue Pharma, Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Watson's
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis Inc., Watson's Laboratories,
Inc., Actavis LLC, and Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharma,
Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-05118-TLB (W.D. Ark., June 29, 2017), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentation and deceptive conduct of disseminating common
messages to reverse the popular and medical understanding of
Opiods. Specifically by, downplaying the serious risk of
addiction, promoting the concept of "pseudoaddiction" and thus
advocate that the signs of addiction should be treated with more
Opiods, exaggerating the effectiveness of screening tools in
preventing addiction, claiming that Opioids dependence and
withdrawal are easily managed, denying the risks of higher Opioids
dosages, and exaggerating the effectiveness of "abuse-deterrent"
Opioid formulations to prevent abuse and addiction.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Graland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 845-3305
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198


REGENCY CENTERS: Still Faces Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. 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 continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to a
merger.

After the announcement of the merger agreement on November 14,
2016, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a purported
stockholder in the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, under
the following caption: Robert Garfield on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated vs. Regency Centers Corporation,
Martin E. Stein, Jr., John C. Schweitzer, Raymond L. Bank, Bryce
Blair, C. Ronald Blankenship, J. Dix Druce, Jr., Mary Lou Fiala,
David P. O'Connor, and Thomas G. Wattles, No. 16-2017-CA-000688-
XXXX-MA, filed February 3, 2017.

The class action alleged, among other matters, that the definitive
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Regency and Equity One
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on January
24, 2017 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") omitted certain
material information in connection with the Merger. The
complainant sought various remedies, including injunctive relief
to prevent the consummation of the Merger unless certain allegedly
material information was disclosed and sought compensatory and
rescissory damages in the event the Merger was consummated without
such disclosures.

On February 17, 2017, the defendants entered into a stipulation of
settlement with respect to the class action, pursuant to which the
parties agreed, among other things, that Regency would make
certain supplemental disclosures. The supplemental disclosures
were made by Regency in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by
Regency with the SEC on February 17, 2017. The supplemental
disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety.

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

Regency Centers Corporation (the "Parent Company") began its
operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") in 1993 and
is the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the "Operating
Partnership"). The Parent Company engages in the ownership,
management, leasing, acquisition, and development of retail
shopping centers through the Operating Partnership. The Parent
Company has no other assets other than through its investment in
the Operating Partnership, and its only liabilities are the
unsecured notes assumed from the Equity One merger, which are co-
issued and guaranteed by the Operating Partnership. The Parent
Company guarantees all of the unsecured debt of the Operating
Partnership.

On March 1, 2017, Regency completed its merger with Equity One,
Inc., whereby Equity One merged with and into Regency, with
Regency continuing as the surviving public company. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each Equity One stockholder
received 0.45 of a newly issued share of Regency common stock for
each share of Equity One common stock owned immediately prior to
the effective time of the Merger, resulting in the issuance of
approximately 65.5 million shares of common stock to effect the
merger.


REMINGTON: State AGs Seek Reversal of Gun Safety Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a coalition of
attorneys general have asked a federal appeals court to overturn
the settlement of a class action that had accused gun manufacturer
Remington Arms of producing flawed rifles that resulted in dozens
of deaths.

The attorneys general of 14 states including New York, California
and Illinois, submitted a joint amicus brief on July 7 to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit arguing the
settlement agreement unfairly terminated valuable legal claims and
left the public at ongoing risk of death or injury. [GN]


SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM & NRC Still Face Deepwater Oil Spill Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that ORM and NRC continue to face remaining claims
in the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation.

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one
of the several "master complaints" filed in the overall multi-
district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL").

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one
of the several "master complaints" filed in the overall multi-
district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL").
The "B3" master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various
claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants
concerning the clean-up activities generally and the use of
dispersants specifically. Both prior to and following the filing
of the aforementioned master complaint, individual civil actions
naming the Company, ORM, and/or NRC alleging B3 exposure-based
injuries and/or damages were consolidated with the MDL and stayed
pursuant to court order. The Company has continually taken the
position that all of the B3 claims asserted against ORM and NRC
have no merit.

On February 16, 2016, all but eleven B3 claims against ORM and NRC
were dismissed with prejudice, whether by joinder in the master
complaint, individual complaint, or otherwise (the "B3 Dismissal
Order"). The deadline for Plaintiffs to appeal the B3 Dismissal
Order has passed and the Company continues to evaluate how this
ruling will impact the individual civil actions.

On April 8, 2016, the Court entered an order establishing a
summary judgment briefing schedule as to the remaining eleven B3
claimants (the "Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs"). The Clean-Up
Responder Defendants, including ORM and NRC, filed an omnibus
motion for summary judgment as to the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs
on May 9, 2016.

Following briefing by the parties, on August 2, 2016, the Court
granted the omnibus motion as it concerns ORM and NRC in its
entirety, dismissing the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' against ORM
and NRC with prejudice (the "Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs'
Dismissal Order"). To date, no appeal has been filed and the
deadline to appeal has expired.

Various civil actions concerning the Deepwater Horizon clean-up
have been consolidated with the MDL, although a number of them
have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. A summary of those that
remain pending is as follows.

On October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c)
Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon
Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, in
the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-
00426 (E.D. La.) (the "Jambon Action"). This Third-Party Complaint
alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up
crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the
clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to
dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his
employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party
defendants. The Jambon Action remains stayed.

On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as
defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et
al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.) (the "Fitzgerald Action"), which
is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated
in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure
to oil and dispersants. While the decedent in the Fitzgerald
Action's claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed by virtue of
the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' Dismissal Order, the claim as
against the Company remains stayed.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the B3 Dismissal
Order, the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' Dismissal Order, and other
developments in the MDL, including the settlements discussed
below, on these individual actions.

Following a status conference with the Court on February 17, 2017,
the Court issued several new pretrial orders in connection with
the remaining claims in the MDL. Plaintiffs' submissions in
connection with these pretrial orders will continue until May 3,
2017, with defense reporting to the Court to follow.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from these matters, to the extent they remain viable,
but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they
will have a material effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean
Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and
Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively "Transocean") named ORM
and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party
Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action,
which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the
claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been
asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International
Corporation ("Cameron"), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-
I L.L.C. ("M-I") also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for
contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for
any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and
ORM and NRC asserted counterclaims against those same parties for
identical relief.

The remainder of the aforementioned cross-claims in Transocean's
limitation action remain pending, although the Court has found
Cameron and M-I to be not liable in connection with the Deepwater
Horizon incident and resultant oil spill and dismissed these
parties from the MDL.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit
and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect
on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up
workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court
for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia
County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al.,
No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that
ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida
waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376
and injured the Plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during
the course and scope of their employment. This case was removed to
federal court and ultimately consolidated with the MDL on April 2,
2013.

On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-
CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against
the same parties but names an additional 174 Plaintiffs, all of
whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. This case was
consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of
these matters have been stayed since they were consolidated with
the MDL.

The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the developments
in the MDL, on these cases, but believes that the potential
exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as
a result of the B3 Dismissal Order and does not expect that these
matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


SKULLCANDY INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Paprakis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rose Paprakis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Paprakis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-CV-00810-DB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah - Salt Lake City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in connection
with acquisition of Skullcandy by Incipio, LLC.

Defendant Skullcandy is a lifestyle-driven audio brand fusing
technology with focus on action sports, fashion, and music.

The appellate case is captioned as Paprakis v. Skullcandy, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 17-4114, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement is due on July 31, 2017, for Rose
      Paprakis;

   -- Transcript order form is due on July 31, 2017, for Rose
      Paprakis; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on July 31, 2017, for Rick
      Alden, Doug Collier, S. Hoby Darling, Jason Hodell, Jeff
      Kearl, Heidi O'Neill, Scott Olivet, Rose Paprakis,
      Skullcandy, Inc. and Greg Warnock.[BN]

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

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, UT 84093
          Business: 801/322-2002
          Telephone: (801) 322-2002
          Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

               - and -

          James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SKULLCANDY, INC., is represented by:

          Matthew C. Baltay, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210-2600
          Telephone: (617) 832-1138
          Facsimile: (617) 832-7000
          E-mail: mbaltay@foleyhoag.com

Defendants-Appellees SKULLCANDY, INC., S. HOBY DARLING, DOUG
COLLIER, HEIDI O'NEILL, JEFF KEARL, SCOTT OLIVET, GREG WARNOCK,
RICK ALDEN and JASON HODELL are represented by:

          Monica S. Call, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-4904
          Telephone: (801) 328-3131
          E-mail: monica.call@stoel.com

Defendant-Appellee JASON HODELL is represented by:

          Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mrosner@zlk.com


SLATER & GORDON: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $36.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that shareholders in Slater and Gordon have reached a $36.5
million settlement with the beleaguered law firm, a move that will
pave the way for the group's restructure.

However, it is unclear whether this is the end of the litigation
process, with the firm leading one of the class actions Maurice
Blackburn previously saying it was considering suing against
Slater and Gordon's advisers.

Slater and Gordon's insurers will tip in $32.5 million of the
settlement while the hedge funds that hold the debt in the group,
which will be swapped for equity through the restructure, will
contribute $4 million to the settlement.

"The conditional in-principle settlement will . . . resolve any
and all potential shareholder claims against the company and its
directors and officers," Slater and Gordon said in a statement on
July 11.

It will take in shareholders in all current claims against Slater
and Gordon.  The bulk is expected to go to investors signed up to
the Maurice Blackburn claim.

The deal, which was first revealed online by Fairfax Media on July
11, comes after two years of financial strife for the once-great
legal institution.  Investors were originally seeking $250 million
but the financial problems of the company limited the claim.

The settlement was brokered late on July 10 between lawyers for
the shareholders from Maurice Blackburn and lawyers for Slater and
Gordon, led by Leon Zwier at Arnold Bloch Leibler.

Shareholders launched the class action against Slater and Gordon
after its disastrous acquisition of British firm Quindell led to
$1 billion-plus write-downs, a string of financial losses and a
major investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission.

Slater and Gordon's class action settlement paves the way for the
restructure of the company.

Slater and Gordon's shares were worth more than $8 in 2015 but
were trading at 7.4õ on July 7.  They jumped 9.5 per cent to 8.1õ
after news of the settlement on July 11.

The shareholders had alleged Slater and Gordon made false and
misleading statements to the market about its acquisition of the
professional services arm of UK group Quindell and the "true state
of the company's overall financial position and performance".

'Best outcome'

Maurice Blackburn class action principal Andrew Watson said the
low settlement rate reflected the low level of insurance held by
Slater and Gordon.

"Given the diabolical alternative, which was likely insolvency for
Slater and Gordon and lesser returns for shareholders, we thought
this was the best outcome," Mr Watson said.

"It's not a settlement that gives in any view a fantastic outcome
for shareholders but that's because of the absolutely bereft
financial situation that Slaters found itself in once it had made
its fateful decision to purchase the Quindell business."

Long expected

A settlement between the parties had long been expected.

Fairfax Media first revealed in March that a quick settlement of
the action was on the cards after lawyers for Slater and Gordon
asked the Federal Court to delay the proceeding so it could
finalise the restructure.

The settlement is also thought to have been impacted by plans by
Slater and Gordon to ask the court that only its insurance could
be called upon to pay the claim because it was in the midst of a
restructure.

The restructure was dependent on the class action being settled,
while the settlement requires court approval and the
recapitalisation scheme going through. [GN]


SOUTHERN GLAZER: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hayes, writing for The Spirits Business, reports that a
nationwide class action has been brought against Southern Glazer's
Wine & Spirits, accusing the US drinks distribution company of
"unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent" business practices.

The lawsuit was filed on July 5 by Scott Cole & Associates, APC
and Wakeford Gelini on behalf of James Nguyen, former liquor
license holder for Arena Restaurant and Lounge in California, as
well as on behalf of "all entities or persons who maintained an
open account with Southern Glazer's during, at least, the last
four years".

According to the complaint, Mr. Nguyen recently "found that he had
been assessed thousands of dollars in taxes for liquor he
supposedly purchased, but did not purchase, from Southern".  The
suit alleges that Southern Glazer's "knowingly engaged in unfair,
unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices" regarding
its sales and distribution scheme.

It accuses Southern of providing "class members" account numbers
and/or government agency-provided liquor license numbers to third-
parties without their knowledge.  It adds that Southern would have
reason to know that this information would be used by the third
parties to charge alcohol to the accounts, create tax liabilities
for class members and/or threaten their liquor licenses and
business operations.

The class action also alleges that Southern Glazer's allows its
employees to purchase alcohol on the accounts or licenses of class
members without their knowledge, and to provide these details to
third parties who "then purchase alcohol by assuming class
members' business identities".

The document claims that the drinks distributer sells and
distributes alcohol "at reduced prices, if not free of charge" to
persons or entities who "may or may not" hold valid liquor
licenses, as well as "selling liquor to different parties at
different prices".

Other allegations state that the firm allowed employees to buy
alcohol on class members accounts using cash, and then stored it
in order to meet sales quotas; allowed its employees to buy
alcohol on class members accounts, later returning it without
refunding the money; and created unfair competition -- giving away
alcohol by printing sample labels for regular bottles.

The firm is also said to have falsified sales documentation, and
unlawfully pressured retailers about the practices detailed above
by threatening to cut off their supply.

According to the document, class members "had no way of knowing
about Southern's unlawful sales and distribution scheme".

The plaintiff is seeking "damages, interest thereon, restitution,
injunctive and other equitable relief, an accounting of all monies
unlawfully collected and held by Southern, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs" as well as "disgorgement of all
benefits Southern has enjoyed from its numerous unlawful and/or
deceptive business practices".

A spokesperson for Southern Glazer's told The Spirits Business:
"We have just received a copy of the lawsuit and are reviewing the
information.  It is premature for us to comment any further at
this time." [GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Stewart Appeals W.D. Okla. Order to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Hicks and Paul Stewart filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Stewart, et al. v. Southwest
Airlines, Co., Case No. 5:17-CV-00429-F, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma City.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Stewart, et al. v. Southwest
Airlines, Co., Case No. 17-6167, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance are due on July 27, 2017, for Michael Hicks and
      Paul Stewart; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on July 27, 2017, for Southwest
      Airlines, Co.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PAUL STEWART and MICHAEL HICKS, and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq.
          JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES
          1611 South Utica Avenue, Suite 173
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Telephone: (918) 583-4165
          Facsimile: (918) 583-4166
          E-mail: jm8069337@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., DBA Southwest
Airlines, is represented by:

          Kevin Dell Gordon, Esq.
          Mary H. Tolbert, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-6619
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5260
          E-mail: kevin.gordon@crowedunlevy.com
                  molly.tolbert@crowedunlevy.com


STATE FARM: Denied to Certify Question to Colorado Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado denied both the parties' motions to certify a
question to Colorado Supreme Court in the case captioned ZACHARY
McFARLAND, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-CV-00291-MSK-STV (D. Colo.).

Mr. McFarland brought this suit as a class action in state court.
State Farm removed the matter to this Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Amended Complaint identifies
the purported class of Plaintiffs as persons or entities that
received "actual cash value" payments from State Farm for loss or
damage to a structure in Colorado for the last 12 years where the
cost of labor was depreciated.  Three claims are asserted: (i)
breach of contract; (ii) violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act; and (iii) statutory bad faith.  The basis of all
of the claims is that in calculating "actual cash value," State
Farm improperly included labor costs as part of "depreciation."

Both parties, by separate motions, ask this Court to certify a
question to Colorado Supreme Court.  State Farm proposes the
question on whether the Colorado law requires the insurer to
exclude labor costs from the calculation of depreciation in order
to arrive at the ACV figure where a homeowners insurance policy
provides for payment of the actual cash value ("ACV") of the
damaged part of the insured property at the time of the loss, and
the insurer calculates ACV by estimating the total cost to repair
or replace the damaged property minus any depreciation.  Mr.
McFarland seeks certification of the question on whether the
insurer may depreciate the labor that is necessary to accomplish
repairs where a homeowner's insurance policy provides for ACV
coverage without defining ACV or "depreciation."

The Colorado Appellate Rule 21.1 permits the federal district
court to certify any questions of law of the state which may be
determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court
and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no
controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court.  But
certification is discretionary and is not to be routinely invoked
whenever a federal court is presented with an unsettled question
of state law.

The Court declines to certify either of the questions identified
by the parties, finding that the dispositive issue in this case
can be resolved by applying Colorado law to the terms of the
policy.  Under Colorado law, an insurance policy constitutes a
contract, which courts construe using general principles of
contractual interpretation.  The parties characterize their
dispute as whether State Farm may depreciate both labor and
materials' costs to determine the "actual cash value."  But
calculation of deprecation is not addressed in the Policy, nor
does the Policy link depreciation and actual cash value.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that this matter can be
resolved without certification to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Court denied both Motions to Certify.  Mr.
McFarland will have 30 days from the date of the Order to file a
Motion to Certify the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, order is available
at https://is.gd/1AR3Fx from Leagle.com.

Zachary McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Austin
Mattingly, Jr., Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC.

State Farm Fire and Casualty CO., Defendant, represented by Heidi
Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, Jacob L. Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. --
jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Marilyn
S. Chappell -- mchappell@SweetbaumSands.com -- Sweetbaum Sands
Anderson, P.C., Tal Cohen Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Jon F. Sands --
jsands@SweetbaumSands.com -- Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C.


STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Partners' Class Action Discontinued
---------------------------------------------------------
Cannell Capital LLC ("CC"), General Partner to Tristan Partners,
L.P. and Investment Advisor to Tristan Offshore Fund, Ltd. on July
10 announced the discontinuance of the matter of Tristan Partners,
et al. vs. Strad Energy Services, Ltd. ("Strad") [Queen's Bench
File No. 1601-07269].  Said discontinuance was granted by the
Queen's Bench on May 17, 2017 effective July 6, 2017.

CC is heartened by the recent appointment of both Tom Alford and
Mick McNulty to Strad's Board of Directors, two individuals which
Tristan had requested join the Board of Strad as part and parcel
of settlement.  CC is confident that Strad shareholders will
benefit more from the vision and oversight which Mssrs. Alford and
McNulty bring to the Board of Directors than litigation.

In 2014 "peak" EBITDA of Strad was CN $59 million.  Today,
however, its market capitalization is only CN $84 million.
Consensus estimate for 2018 EBITDA is CN $32 million.  CC has no
acumen to pinpoint cycles but it does believe that CN $84 million
is a small price to pay for a good company with dramatically
reduced expenses emerging from a severe downturn.

The better question is what will 2019 bring.

CC believes that Strad is making good acquisitions at the right
time.  The time to be greedy is when everybody is panicking, much
like the time to buy straw hats is in the winter.

Toward this end, CC in 2017 has increased its holding of Strad to
6.8% through an additional purchase of 224,585 shares of Strad. We
eat what we bake. (The discontinuance of the legal action
mentioned above should not, however, imply any conclusion by CC as
to the merit of the underlying statement of claim.)

That was then.  This is now.

CC believes that the Board addition of Alford and McNulty adds
operational experience and more robust oversight and independence
for the benefit of all shareholders.  Accordingly, CC believes our
investors and other Strad shareholders are best served through
support and investment of Strad now versus litigation.


STRADMONT OAK: "Knight" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Knight, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Stradmont Oak Investments, LLC, Infinite Dining Group,
Inc., JLK, II, Inc., and James Liakakos, Case No. 1:17-cv-02459-
MHC (N.D. Ga., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Fulton County,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Arizona Over Proposed Knight Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylen A. Peterson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Swift Transportation Company, Richard H. Dozer, Glenn
Brown, Jose Cardenas, Jerry Moyes, William Riley III, and David
Vander Ploeg, Case No. 2:17-cv-02073-DMF (D. Ariz., June 29,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of
Swift Transportation Company, to enjoin the Agreement and Plan of
Merger pursuant to which Swift and Bishop Merger Sub, Inc. will be
combined with Knight Transportation, Inc.

According to the complaint, Swift filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Swift stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Registration Statement fails to provide
Company stockholders with material information or provides them
with materially misleading information concerning: (i) the
Company's financial projections; (ii) potential conflicts of
interest concerning the Company's directors; and (iii) potential
conflicts of interest involving Morgan Stanley. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such
information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the Proposed
Transaction will unlawfully divest Swift'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.

Headquartered at 2200 South 75th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85043,
Swift Transportation Company is the largest common carrier in the
United States, with over 16,000 trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald Barrett, Esq.
      WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
      3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
      Phoenix, AR 85012
      Telephone: (602) 279-1717
      Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
      E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4291
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com
              denright@zlk.com


SYNGENTA AG: Settles Nebraska Farmer's Corn Suit Ahead of Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
DTN Washington Insider reports that Syngenta AG reached a
confidential settlement with a Nebraska farmer who claimed the
company mishandled marketing of its genetically modified seed,
causing U.S. corn prices to plummet.  With the settlement,
Syngenta averts a trial that was scheduled to start July 10. Terms
were not disclosed, according to Bloomberg.

Syngenta lost a $218 million jury verdict for a class of Kansas
farmers who brought similar claims against the Swiss agrochemical
company, which has been acquired by China National Chemical Corp.
The Basel-based company completed its $43 billion takeover by
ChemChina in June.

Syngenta faces its next class action in a Minnesota court in
August, where farmers are seeking more than $600 million.  The
farmers claim Syngenta rushed its GMO seed to market before
getting approval from China to export the grain there.  In 2013,
China stopped shipments after calling the corn contaminated by the
GMO seed, setting off a five-year depression in prices, the
farmers claim.  They also allege Syngenta misled them on when the
Chinese would approve the seed.

Syngenta disputes the damages, or that it did anything wrong. The
company did not sell the seed until approved by the U.S. and did
not need Chinese approval, Syngenta lawyers have argued.

The federal judge overseeing multiple class actions in Kansas set
several trial dates for additional class actions to be tried in
that court.  The claims of Arkansas and Missouri farmers will go
forward in January, while Illinois and Nebraska go to trial in
April.[GN]


TATA GROUP: Bombay High Court Wont' Hear Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashwin Mohan, writing for The Economic Times, reports that in a
relief to Tata Sons, the Bombay High Court on July 10 revoked its
earlier permission to hear a representative class action suit
filed by six Tata group shareholders which sought Rs 41,000 crores
in damages against the holding company, its directors and Tata
Trusts, two individuals familar with the verdict told ET NOW on
the condition of anonymity.

The verdict minimises the legal risks for Tata Sons as all
concerned shareholders now have to file suits in their personal
capacities and even the damages will be limited to the personal
loss of the shareholders.  ET NOW was the first to report the
development and is awaiting a detailed copy of the judgement.

"The high court has revoked its own leave which was granted in
December 2016 allowing six shareholders of listed Tata group
companies for the institution of the suit as a representative suit
to sue Tata Sons, its directors, Tata Trusts and some of the Tata
operating companies," said one of the individuals cited above.

"This verdict is likely to be challenged and this case may go all
the way to the Supreme Court," said the second individual cited
above.

The shareholders had moved court claiming damages of Rs 41,832
crores for alleged loss caused to all the non-promoter
shareholders of certain listed Tata group companies arising from a
fall in share prices following the removal of former Tata Sons
chairman Cyrus Mistry.  It was also submitted to the court that 60
other shareholders had filed applications in support of the suit.
Challenging this stance, Tata Sons argued earlier that it was
"perverse to say that all non-promoter shareholders have the same
grievance and are unhappy."

Tata Sons was represented by Senior Advocate P Chidambaram and
Nitesh Jain, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.  Senior
advocate Dinyar Madon appeared for the shareholders and Cyrus
Mistry was represented by senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas. [GN]


TAQUERIA HECHO: "Mateo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Mateo, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Taqueria Hecho En Mexico, Inc. and Juan Padilla, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02003 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2525 North
Loop West, Suite 125, Houston, Texas 77008. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

         - and -

      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


TAURUS: 11th Circuit Affirms Pistol Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
settlement has been affirmed in a Taurus pistol class action
lawsuit filed by Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser.

Owners of potentially defective Taurus pistols will be able to get
the guns repaired or replaced with safer handguns, according to a
press release issued by Bailey & Glasser.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold a
settlement that was negotiated in the lawsuit alleging that a
faulty design in a number of the Taurus pistols made them likely
to discharge when dropped, even with the manual safety engaged,
and allowed them to be fired with the safety in the on position.

Three class members challenged the settlement and appealed to the
11th Circuit.

The settlement included three types of relief -- an enhanced
warranty, safety training and cash payments.

Settlement class members will receive an enhanced warranty
covering the pistols at issue.  Taurus agreed to modify the
existing warranty covering and repair policy to allow the owner to
submit a warranty claim at any time and if the defects cannot be
repaired, Taurus will offer to replace the pistol with a similar
new pistol.

Also, as part of the enhanced warranty settlement benefits, Taurus
agreed to waive all inspection fees and labor charges, including
the minimum charge of $35 normally associated with their existing
warranty and repair policy.  It will also pay shipping costs.

The defendants will also make available safety training for
settlement class members to address the safety defects and the
operation and handling of the pistols.  The safety training will
address proper handling and carrying to avoid dropping the
pistols; educate owners concerning the safety features and safety
systems in the pistols; and provide information and instructions
on how to properly store, pack and ship the pistols for return to
Taurus.

Settlement class members may also elect to send their pistols back
to Taurus un exchange for a cash payment that ranges from less
than $150 to $200.  The maximum liability for cash payment
benefits is capped at $30 million.

At least 13 people since 2005 had been injured or killed in
incidents where Taurus pistols were unintentionally fired,
according to lawsuits.

In 2016, Newsweek called the agreement reached with Taurus "a
landmark legal concession from a gun manufacturer."

Taurus agreed to a recall framework for nearly one million guns to
settle the class action lawsuit in July 2015.

The class action lawsuit was filed by Chris Carter, an Iowa police
officer.

The settlement website outlines the provisions of the settlement,
potentially worth $239 million if all class members make a claim.

The plaintiffs are represented by David Selby, John Barrett, Eric
Snyder and Ryan Donovan of Bailey & Glasser; and Todd Wheeles of
Morris, Haynes, Wheeles, Knowles & Nelson.

Taurus pistols subject to the defects include the Millennium,
Millennium Pro, Millennium Pro Compact, Millennium Pro Sub-
Compact, 24/7, and others.

Owners wishing to claim the cash benefit option will have a
limited time period in which to make a claim.  This will be
clearly set out on the settlement website once the claim
period begins.  To file a claim, visit
https://www.tauruscartersettlement.com.


TD BANK: Judge Rejects Cellphone Users' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a federal judge
has rejected class-action status for a lawsuit alleging TD Bank
repeatedly called cellphone users against their wishes.

U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle also dismissed a claim that
the Cherry Hill-based bank and the Target chain broke the law with
calls to Charlene Martinez, a California woman who sued the
companies in October 2015.

But Judge Simandle said a jury could consider Martinez's claim
that the companies harassed her by making 165 calls over a
delinquent credit card between Aug. 29, 2014, and April 15, 2015.

Only three of those calls were answered, the judge noted.

Ms. Martinez sought to have her complaint certified as a class-
action lawsuit for "hundreds of thousands" of cellphone users. The
suit had sought payments of at least $500 per person.

In a June 30 decision, Judge Simandle noted each member of the
proposed class would have to prove he or she had been called by
the defendants without their consent.

"If class members are impossible to identify without extensive and
individualized fact finding, or 'mini-trials,' then a class action
is inappropriate," his 35-page ruling said.

Judge Simandle also said Ms. Martinez could not prove she'd been
called improperly, and so she could not be a member of the class
she sought to represent.

"She consented to receive the vast majority of these calls,
including all calls made on multi-call days," the judge noted.

According to the ruling, Martinez agreed to accept calls on her
cellphone when she opened a Target credit card account in 2007.

The judge said that doomed her claim that the companies had
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
guards against unsolicited calls made by automated dialing
systems.

According to the ruling, a bankruptcy attorney for Ms. Martinez
said he sent letters to two fax machines at TD Bank on April 10,
2015, asking that she not be called.  Four calls followed over the
next five days.

The calls stopped after a Target representative "reported in
Target's account system that (Martinez) had retained a bankruptcy
attorney."

TD and Target asserted the fax machines identified by the attorney
were not intended for communications involving the retailer's
credit card accounts. The companies also said they never received
the letters.

Judge Simandle also observed Ms. Martinez had previously contacted
a customer-service representative to stop calls to a different
phone.  He said Ms. Martinez could not explain why her bankruptcy
lawyer had not taken the same route.

An attorney for Ms. Martinez could not be reached for immediate
comment.  TD Bank does not comment on pending litigation.


TESORO CORPORATION: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Tesoro Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that a merger-related litigation has been
dismissed.

On February 7, 2017, a Tesoro stockholder filed a purported class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, on behalf of himself and all other Tesoro stockholders
against the current members of our board of directors. The case
has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.


TG THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Litigation Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
TG Therapeutics, 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 consolidated securities litigation has
been dismissed.

On January 6, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in New York federal court against the Company and
certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics
common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 (the
"Class Period"). The case was captioned John Lyon v. TG
Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert
Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint
alleged that, throughout the Class Period various statements made
by the Company regarding its GENUINE Phase 3 trial were materially
false or misleading when made in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 24, 2017, a second purported class action complaint was
filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of
its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics
common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016. The
case was captioned Kenneth C. Wyzgoski v. TG Therapeutics, Michael
S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00508-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The claims and allegations in the Wyzgoski
complaint were substantially identical to those in the Lyon case.

By order dated March 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Lyon and
Wyzgoski cases into one action, captioned In re TG Therapeutics
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.),
appointed lead plaintiffs in the case, and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. On April 5, 2017 the Court
so ordered a stipulation pursuant to which lead plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the consolidated action in its entirety
without prejudice.

The Company denies the allegations and claims made in the above-
referenced actions and no consideration was given by the Company
in connection with lead plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the
consolidated action.

TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments
for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases.


UBER TECH: Aug. 10 Deadline to Submit Email Test Design
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-
05200-EMC, Consolidated with No. 14-cv-05241-EMC, No. 15-cv-03009-
EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the parties'
stipulation that the Court extends the deadline for them to make
their submission regarding the email test (along with an updated
Preliminary Approval Order) to on or before Aug. 10, 2017.

On June 29, 2017, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Court ordered the Parties to devise and submit a design for a
"trial test run to ascertain what percentage of emails are likely
to be blocked as spam within seven days from the date of the order
for approval.

At the request of the Parties, the Court extended the deadline for
the Parties to make their submission regarding the email trial
test run to July 20, 2017.  Since June 29, 2017, the Parties have
worked diligently to submit the design for the trial test run by
July 20, 2017.  They need some additional time to further confer
about the design for such a test run, but are encountering some
scheduling conflicts due to, among other things, summer vacation
schedules.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/LE5tBj from Leagle.com.

Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Keith King,
Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C..

Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ahdoot,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa
Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L.
Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho & Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C..

Michael Nokchan, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh,
Setareh Law Group, Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian &
Ho & Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights.

Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho,
Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura
L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Theodore Walter Maya,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho.

Shannon Wise, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee,
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana,
Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen
Dardarian & Ho, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. &
Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

Brandon Farmer, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.,
Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie
Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights & Laura L. Ho,
Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho.

Meghan Christenson, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter
Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa
Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights & Laura L.
Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Debra Wong Yang, Gibson, Dunn
Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., John C.
Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Rod M. Fliegel, Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia Behnia, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & William J. Simmons,
Littler Mendelson PC.

Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Debra Wong Yang, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher
LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., John C.
Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Rod M. Fliegel, Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia Behnia, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & William J. Simmons,
Littler Mendelson PC.

Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, represented by Tina Wolfson,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Improper Pay Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for South East Texas Record, reports that a
popular rideshare company is accused in a federal class action
lawsuit of failing to properly compensate its drivers.

Attorney Kevin R. Michaels of the Law Offices of Kevin R.
Michaels, P.C. in Houston filed the suit against Uber
Technologies, Inc. on behalf of 19 drivers in the Houston Division
of the Southern District of Texas on June 19.

The class plaintiffs claim Uber "misclassified their employees as
independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage and overtime
per the (Fair Labor Standards Act)."

Per the complainants, their relationship with Uber "is clearly
that of employer-employee." They additionally insist that they all
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

"The facts of this case will show that the workers/ employees are
not independent contractors, and are owed minimum wage and
overtime pay," recent court documents assert.

Uber is further faulted for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, and "flagrant and persistent" misreporting of driver
income on Form 1099's.

A jury trial is requested.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case No. 4:17-
CV-2011
[GN]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in "Bauserman" Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS and TEDDY
BROE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-
Appellant, No. 333181 (Mich. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Michigan reversed the trial court's order denying the Defendant's
motion for summary disposition.

This appeal arises from a class action lawsuit initiated by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendant arising from their claims for
unemployment benefits with the Defendant.  On Sept. 9, 2015,
Bauserman filed a class action complaint against the Defendant in
the Court of Claims alleging that the Defendant utilizes an
automated decision-making system to detect and adjudicate
suspected instances of employment benefit fraud.  He further
alleged that the Defendant's automated decision-making system,
known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System ("MiDAS")
deprives UIA claimants of due process and fair and just treatment
because it determines guilt without providing notice, without
proving guilt and without affording claimants an opportunity to be
heard before penalties are imposed.  The complaint alleged, with
regard to Bauserman, that after a determination that Bauserman had
engaged in fraudulent conduct with regard to his unemployment
benefits, the Defendant seized his property without notice of the
specific grounds for the allegations against him, without
providing 60 days in which to present evidence, without providing
him an opportunity to present evidence, and without the notice and
other due process required by federal law and the Michigan
constitution.

The Defendant moved for summary disposition of the Plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) which provides that dismissal
of the action is appropriate because of immunity granted by law,
or the statute of limitations.  It also moved for dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), which provides for
summary disposition where the opposing party has failed to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.  The trial court did not
specify under which subrule of MCR 2.116 it was denying summary
disposition, however it is apparent from its ruling that it
considered documentary evidence outside of the pleadings.  The
Court reviewed the trial court's decision in accordance with MCR
2.116(C)(7).

On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in
denying its motion for summary disposition where the Plaintiffs'
claims were not filed in compliance with the governing provision
of the Court of Claims Act.

The parties do not dispute that the Defendant ultimately
reconsidered its earlier determinations that Bauserman was
ineligible for unemployment benefits and had engaged in fraud
after receiving notice from Bauserman that the payment at issue
from his former employer was a bonus he received while still
employed by his former employer.  Bauserman was ultimately not
liable to pay back any unemployment benefits or have any penalties
or interest assessed.  Any monies seized from Bauserman were
returned by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on Oct. 19,
2015 naming Williams and Broe as the Plaintiffs in addition to
Bauserman.  Where the facts with respect to Williams and Broe are
not disputed, the Court referred to the portion of the trial
court's written ruling addressing the facts pertinent to Williams
and Broe.

The parties do not dispute that Bauserman's notices of
redetermination regarding his unemployment benefits were dated
Dec. 3, 2014.  Likewise, Broe's notices of determination advising
him of his disqualification for unemployment benefits are dated
July 15, 2014.  Finally, Williams's notice of
determination/redetermination is dated June 22, 2012.

Accordingly, where the Plaintiffs did not institute their action
until Sept. 9, 2015, their claims were not filed in compliance
with MCL 600.6431(3), within six months following the happening of
the event giving rise to the cause of action.

The Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting
summary disposition in favor of the Defendant.  The Court does not
retain jurisdiction.  The Defendant, as the prevailing party, may
tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/2gK4Rt from Leagle.com.

KEVIN M. CARLSON -- kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com -- for GRANT
BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee.

DEBBIE K. TAYLOR, for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-
Appellant.


UNITED RENTALS: Bid to Junk S&S Construction's Suit Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned S&S CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, V. UNITED
RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., and UNITED RENTALS, INC.,
Defendants, No. 2:15-CV-712 (NGG)(SRW) (M.D. Ala.), Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and reverse ruling on the remaining arguments
therein; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Amend; and (iii) denied the Defendants' Application for
Status Conference.

The Plaintiff initiated this action on Sept. 25, 2015.  The
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 10, 2015,
asserting arguments as to standing, personal jurisdiction, venue,
and the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's allegations. On Nov. 23,
2015, District Judge Myron H. Thompson issued an order finding
that the Plaintiff had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  Judge Thompson ordered that the
case be dismissed without prejudice unless the Plaintiff filed an
appropriately amended complaint within seven days.

The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on Nov. 30, 2015.  On
Dec. 17, 2015, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss,
asserting substantially similar arguments as in their prior
motion.

On April 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Amend. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is identical to the
First Amended Complaint except that the Second Amended Complaint
adds a single additional class representative, Wells Land
Development, Inc.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any
claims that do not arise out of contracts entered into in Alabama.
The Defendants have searched their records and offered evidence
that the Plaintiff never paid any of the disputed Charges in
Florida or Georgia during the relevant time period, except in
connection with excluded contracts that contained class action
waivers.  The Plaintiff has not meaningfully contested that
evidence.  Absent any qualifying Charge payment in Florida or
Georgia, the Plaintiff has not suffered a redressable injury in
fact for purposes of his putative class claims under the common-
law contract doctrines or consumer protection statutes in Florida
and Georgia.  Therefore, the Courts granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss in part and dismissed, without prejudice, all claims
except those arising out of contracts entered into in Alabama.

The Court also finds that majority of the Plaintiff's claims have
been dismissed without prejudice.  In addition, by adding or
modifying allegations regarding the location of, provisions in,
and parties to specific contracts, the Plaintiff may be able to
address -- or may capitulate to -- certain among the Defendants'
arguments in favor of dismissal.  The Court therefore granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend in part.  The Plaintiff will have an
opportunity to file a second amended complaint, which need not be
identical to the proposed second amended complaint that it
attached to the Motion to Amend.  The Plaintiff may file a second
amended complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the Order.  If
the Plaintiff does not so file, the Court will rule on the
remaining arguments in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/EzL8bU from Leagle.com.

S&S Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas W.
Armstrong, Price Armstrong LLC.

S&S Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Oscar M. Price,
IV, Price Armstrong, LLC, Taylor Christopher Bartlett --
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis & William Lewis
Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison
Davis, L.L.C..

United Rentals (North America), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth D. Adler -- eadler@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro
hac vice, Evan Patrick Moltz -- emoltz@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Aaron Earnhardt --
jearnhardt@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. & S.
Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice.

United Rentals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D.
Adler, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Evan Patrick Moltz,
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Aaron Earnhardt, Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.C. & S. Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding LLP,
pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Lambert" Subclass I Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SCOTT J. LAMBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 12-395L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Nancy B.
Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted final
approval to the parties' revised proposed settlement for subclass
I Plaintiffs.

This rails-to-trails class action arises from the conversion of a
railroad corridor in Shelby County, Tennessee to a recreational
trail.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the government "took" their
property interests without just compensation when it authorized
the conversion of the rail corridor to a recreational trail.  The
Court has previously issued Final Approval Order I for a proposed
settlement on Dec. 16, 2015 following a fairness hearing.
Following the Federal Circuit's decision regarding attorneys' fees
in Haggart v. United States, the Court was obligated to reconsider
the parties' proposed settlement only as it related to attorneys'
fees.

On May 18, 2017, the parties filed a joint revised proposed
revised noticed to class members regarding the proposed revised
settlement agreement the parties had reached in light of the
Haggart decision.  Under the proposed revised settlement, each
Plaintiff would receive the same settlement amount as approved in
Final Approval Order I, plus additional interest since accrued.
The Plaintiffs will receive a principal total sum of
$3,962,282.16, and $1,179,451 in interest accrued through Dec. 31,
2016.

The proposed revised settlement agreement only differs from the
original approved settlement agreement with regard to fees for
counsels.  Under the original settlement, class counsel was
awarded a fee of 30% of the negotiated settlement (principal and
interest), or $1,092,607.11.  Under the proposed revised
settlement, and in accordance with the Federal Circuit's ruling in
Haggart, the class counsel will instead be awarded fees and costs
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("URA") in the amount of
$256,862.10 in fees and $20,875.71 in costs and expenses, for a
total of $277,737.81.

The court granted preliminary approval for the revised settlement
on May 23, 2017 and notice was sent to class members.  In response
to the notice, the class counsel received explicit approval of the
settlement for 68 of the 88 claimants.

The Court held a telephonic fairness hearing on July 17, 2017.
For the reasons stated in Final Approval Order I, the Court
approved the parties' revised proposed settlement agreement for
the subclass I Plaintiffs, including the attorneys' fees and costs
agreed to as authorized by the URA.  Pursuant to RCFC 54(b), there
being no just reason for delay, the Clerk is directed to enter
judgment accordingly for the subclass I Plaintiffs in the
principal amount of $2,505,093.35 and $1,179,451 in interest
accrued through Dec. 31, 2016.  The interest will continue to
accrue until the Plaintiffs are paid.  The judgment also includes
$256,862.10 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and $20,875.71 in
costs and expenses, for a total of $277,737.81 pursuant to the
URA.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/fvVfkO from Leagle.com.

SCOTT J. LAMBERT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald --
WALD@SWM.LEGAL -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

SAMANTHA A. LAMBERT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

IVAN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

DENISE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

MARCIA L. VACCARIO, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

LOUISE V. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

TINA V. GREGORY, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

STEPHEN M. OMOREGIE, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Daniela Alejandra Arregui Labarca,
U.S. Department of Justice.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Basile" Status Conference on July 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is set for July 25, 2017, in the case, Anthony
Basile et al v. Valeant Pharmaceutical International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02004 (C.D. Cal.).  The Hon. David O Carter
presides over the case.

On July 21, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs -- Iowa Public Employees
Retirement System, Patrick T. Johnson, State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio -- submitted a status report concerning the Status
Conference.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 Anthony Basile
Allergan shareholder class action, defendants' motion with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission
to appeal from the class certification order remains pending.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of
Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan
shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square,
PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint
alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of
Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014,
against all defendants contending that various purchases of
Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in possession of
material, non-public information concerning a potential tender
offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations
of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the
SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended
complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Pershing Square, various Pershing Square affiliates,
William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint
seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court
denied that motion.

On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an order certifying a
plaintiff class comprised of persons who sold Allergan common
stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan common stock
made or caused by defendants during the period February 25, 2014
through April 21, 2014. On March 28, 2017, defendants filed a
motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
requesting permission to appeal from the class certification
order. That motion remains pending. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these matters.

On February 10, 2017, the Company, Valeant (together, the "Valeant
Co Parties") and J. Michael Pearson (together, the "Valeant
Parties") and Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., Pershing
Square Holdings, Ltd., Pershing Square International, Ltd.,
Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing Square II, L.P., PS Management GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square GP, LLC (together, "Pershing
Square"), and William A. Ackman ("Ackman" and, together with
Pershing Square, the "Pershing Square Parties") entered into a
litigation management agreement (the "Litigation Management
Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties agreed to certain
provisions with respect to the management of this litigation,
including all cases currently consolidated with the California
action described above and any opt-out litigation or individual
actions brought by members of the putative class in the California
action asserting the same or similar allegations or claims
(collectively, the "Allergan Litigation"), including the
following:

* In respect of any settlement relating to the Allergan Litigation
that receives the mutual consent of both the Valeant Parties and
the Pershing Square Parties, the payments in connection with such
settlement will be paid 60% by the Valeant Co Parties and 40% by
the Pershing Square Parties. The agreement does not provide for
any allocation of costs in a settlement that is not consented to
by both parties;

* The first $10 million in legal fees and litigation expenses
incurred by the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties
after the date of the Litigation Management Agreement in
connection with the Allergan Litigation will be paid 50% by the
Valeant Co Parties and 50% by the Pershing Square Parties; and

* The Litigation Management Agreement will terminate on November
1, 2017 if a stipulation of settlement with regards to the current
California action has not been executed by that date (unless the
Litigation Management Agreement is extended by mutual written
agreement of the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties).
In addition to the agreements set out above with respect to the
Allergan Litigation, the Litigation Management Agreement includes
an undertaking by the Pershing Square Parties to forbear from
commencing any action or actions that arise out of, or relate to,
the claims alleged or facts asserted in the Allergan Litigation or
to the purchase or acquisition of, or transactions with respect
to, the Company's securities against any of the Valeant Parties
from February 3, 2017 until the date that is thirty days after the
termination of the Litigation Management Agreement. Any statute of
limitations applicable to such actions or tolled claims is
suspended during this period. If the Litigation Management
Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, the parties will
meet and discuss whether any tolled claims should be submitted to
confidential arbitration or mediation.

Furthermore, in connection with the entrance into the Litigation
Management Agreement, on February 10, 2017 the Valeant Parties and
the Pershing Square Parties entered into a mutual release of
claims (the "Mutual Release"). The Mutual Release will go into
effect upon the later of satisfaction of the payment obligations
that each party would have in connection with any settlement of
the current California action pursuant to the Litigation
Management Agreement described above and the date of entry of
final judgment, and will not occur if the Litigation Management
Agreement is terminated. If the Mutual Release becomes effective,
each party will release the other parties and their respective
attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities
underwriters (in their capacities as such and to the extent they
provide a mutual release) from any and all claims relating to or
arising out of (a) any purchase of any security of Valeant, (b)
any one or more of the claims asserted in and/or the facts alleged
in (i) the Allergan Litigation, (ii) a putative class action on
behalf of purchasers of Valeant securities captioned In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
3:15-cv-07658- MAS-LHG, currently pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "U.S. Class
Action"), (iii) certain enumerated individual actions and/or (iv)
certain enumerated actions in Canada, or (c) the Valeant business.
In addition, each party covenants not to sue the other parties
with respect to any claims covered by the Mutual Release upon the
effectiveness of the Mutual Release.

Each party also covenants not to sue the other parties' attorneys,
accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities
underwriters (in their capacities as such) with respect to any of
the claims covered by the Mutual Release from the date of the
signing of the Mutual Release, except to the extent that (i) a
claim has been asserted against such party by any such attorney,
accountant, financial advisor, lender and/or securities
underwriter or (ii) the Litigation Management Agreement has been
terminated in accordance with its terms.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the case, Potter v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-07658
(D. N.J.).  Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on July 18 entered a
Discovery Confidentiality Order.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants' answers to
the consolidated complaint were due by May 12, 2017, in the case,
In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current
or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned
Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-
cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various
time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The
allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information
about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to
drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On
June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based
on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions
similar to those in the initial complaints. Specifically, the
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current
or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") against the Company, certain current or former officers and
directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to
bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the
United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016,
including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the
United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between
July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's
motion was completed on January 13, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss, except with certain claims
arising out of the Company's private placement offerings.
Defendants' answers to the consolidated complaint are due by May
12, 2017.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 defend securities class actions in Canada.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et
al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-
00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d)
O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and
Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current
or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-
Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior
Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate
to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures
to disclose material information about the Company's business and
prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and
accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies
and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor. The
Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law
claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim
additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims
under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including
the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci
action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the
Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of
liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i)
Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of
British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v
Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed
November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The
Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do
not intend to pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be
consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave
and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in
any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage
motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the
class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the
O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action.

On September 15, 2016, in response to an arrangement between the
plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the O'Brien action, the
court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action be consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that the consolidated action be stayed in
favor of the Catucci action pending either the further order of
the Ontario court or the determination of the motion for leave in
the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, motions for leave under the Quebec
Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding were
heard the week of April 24, 2017, with the motion judge reserving
her decision. Prior to that hearing, the parties resolved
applications by the defendants concerning jurisdiction and class
composition, with the plaintiffs agreeing to revise the definition
of the proposed class to exclude claims in respect of Valeant
securities purchased in the United States.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing on RICO Class Actions Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that briefing of the motion
to dismiss RICO Class Actions was scheduled to be completed by May
17, 2017.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various third
parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class
of certain third party payors that paid claims submitted by
Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between January 2, 2013
and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry
Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, Plumbers Local
Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-05663).

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-
03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December
14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire
fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription
reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding
(1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy;
(2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-
pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5)
the insured's consent to renew the prescription.  The complaint
further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of
racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO
statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified
damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
February 13, 2017. Briefing of the motion is scheduled to be
completed by May 17, 2017.

On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the
RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings
against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. The Company did not
oppose the motion to stay. The Company believes these claims are
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 remaining parties
in the case, In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust
Litigation, are currently engaged in class certification briefing
and expert discovery.

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. ("VPII") and various manufacturers of generic
forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription
drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand
name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and
of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched
through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory
and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple,
punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the suits in the
District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-
md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.

After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor
Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to
dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought
under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman
Act, Section 1 and other state laws. VPII was dismissed from the
case, but the litigation continues against Medicis and the generic
manufacturers as to the remaining claims. A subsequent effort to
re-plead claims under Sherman Act, Section 2 was denied on
September 20, 2016.

Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with two of three generic
manufacturer defendants, and, on April 14, 2017, the Court granted
the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' motions
for preliminary approval of those settlements. Fact discovery in
these actions has concluded. The remaining parties are currently
engaged in class certification briefing and expert discovery.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to
dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional
non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain
retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs")
making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that
sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been
centralized with the class action suits in the District of
Massachusetts. Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on
the motion to dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed
amended complaints on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on
December 7, 2015.

A third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy
against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March
28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these
actions.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 Contact Lens
Antitrust Class Actions, the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is pending.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.
The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the
Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable
Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK,
before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class
Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint
on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss
those complaints.

On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws.
The actions are currently in discovery.

On March 3, 2017, the Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification. On April 17, 2017, defendants filed an
unopposed motion requesting that the court extend defendants' time
to oppose the class certification motion from May 12, 2017 to June
2, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these
actions.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Liability Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 been
voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of the Shower to Shower
Products Liability cases, and only claims against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America LLC ("VPNA") remain.

The Company has been named in over sixty lawsuits involving the
Shower to Shower body powder product acquired in September 2012
from Johnson & Johnson. Many of these cases have been subsequently
dismissed as to the Company and/or VPNA. These lawsuits include
one case originally filed on December 30, 2016 in the In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation, Multidistrict
Litigation 2738, pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The Company and its subsidiary,
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC ("VPNA"), were first
named in a lawsuit filed directly into the MDL alleging that use
of the Shower to Shower product caused the plaintiff to develop
ovarian cancer.

On March 24, 2017, the plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all
claims against the Company and VPNA without prejudice, and neither
the Company nor VPNA have been named in any further lawsuits in
the MDL.

In addition, beginning on October 26, 2016 and continuing into May
2017, fifty individual lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of Delaware alleging use of Shower to Shower caused the plaintiffs
to develop ovarian cancer. The Company has been voluntarily
dismissed from nearly all of these cases, and only claims against
VPNA remain.

These lawsuits also include allegations against Johnson & Johnson,
directed primarily to its marketing of and warnings for the Shower
to Shower product prior to the Company's acquisition of the
product in September 2012. The allegations in these cases
specifically directed to VPNA include failure to warn, design
defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent
misrepresentation, wrongful death, and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages including medical expenses,
pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort,
physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also
seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive
damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Case Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 intends to
defend itself vigorously in each of the remaining actions in
Canada that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of
summary judgment.

On or about October 3, 2016, the Company was served with a claim
in a proceeding filed before the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Williamson v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No: 179011), in
which the Company is named as a defendant, along with various
Johnson & Johnson entities. The plaintiff seeks to certify a
proposed class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and
Canada who have purchased or used Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower
to Shower, including their estates, executors and personal
representatives. The Company also acquired the rights to the
Shower to Shower product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in
September 2012.

The Company is also named as a defendant along with various
Johnson & Johnson entities in a similar application filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, on or about April 12, 2016, in which the
plaintiff is requesting leave to institute a proposed class action
on behalf of persons in QuÇbec who have used Johnson's Baby Powder
or Shower to Shower, as well as their family members, assigns and
heirs (Kramar v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 500-06-
000787-164).

The plaintiff in the British Columbia action alleges the use of
the products increases certain health risks. The plaintiff in the
Quebec action is alleging negligence in failing to properly test,
failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the
products from the market in a timely manner. The plaintiffs in
these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory
and punitive damages. The likelihood of the authorization or
certification of these claims as class actions cannot be assessed
at this time.

In addition, twelve cases have been filed alleging use of Shower
to Shower and other products resulted in the plaintiffs developing
mesothelioma.

Four were filed in California Superior Courts (Herford v. Johnson
& Johnson, et al., Case No. BC46315, filed on January 10, 2017;
Dominguez v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. BC50123, filed on
February 9, 2017; Koretoff v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
BC6566506, filed on April 4, 2017; Weirick v. Johnson & Johnson,
et al., Case No. BC656425, filed on April 4, 2017).

The Herford and Weirick cases have been voluntarily dismissed, and
discovery in the remaining cases may also lead to dismissal if all
product use was prior to September 2012.

One case was filed in Superior Court of Delaware (Wheeler v.
Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. N16C-12-285, filed on December
22, 2016). Six cases have been filed in New Jersey Superior Courts
(Alderdice v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. MID-L-0546-17,
filed on January 20, 2017; Kelley-Stramer v. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., Case No. MID-L-00196-17, filed on January 11, 2017; Macy v.
Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-0623-17AS, filed on
January 31, 2017; Verdolotti v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No.
MID-L-05973-16, filed on October 14, 2016; Ladue v. Johnson &
Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-827?17AS, filed on February 10,
2017; Arend v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-1730-17AS,
filed on March 6, 2017; Beren v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case
No. MID-L-2422-17AS, filed on April 25, 2017).

Plaintiff did not oppose summary judgment in the Verdolotti case.

One case was filed in the District Court of Louisiana (Parish of
Calcasieu) (Citizen v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
2014-2920, originally filed on July 23, 2014, VPNA added via
amendment on April 13, 2017).

The allegations in these cases generally include design defect,
manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive
damages, and in some cases breach of express and implied
warranties, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for loss of services,
economic loss, pain and suffering, and, in some cases, lost wages
or earning capacity and loss of consortium, in addition to
punitive damages, interest, litigation costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in each of the
remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to
a grant of summary judgment.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational,
specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products
and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses,
ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are
marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Afexa Case Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 hearing
related to the Afexa Class Action has been scheduled for September
19, 2017.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The
proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On
December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.

In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its
claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed
certain amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify
the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on November 16, 2016,
the Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiff's application
for certification of this action as a class proceeding.

On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to
dismiss the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its
appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and filed its appeal factum on
April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for
September 19, 2017.

The Company denies the allegations being made and is continuing to
vigorously defend this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sprout Litigation in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 Sprout Litigation
is now in discovery as to the remaining claims.

On or about November 2, 2016, the Company and Valeant were named
as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the shareholder representative
of the former shareholders of Sprout in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 12868). The plaintiff in this
action is alleging, among other things, breach of contract with
respect to certain terms of the merger agreement relating to the
Sprout Acquisition, including a disputed contractual term
respecting the use of certain diligent efforts to develop and
commercialize the Addyi(R) product (including a disputed
contractual term respecting the spend of no less than $200 million
in certain expenditures). The plaintiff in this action is seeking
unspecified compensatory and other damages and attorneys' fees, as
well as an order requiring Valeant to perform its obligations
under the merger agreement.

On December 27, 2016, the Company and Valeant filed (i) an answer
directed to the claim for breach of contract and (ii) a partial
motion to dismiss the other claims.

The Court held a hearing on the partial motion to dismiss on March
10, 2017, and the Court subsequently granted that motion in part,
dismissing plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation and
declaratory judgment claims in their entirety and narrowing
plaintiff's implied covenant claim.

The action is now in discovery as to the remaining claims. The
Company is vigorously defending this matter.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that further proceedings in
the case, Sanford Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC and Walter
Investment Management Corporation, in the U.S. District Court are
stayed pending a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court.

In Sanford Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC and Walter
Investment Management Corporation, filed on August 18, 2015 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech Financial
(the Parent Company has since been dismissed) is subject to a
putative class action suit alleging that Ditech Financial, within
the three years prior to the filing of the complaint, improperly
recorded phone calls received from, and/or made to, persons in
Nevada at the time of the call, and did so without their prior
consent in violation of Nevada state law. The plaintiff in this
suit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks
punitive damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees. Ditech
Financial moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court determined
that the relevant issue is a question of Nevada law to be decided
by the Nevada Supreme Court. Accordingly, further proceedings in
the U.S. District Court are stayed pending a decision by the
Nevada Supreme Court.

Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the
Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage
loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Lee Case Remains Pending in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management 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 case, Kamimura,
Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, remains pending.

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech
Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action suit
alleging FCRA violations by obtaining credit bureau information
without a permissible purpose after the discharge of debt owed to
Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

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

Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the
Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage
loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Bonomi and Petrovets Actions Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management 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 Bonomi action and
the Petrovets action have been dismissed.

Three federal securities fraud complaints have been filed against
the Company. Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment
Management Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-20997 was filed in the
Southern District of Florida on March 16, 2017, Emil Bonomi, et
al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corporation, et al., Case No
8:17-cv-00645 was filed in the Middle District of Florida on March
17, 2017, and Joseph Petrovets, et al. vs. Walter Investment
Management Corp., et al., Case No 8:17-cv-00695 was filed in the
Middle District of Florida on March 24, 2017.

All three complaints name the Company, George M. Awad, Denmar J.
Dixon, and Gary L. Tillett as defendants, and the Elkin and
Petrovets complaints also name Anthony N. Renzi as a defendant.
All three complaints seek monetary damages and assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints allege (i) that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions about our internal
controls over financial reporting related to Ditech Financial,
(ii) that these statements artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock, and (iii) that when the Company disclosed
that it discovered a material weakness in its internal controls on
March 14, 2017, the Company's stockholders suffered losses because
the price of the Company's common stock dropped by approximately
38% or $1.30 per share. The Petrovets complaint also alleges that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning RMS's alleged violation of the False Claims
Act.

On May 2, 2017, the Court in the Elkin action transferred that
action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the plaintiffs
in the Bonomi and Petrovets actions agreed to dismiss their
actions without prejudice and coordinate the pursuit of their
claims with the claims in the Elkin action in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The Bonomi action was dismissed on May 4, 2017,
and the Petrovets action was dismissed on May 9, 2017.

Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the
Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage
loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans.


WATTS WATER: Settlements of Connector Class Actions Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 2, 2017, that the Court has entered Final
Orders and Judgments approving the settlements of the Connector
Class Actions.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.

On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v.
Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo").

Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo
case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an
unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which motion is still pending.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a
partial motion to dismiss the complaint.

In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to
correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an
unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on
December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on
February 2, 2016.  No formal discovery was conducted.

The Company participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and
Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016.

On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The proposed total settlement
amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay
approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9
million.

The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April
2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were
submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal
Court.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlements. After a fairness hearing held on April
12, 2017, the Court entered Final Orders and Judgments approving
the settlements on April 13, 2017. There were no objections to the
settlements. Absent an appeal, the settlements were to become
final on May 15, 2017.

Until the settlements become final, there can be no assurance that
they will be final in their current form. If the settlements do
not become final, the Company intends to continue to vigorously
contest the allegations in these cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a
liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of
which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2
million in other noncurrent liabilities. The liability was reduced
by $0.8 million for notice and claims administrator payments made
during the first quarter of 2017 and as of April 2, 2017, the
remaining liability is $13.2 million.

In addition, a $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current
assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred
as of December 31, 2015. In the first quarter of 2017, the Company
recorded $0.4 million in current assets related to insurance
proceeds due, based on the costs incurred through April 2, 2017.
This brings the total receivable for insurance proceeds due to the
maximum amount to be covered by insurance related to this
settlement of $9.9 million. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge
of $3.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the
settlement after adjusting the existing product liability accrual.

Additional information on the cases is available at:

               http://www.connectorsettlements.com/

Watts Water Technologies is a supplier of products and solutions
that conserve water and manage the flow of fluids and energy into,
through and out of buildings in the residential and commercial
markets of the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific, Middle East and
Africa ("APMEA").


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the appeal related to
the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.,
remains pending.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On
February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York. On March 18,
2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as
a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and
app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached
its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2)
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section
350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The
plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the
Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016.

The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on November 14,
2016. On November 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a timely notice of
appeal of the Court's decision and on January 31, 2017, the
plaintiff filed its brief in support of appeal.

The Company filed its opposition brief on April 5, 2017, and the
plaintiff filed his reply brief on April 25, 2017. The Company
believes that the plaintiff's appeal is without merit and will be
denied in due course


WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Katz" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. West Corporation, Thomas B. Barker, Lee Adrean, Donald
M. Casey, Anthony J. Dinovi, Paul R. Garcia, Laura Grattan,
Jeanette Horan, Michael A. Huber, Diane E. Offereins, and Gregory
T. Sloma, Case No. 4:17-cv-03084 (D. Neb., June 29, 2017), stems
from a proposed transaction announced on May 9, 2017, pursuant to
which 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.

West Corporation is a technology-driven communication services
provider headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. West offers it
services, including conferencing and collaboration, unified
communications, alerts and notifications, emergency
communications, business process outsourcing and
telephony/interconnect services, around the globe. [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 -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com


WOLVERINE STATE: Retiree Wants High Court to Revive Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that a retired Michigan
teacher is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his proposed
class action against the Wolverine State for retroactively
revoking state and local tax exemptions on state pensions without
providing "comparable alternative financial benefits."

Thomas R. Okrie asked the high court June 28 to take on his
challenge to a Court of Appeals of Michigan decision that nixed
his lawsuit over a change to state law that kicked in on Jan. 1,
2012.  That change, Mr. Okrie said, ended exemptions to state and
local taxes for teachers' and state employees' "defined-benefit
pensions" in contravention of high court retroactivity principles
as well as the "principles underlying the rule of law."

Former employees born after 1945 who made "irrevocable" decisions
to retire before the change went into effect are entitled to
compensation or a return of the tax exempt status for their state
pensions, Mr. Okrie said, arguing that retroactive legislation is
generally frowned on in the law and pointing specifically to
retroactivity principles laid out in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994
decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products.

"Specifically, statutes may not be applied retroactively if they
abrogate or impair vested rights," Mr. Okrie said, arguing that in
Landgraf, the high court held that basic fairness means
individuals should have a chance to know what the law is and base
their conduct on that knowledge, holding that "settled
expectations should not be lightly disrupted."

According to the petition, Michigan's own attorney general in 1991
issued a formal opinion holding that the state legislature could
only "limit or repeal" public pension tax exemptions, for
employees who had already retired if it also provided "alternative
benefits in their place that are equal to or greater" than the
pension benefits that would be taken away.

The AG's opinion, Mr. Okrie said, came on the heels of a 1989 high
court decision in Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury in
which the justices said that the state couldn't grant the tax
exemptions only to retired state workers and not retired federal
employees living in Michigan.  A state appeals court subsequently
agreed with the Michigan government's position, Mr. Okrie said,
that it was better to further extend the tax break to federal
workers rather than lose the incentive used to "hire and retain
qualified civil servants."

The tax break was supposed to be considered "deferred
compensation" for the years retirees spent working for the state,
Mr. Okrie said, only for the legislature in 2011 to revoke the
benefit he and others had relied on in their financial retirement
planning.  In doing so, Mr. Okrie contends the law change violates
the Landgraf principles that include a statement of "clear
legislative intent" for the change to apply retroactively.

"Specifically, the language of 2011 P.A. 38 falls far short of
demonstrating a clear intent by the Michigan legislature favoring
the retroactive elimination of tax exemptions for the defined-
benefit pensions of Mr. Okrie, et al.," he said, "without the
payment of comparable financial benefits that were equal to, or
greater than the deferred compensation that they earned for their
years of governmental service in form of tax-exempt pensions, as
stated in the formal opinion issued by the state Attorney General
in 1991."

Mr. Okrie further argued that he and his fellow retirees were
never told that their pensions could be made taxable, even though
they should have been told about the legal options.  The
retroactive decision also violates the Federal Contracts Clause of
the Constitution, he said, only for the Michigan appeals court to
"ignore" the high court's 1938 holding in Indian ex. Rel. Anderson
v. Brand.

The law change -- which Mr. Okrie said should apply only to future
retirees -- was a "substantial contractual impairment" that he
said lacked a "reasonable" approach to serving "an important
public purpose."  Mr. Okrie argued the legislature "specifically
targeted, in age-discriminatory fashion," those retirees born
after 1945.

The retroactive change also violates the Constitution's takings
clause without proper compensation, according to the petition,
along with the "elementary considerations of fairness" under the
Constitution's due process requirements.

Representatives for Mr. Okrie and the Michigan Attorney General's
Office did not immediately respond on July 10 to press inquiries.

Mr. Okrie is represented by Gary P. Supanich.

Counsel information for the state was not available on July 10.

The case is Thomas R. Okrie v. Michigan et al., case number 17-34
before the U.S. Supreme Court. [GN]


WV AMERICAN: Judge Nixes Elk River Chemical Spill Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
federal judge has nixed a proposed class action settlement
regarding the 2014 Elk River chemical spill.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. on July 6 issued an order
denying the proposal.  He denied it without prejudice, meaning the
parties can refile a revised agreement.

Judge Copenhaver wrote that he has concerns about the tiered
payment plan for different businesses as well as the way appeals
filed by spill victims would be handled and the timeliness of the
payments to the victims.  He also said he has questions about the
awarding of attorney fees to lawyers handling the case.

"The court declines to approve the proposed settlement until the
parties submit an agreement and preliminary approval motion
meeting the foregoing conditions," Judge Copenhaver wrote in the
93-page order.

The $151 million settlement proposal denied by Judge Copenhaver
would have provided an estimated $525 to each household affected
by the 2014 chemical spill that contaminated the water supply for
residents in nine counties.

Terms of the proposed settlement were revealed in April.  West
Virginia American Water has agreed to pay $126 million, and
Eastman Chemical has agreed to pay $25 million.

Customers of West Virginia American Water Company would have to
file claim forms to get their piece of the settlement.  Additional
monies would be provided for each additional person in a
household, and claimants can provide receipts for items such as
bottled water and replacement hot water heaters for additional
funds.  Pregnant women and people who can provide proof of medical
expenses related to the incident also would be entitled to
additional money.  The same goes for people who lost wages because
their employers were forced to close because of the spill.

Businesses, government agencies and non-profit groups would
receive between $6,250 and $40,000, depending on different
variables, if they were forced to close.  Businesses that didn't
have to close can receive a payment of $1,850.

Exact amounts could change depending on the number of claims.

In October, parties in the case agreed to the terms of the deal
just before the trial was scheduled to begin.  The case stemmed
from an incident in January 2014 when a tank at Freedom Industries
in Charleston leaked crude MCHM into the adjacent Elk River.  The
site was just upstream from the water company's intake plant.
Nine counties and almost 225,000 residents were affected by the
incident.  Eastman is the company that manufactured the MCHM and
didn't warn Freedom of all of the dangers of the chemical used to
wash coal.

If approved by the court, the firm of Smith, Cochran & Hicks will
serve as settlement administrator.

Attorneys would get 30 percent of the total payments made up to
the first $100 million of the settlement.  After that, they would
get 25 percent of the amount paid up to the remaining $51 million.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin W. Thompson and David R.
Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com -- of
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC; and Stuart Calwell, Alex
McLaughlin and D. Christopher Hedges of The Calwell Practice LC.

Eleven law firms had asked for payment. Court documents show the
amount of time worked and money sought for by dozens of attorneys,
paralegals and other staff members.

The firms listed as "class counsel" are Bonnett Fairbourne
Friendman & Balint, The Calwell Practice and Thompson Barney.
Other firms that represented plaintiffs in state court litigation
are Powell & Majestro, Bailey & Glasser, The Masters Law Firm,
Smith Stag, Underwood Law Office, Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, The
Law Office of P. Rodney Jackson and Ciccarello, De Giudice &
LaFon.

The filing also asks Copenhaver to approve "incentive awards" of
$15,000 for 11 people and businesses that served as class
representatives in federal court.

For more information, people can visit the settlement website at
www.wvwaterclaims.com or by calling 855-829-8121.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:14-cv-01374


XOMA CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XOMA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the case,
Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al., remains pending.

On June 9, 2017, a Supplemental Brief regarding the Order in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed by Joseph Tarzia.  In addition, a Supplemental
Brief regarding the Order in Support of Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was filed by Kelvin M. Neu, Paul D. Rubin, John Varian,
XOMA.

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al.
(Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that
all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5,
by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21,
2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8,
2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a
defendant.

On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to
the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016.

Defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2016. The judge in the
case has advised that he will rule on the motion based on those
pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling.

Based on a review of allegations, the Company believes that the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does
not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an
unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations for the period in which such a loss is
recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

XOMA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has a long history of
discovering and developing innovative therapeutics derived from
its unique platform of antibody technologies.


YUM! BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Wage and Hour Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, 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 parties in the case, In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions, engaged in settlement negotiations and have
agreed in principle to dismiss the appeals and settle the matter.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also
sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code
under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well
as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to
represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three
of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to
the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list
of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class
certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially
granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal
period class but certifying a limited rest break class and
certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the
plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications.
On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco
Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim,
the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium
class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the
limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench
trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims
and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 claim.

On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco
Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec. 17200 claim. In a separate
ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs
were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco
Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim
and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs
also filed various post-trial motions.

On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell's motion to overturn
the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs' motions: (1) for a new
trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury
instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the
court's rejection of the Sec. 17200 claims for meal and rest break
violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for
additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named
Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on
the Sec. 17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium claim,
but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that the
jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, but awarded only
approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The
court also granted Plaintiffs' bill of costs, but only awarded
approximately $0.1 million of Plaintiffs' $0.2 million.
Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of
appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and
have agreed in principle to dismiss the appeals and settle the
matter. The parties are drafting a final written settlement
agreement and, in the event the appeals are dismissed, the parties
will then move the District Court to amend the judgment to include
a list of class members and a method for division of the verdict.

The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the anticipated
associated cash payments are not expected to be material.

Yum! Brands, Inc. operates or franchises a worldwide system of
more than 43,500 restaurants in 136 countries and territories,
primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.
These three concepts are the global leaders in the chicken, pizza
and Mexican-style food categories, respectively. Of the more than
43,500 restaurants, 6% are operated by the Company and
unconsolidated affiliates and 94% are operated by franchisees.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motion Pending in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2017, that there is one discovery motion
pending in a class action lawsuit that could, if granted, reopen
fact discovery.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ("Symbol").
A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring.

After the filing of the Waring action, several additional
purported class actions were filed against Symbol and the same
former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the
New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April
26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel
on behalf of the putative class.

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

The parties have substantially completed fact and expert
discovery. However, there is one (1) discovery motion pending that
could, if granted, reopen fact discovery.

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

Zebra Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
("Zebra" or the "Company") designs, manufactures, sells, and
supports a broad range of direct thermal and thermal transfer
label printers, radio frequency identification printer/encoders,
dye sublimation card printers, real-time locating solutions,
related accessories, and support software. These products are used
principally in automatic identification (auto ID), data collection
and personal identification applications and are distributed
world-wide through a network of resellers, distributors, and end-
users representing a wide cross-section of industrial, service,
and government organizations.


* CFPB Adopts Rule Prohibiting Class Action Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Amie Tsang, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the United States has
opened the door to more class-action lawsuits against lenders --
and in so doing, set itself up for a fight with Republicans.

The agency has adopted a rule prohibiting financial firms from
forcing consumers into arbitration in disputes over bank and
credit card accounts.

The new rule, which could take effect next year, would allow
individuals to band together in class-action lawsuits that could
cost banks and other financial firms billions of dollars.

But it is the sort of move that will probably anger the Trump
administration and House Republicans.  Both have pushed to rein in
the bureau as part of broader efforts to lighten regulation on the
financial industry.  Critics also say the rule would be nothing
more than a gift to class-action lawyers.

But it may be tricky politically for Republicans to kill a rule
that has wide populist appeal.  Across the country, judges,
prosecutors and regulators have criticized arbitration clauses for
allowing corporations to circumvent the courts and for taking away
tools to fight abusive business practices.

The Labor Department's June 7, 2017 withdrawal of that informal
guidance is an encouraging sign that the new administration
intends to follow a modified approach on worker classification.
But the regulatory standards for "employee" still remain far from
clear or uniform.

In reaction to the Supreme Court's invention of an economic-
realities test for determining who is an "employee" under federal
labor laws, Congress amended two New-Deal statutes, the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Social Security Act, to
reinstate the common-law agency test for classifying workers.  The
Obama-era NLRB, motivated by DOL's successful crusade against
independent contracting, essentially ignored the NLRA's more
restrictive standard of employment when targeting employers.  On
numerous occasions (see, e.g., a WLF Legal Opinion Letter on Crew
One Productions v. NLRB and a WLF blog post on FedEx Home Delivery
v. NLRB), federal courts shut down NLRB enforcement actions for
exceeding statutory authority.

Congress did not, however, amend the third major New Deal labor
law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which defines "employee" as
"any individual employed by an employer."  That circular
definition opened the door to broad judicial interpretation, which
in turn allowed DOL to utilize an extreme version of the Supreme
Court's economic-realities test.

Congressional action on the FLSA would complete the harmonization
of how agencies categorize workers under the major federal labor
laws that Congress started over 70 years ago.  It would require
DOL to utilize the common-law agency test when enforcing the FLSA,
while also forestalling future labor regulators' attempts to
reinstate broader standards for defining "employee."

In addition to explicitly adopting the common-law test, an FLSA
amendment would have to include a provision that preempts all
substantially similar state, city, and county laws that address
worker categorization.  Absent federal preemption, some state and
local regulators will continue to foment uncertainty over who is
an "employee," and plaintiffs' lawyers will keep doing the same
through class-action litigation.

All stakeholders involved in the regulation of worker
categorization would benefit from a harmonized test based on the
common law.  Government regulators would finally all be on the
same page when determining labor laws' applicability.  Employers
would gain desperately needed legal predictability, reducing their
compliance costs and altering the risk-benefit calculus they
undertake when considering independent contractors.  And most
importantly, clear legal standards would encourage more businesses
to hire independent contractors, and inspire the creation of new
gig-economy companies organized around the independent-contractor
model. [GN]


* Issue Over Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenda L. Rosales, Esq. -- rosalesb@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that employers in
the gaming and hospitality arena are eagerly awaiting the results
of the upcoming changes to the legal landscape that are expected
to emerge from a business-oriented administration.  These
employers have long tried to reduce the costs and length of
litigation, particularly in the context of wage and hour claims,
by requiring employees to arbitrate work-related disputes on a
bilateral, rather than collective or class-wide, basis.

The Trump administration has already begun to change course
regarding the legality of class action waivers, which is affecting
employers in dozens of cases.  In a rather expected move, the
Department of Justice now says it no longer believes that class
action waivers in arbitration agreements infringe upon workers'
Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On June 16, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with
the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., which oral
arguments on this issue are scheduled for October.  The DOJ's
brief argues that, "Nothing in the NLRA's legislative history
indicates that Congress intended to bar enforcement of arbitration
agreements like those at issue here . . .  And while the National
Labor Relations Board's ("NLRB" or "Board") reading of ambiguous
NLRA language is entitled to judicial deference, the Board's
analysis of the interplay between the NLRA and the FAA is not."
The DOJ acknowledges that it previously filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari on behalf of the NLRB, but that after the
change in administration, it reconsidered the issue and has
reached the opposite conclusion.

The saga started in January 2012 with the controversial ruling in
D.R. Horton, Inc., in which the Board ruled that agreements
between an employer and its individual employees interfere with
the employees' right to engage in concerted activities if the
agreements require arbitration of work-related disputes on a
bilateral rather than collective or class wide basis.  This issue
has created a split among the circuit courts.  On review, the
Fifth Circuit rejected the Board's D.R. Horton analysis and held
that enforcement of the challenged arbitration agreement would not
deny a party any statutory right because the use of class action
procedures is not a substantive right under the NLRA. The Seventh
and Ninth Circuits have disagreed.  In Epic Systems Corporations
v. Jacob Lewis, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's
ruling that an arbitration agreement requiring employees to waive
the right to participate in a class proceeding was invalid and
unenforceable under the NLRA.  In a similar case, the Ninth
Circuit reversed a district court's order granting an employer's
motion to compel bilateral arbitration.  The Ninth Circuit held
that the NLRA gives employees a "right to pursue work-related
legal claims together" and that the employer had violated that
right by requiring employees to resolve their legal claims in
separate arbitration proceedings.  Most recently, the NLRB's
General Counsel reaffirmed the Board's prior decision in D.R.
Horton, Inc., notwithstanding the Fifth Circuit's ruling rejecting
that decision, by issuing a complaint against Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
for requiring its employees to waive their rights to commence or
participate in a class action.

In October, the Supreme Court will address this split among the
circuits and hear Murphy Oil, Epic Systems, and the Ninth Circuit
case.  Notably, on June 16, the NLRB announced that the Acting
Solicitor General of the United States has authorized the NLRB to
represent itself at the hearing.  The General Counsel's office,
headed up by Richard F. Griffin, Jr. until his term ends in
November, will represent the Board.   It is unclear whether the
DOJ will face off with the General Counsel, given its new take on
this issue.

It is currently unclear how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide
this issue in October, or what effect the Department of Justice's
new position will have on its ultimate ruling.  Either way, it is
likely that employers will soon have new guidance on whether class
waivers in arbitration agreements infringe upon workers' Section 7
rights.  Shortly after the hearing, President Trump is expected to
nominate a new General Counsel whose views will certainly align
with the business-friendly Trump administration. While we wait for
the Supreme Court's ruling and at least until Griffin's term ends,
employers should continue to consult counsel when considering
including class waivers in their arbitration agreements. [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  * * *