CAR_Public/170726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, July 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 146



                            Headlines

ABCDE OPERATING: "Fawaz" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
ABM INDUSTRIES: $110-Mil. "Augustus" Suit Accord Gets Court Nod
ADMA BIOLOGICS: "English" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
AKORN INC: Merger Class Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin by End of 2017 or Early 2018

ALIBABA GROUP: Appeal on Federal Securities Suit Still Pending
ALIBABA GROUP: Calif. Consolidated Lawsuit in Discovery Stage
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Grier" Seeks Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
AMERICAN CONTRACT: "Marcus" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
AMERICAN HONDA: "Martinez" Claims Warranty on Defective Starter

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action in Early Stage
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Defending New York Class Action
ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops "Clevlen" Suit
ATWOOD OCEANICS: "Composto" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Class Lawsuits at Very Early Stage

BANDAS LAW: Edelson Case May Not Halt Settlement Objectors
BANKRATE INC: $13.8M of Settlement Funded from Insurance Proceeds
BEDFORD NISSAN: "Lindenbaum" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
BEHR PROCESS: "Elger" Sues Over Prematurely Flaking Paint
BELL CANADA: Class Action Over Fee Increases Can Proceed

BIOAMBER INC: New York Securities Suit Underway
BROCHE'S CATERING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Moraga" Labor Suit
CENTURYLINK: State of Minnesota Files Consumer Fraud Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: "Hanifen" Hits Credit Report, Fraudulent Charges
CENTURYLINK INC: "Lawhead" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges

CHINA XD: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Suit
C&J ENERGY: No Hearing Scheduled on Fee Motion
CANADA: Thalidomide Victims Lose Ottawa Class Action Bid
CARDCONNECT CORP: TS Kao Class Suit in Early Stage
CENTURYLINK INC: "Chavez" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court Stays False Advertising Class Action
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Appeals Ruling in "Strautch" Suit to 2nd Cir.
CONWAY COUNTY, AR: Judge Okays Police, Firefighters Class Notice
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Guterman" Sues Over Fraudulent Sales Discounts
CORAL TELL: Class Suit in Israel Still Ongoing

CORIZON HEALTH: Sued for Allegedly Cheating Nurses' OT Wages
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Assessing Shaya Edelman's Claim
DELTA AIR: Appeal on Dropped Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Over Merger
DOREL JUVENILE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Car Seat Class Action

DRAFTKINGS: Boston Court Set to Hear Class Action
EGALET CORPORATION: Pennsylvania Class Actions Consolidated
ELDORADO RESORTS: Opposes Application for Attorneys' Fees
EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: Court Certifies Three Classes in "Hill" Suit
ERIN ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

ESSA BANCORP: Defending Class Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Class Action
FELCOR LODGING: "Assad" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
FINISAR CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
FITNESS CONNECTION: Arceneaux Seeks to Certify Class of Managers

FTD COMPANIES: Oral Argument on Appeal Not Yet Set
FUSION LOGISTICS: Overtime Pay Sought in "Geffrard" Labor Suit
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Gale Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware Underway
GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Class of Aides Certified in "Smith" Suit

GENIE ENERGY: Ferrare Parties Finalizing Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: McLaughlin Parties Finalizing Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: Aks Parties Finalizing Class Action Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: Estimates Settlement Payments of 3 Suits at $9-Mil
GIGAMON INC: Aug. 3 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff

GREGORY KISTLER: Care Workers Class Certified in "White" Suit
H&R BLOCK: Parties Resolve "Lopez" Compliance Fee Class Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Parties Resolve "Perras" Lawsuit on Compliance Fees
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, NJ: School Board Settles Class Action
HD SUPPLY: September 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Panza" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Batteries
IDT CORP: Class Action by Straight Path Shareholders Underway
IGNACIO NOEMI: "De La Luz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: McVicar & Ritter Dropped from "Whitehead"

INTREXON CORPORATION: Court Entered Final Judgment in Class Suit
ITERIS INC: Sept 8 Hearing Set for "Ionni" Class Suit Settlement
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Defending Against Shareholder Class Actions
KEY CLUB III: "Garcia-Ponce" Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
LA BOTA RANCH: Homeowners File Class Action Against Board Members

LEXINGTON LAW: "Hodges" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Still Defends Class Action
MERRIMACK PHARMACEUTICALS: Garfield Action Dismissed
MIDLAND STATES BANCORP: Defending Against "Rader" Class Suit
MOCON INC: "Ellebracht" Suit Dismissed

MYLAN N.V.: Settlement with Modafinil Direct Buyers Pending
MYLAN N.V.: Pioglitazone Direct Purchasers Filed Amended Suit
MYLAN N.V.: Federal Securities Litigation Underway
MYLAN N.V.: Israeli Securities Litigation Remains Pending
MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Civil Litigation Ongoing in NJ

MYLAN N.V.: 22 Class Suits over Doxycycline and Digoxin Pending
MYLAN N.V.: 12 Class Suits over Pravastatin Filed
MYLAN N.V.: 8 Class Suits over Divalproex Filed
MYLAN N.V.: 10 Class Suits over Levothyroxine Filed
MYLAN N.V.: 10 Class Suits over Propranolol Filed

MYLAN N.V.: 8 Class Suits over Clomipramine Filed
MYLAN N.V.: 4 Class Suits over Albuterol Filed
MYLAN N.V.: Class Suit over Benazepril HCTZ Filed
MYLAN N.V.: 4 Class Suits over Amitriptyline Pending
MYLAN N.V.: RICO Suit over Doxycycline Filed

NALCOR: Faces Class Action Over Mud Lake Flooding
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Class Suit Underway
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Class Suit Underway
NATERA INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Appeal
NEUSTAR INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dropped Suit Without Payment

NEW YORK: OOID Class Action Participants Set to Get Refunds
NOODLES & COMPANY: Selco Litigation Underway
NORTH SHORE BAKING: "Martinez-Matias" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
NOVARTIS PHARMA: "Young" Claims Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Sept. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

ORLEANS PARISH: "Caliste" Sues Over Conflict of Interest
PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
PANERA BREAD: Files Supplementary Disclosures on Merger Accord
PEREGRINE PHARMA: July 27 Hearing Set for "Michaeli" Suit Accord
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Accrued $2.3 Million for Wilder Settlement

PERFORMANCE FOOD: Funded $1.4 Million Laumea Case Settlement
PETSMART INC: "Lepine" Suit Seeks OT Pay for Missed Meal Breaks
PHYSICIAN TECH: "Carey" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PIXARBIO CORP: Securities Suits in Massachusetts & NJ Underway
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Parties Working to Finalize Deal

PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Settlement Awaits Maryland Court Approval
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 2018
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Mediation Set for August 31
RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Discovery Underway in "Levin" Suit

RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Roberson Moves for Conditional Certification
REX ENERGY: Still Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Files More Merger Info to Address Class Suits
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Suit by West and Hopson Pending
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Pending

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Still Defends MSLO Stockholder Complaint
SITO MOBILE: Red Oak Funds Filed Amended Complaint
SP PLUS: Collier Appeals From N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
SQM GROUP: "Eisenband" Sues Over Survey Calls from Call Center
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz & Rosen Named Co-Lead Counsel

SUNRUN INC: "Greenberg" Class Action Dismissed
SUNRUN INC: Aug. 10 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action
TARGET CORP: "Fellman" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
TELEPAY USA: "Cannon" Action Seeks Minimum Wages

TEMPUR SEALY: Court Sought Briefs on Order Denying Class Cert.
TEMPUR SEALY: "Buehring" Class Suit in Early Stages
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Still Faces Multidistrict Securities Lawsuit
TESLA INC: Appeal in Class Action Suit Underway
TESLA INC: Stockholder Class Action Suit Pending

TESLA INC: Defending Against Suit over SolarCity Acquisition
TILLY'S INC: Reaches Settlement in Principle in "Minniti" Suit
TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Case Pending
TIME INC: "Perlin" Complaint Underway in Michigan
TRAVELEX AMERICA: "Jahedmanesh" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

TRUECAR INC: NY Lanham Act Litigation in Discovery Phase
TRUECAR INC: Discovery Underway in "Rose" Suit
TWILIO INC: Discovery Underway in Class Action Lawsuit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Granted Conditional Certification
UBS AG: Settles Class Action Over Swaps-Rate Manipulation

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Kotlyar" TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owners Suffer Poor Performance After Fix
VTECH: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
VWR CORP: Bushansky Files Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action in California

WELLS FARGO: "Jabbari" Suit Accord Wins Preliminary Court OK
WELLS FARGO: January 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
WELLS FARGO: "Hastings" Disputes Credit Collection Calls
XACTLY CORP: "Berg" Suit Says Merger Lacks Info for Stockholders
XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends "Rezko" Lawsuit in California

XENCOR INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement
YELP INC: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Ongoing
YELP INC: Says Settlement Amounts Have Been Paid

* Attorney Lauds CFPB's Move to Allow Class Actions v. Banks
* Class Action Threat Leads to Rising Data Breach Costs
* CFPB Issues Final Rule to Ban Class Action Waivers
* CFPB's New Rules May Cost Financial Firms Billions of Dollars
* Consumer Bankers Association CEO to Fight CFPB Arbitration Rule

* Democrats, Consumer Advocates May Challenge CFPB's New Rules
* Financial Industry Disappointed with CFPB's Arbitration Rule
* Senator Tom Cotton to Challenge CFPB's Class-Action Rule
* Tony Merchant Launches Class Actions Against PPI Manufacturers




                            *********


ABCDE OPERATING: "Fawaz" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fawaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ABCDE Operating, L.L.C., (d/b/a The Penthouse Club)
and Alan Markovitz, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12068 (E.D.
Mich., June 26, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation,
unpaid overtime compensation for all hours work in excess of 40
per week at the applicable overtime rate, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses of the action and
such other and further relief as the court deems just and
equitable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

ABCDE Operating, L.L.C. owns and operates an adult cabaret in
Detroit, Michigan where Fawaz worked as a bouncer/security guard
from 2008 to February 15, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
     David A. Hardesty, Esq.
     GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
     2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
     Troy, MI 48084
     Tel: (248) 275-5200
     Email: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
            dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: $110-Mil. "Augustus" Suit Accord Gets Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated the Company's Form 8-K filed on July
7, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
July 6, 2017, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
granted final approval of the Class Action Settlement and Release
Agreement with Plaintiffs Jennifer Augustus, Delores Hall, Emanuel
Davis, and Carlton Anthony Waite, on behalf of themselves and the
settlement class members in connection with the Consolidated Cases
of Augustus, Hall, and Davis, et al. v. American Commercial
Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the settlement of the
Augustus case on a class-wide basis for US$110.0 million.  In
addition to the US$110.0 million, the Company will also pay an
estimated additional US$6.3 million related to payroll taxes.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company
will fund the first payment of US$55.0 million of the settlement
by July 20, 2017 and fund the remaining US$55.0 million and the
payroll tax amount by September 1, 2017.

The Company said, "We expect to fund the payments from operating
cash flows and from our available line of credit."

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ADMA BIOLOGICS: "English" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
A Notice of of Voluntary Dismissal was entered by the Plaintiff on
May 10 in the case, ENGLISH v. ADMA BIOLOGICS, INC. et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-03128 (D. N.J.).

According to supplemental disclosures filed by ADMA Biologics with
the Securities and Exchange Commission -- Proxy Supplement -- to
the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy
Statement") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by the Company on April 26, 2017 to provide additional
information relating to the Master Purchase and Sale Agreement (as
amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to
time, the "Purchase Agreement") by and among the Company, the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ADMA BioManufacturing, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Buyer"), Biotest
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a Delaware corporation ( "Seller"),
and for certain limited purposes set forth in the Purchase
Agreement, Biotest AG, a company organized under the laws of
Germany and the ultimate parent company of Seller ("Biotest"), and
Biotest US Corporation, a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of
Biotest (together with Biotest, the "Biotest Guarantors"),
pursuant to which Buyer has agreed to acquire certain assets and
assume certain liabilities constituting the therapy business of
Seller (the "BPC Therapy Business Unit").

The Company said, "We refer to the foregoing transactions and the
other transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement
collectively in this proxy statement as the "Transaction"
including the issuance to Seller of, as part of the consideration
for the Transaction, an aggregate equity interest in ADMA equal to
fifty (50%), less one (1) share, of the issued and outstanding
ADMA capital stock (calculated as of immediately following the
closing of the Transaction and on a post-closing issuance basis)
(the "Biotest Equity Interest"), consisting of (x) 4,295,580
shares of ADMA common stock representing twenty-five percent (25%)
of the issued and outstanding common stock of ADMA and (y)
8,591,160 shares of ADMA non-voting common stock representing the
balance of the Biotest Equity Interest, which is convertible into
common stock of ADMA upon the occurrence of certain specified
events as further described in "The Charter Proposal" (the "Stock
Issuance" and, collectively with the Transaction, the "Transaction
Proposal")."

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC, the
Company received a filing for a putative class action lawsuit
relating to the Transaction in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of an alleged class of
the Company's public stockholders against the Company and the
members of the Company's Board of Directors pursuant to Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:  Johnathan
English v. ADMA Biologics, Inc., et al., Case 2:17-cv-03128-SDW-
LDW (D. N.J.) (the "Lawsuit").  The complaint in the Lawsuit
generally alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted certain
material information and seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin
the Transaction.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Lawsuit are
without merit.  However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company provided additional
disclosures.


AKORN INC: Merger Class Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. has voluntarily filed its supplements to the proxy
statement related to its planned merger with Fresenius Kabi AG,
among other entities, in an effort to avoid the risks that certain
class action complaints can cause to the merger. The additional
disclosures are found in the Company's Form 8-K filed on July 10,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a full-text
copy of which can be accessed at https://is.gd/P3VYER

On April 24, 2017, Akorn, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Fresenius Kabi AG, a German stock corporation,
Quercus Acquisition, Inc., a Louisiana corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") and, solely for purposes
of Article VIII thereof, Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, a German
partnership limited by shares ("Fresenius Parent").  Subject to
the terms and conditions of the merger agreement, Merger Sub will
be merged with and into Akorn, with Akorn surviving the merger as
a subsidiary of Fresenius Kabi.

Since the April 24, 2017 announcement of the merger agreement, six
putative class action complaints have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the
"Louisiana Court") against Akorn and its directors and, in the
case of certain of the complaints, Fresenius Kabi and Akorn's CEO.

The six complaints are captioned as follows:  Robert Berg v.
Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00350 (filed June 2, 2017),
Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00359
(filed June 7, 2017), Shaun A.  House v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-00367 (filed June 12, 2017), Sean Harris v. Akorn,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00373 (filed June 14, 2017), Robert
Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00389 (filed June
20, 2017) and Demetrios Pullos v. Akorn, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00395 (filed June 22, 2017) (collectively, the "Federal
Merger Litigation").

The plaintiffs in the Federal Merger Litigation (the "Federal
plaintiffs"), who purport to be Akorn stockholders, generally
allege that Akorn's definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2017 (the "proxy
statement") omitted certain material information in connection
with the merger.

The Federal plaintiffs seek various remedies, including, among
other things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
merger unless certain allegedly material information is disclosed,
an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 5, 2017, the Louisiana Court granted a motion by the
defendants to change the venue of the Federal Merger Litigation
from the Louisisana Court to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company said, "Akorn believes that the claims asserted in the
Federal Merger Litigation are without merit and no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable law.  However, in order to
avoid the risk of the Federal Merger Litigation delaying or
adversely affecting the merger and to minimize the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, Akorn has determined to voluntarily
supplement the proxy statement as described in this Current Report
on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.  To
the contrary, Akorn specifically denies all allegations in the
Federal Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is
required."

Separately, since the April 24, 2017 announcement of the merger
agreement, three putative class and derivative actions have been
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division against the directors of the
Company, Fresenius Kabi, Fresenius Parent and Merger Sub.

The three complaints are captioned as follows:  Robert J.
Shannon, Jr.  v. Fresenius Kabi AG, et al., Case No. 2017-CH-06322
(filed May 2, 2017), Daniel Ochoa v. John N. Kapoor, et al., Case
No. 2017-CH-06928 (filed May 16, 2017) and Felix Glaubach v.
Fresenius Kabi AG et al., Cash No. 2017-CH-08916 (filed June 27,
2017) (collectively, the "Illinois Merger Litigation").

The plaintiffs in the Illinois Merger Litigation (the "Illinois
plaintiffs"), who purport to be Akorn stockholders, generally
allege, among other things, that in pursuing the merger, the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its shareholders by, among other things, agreeing to
enter into the merger agreement for an allegedly unfair price and
as the result of an allegedly deficient process.  The Illinois
plaintiffs also allege that Fresenius Kabi, Fresenius Parent and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The Illinois plaintiffs seek,
among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement or, in the alternative, to recover monetary
damages.

The Company further stated, "Akorn does not expect the disclosure
in this Current Report on Form 8-K to materially affect the
proceedings in respect of the Illinois Merger Litigation, which
are likely to continue.  Akorn believes that the claims asserted
in the Illinois Merger Litigation are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.

"These supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to shareholders of Akorn in connection
with the merger or the timing of the special meeting of the
shareholders of Akorn scheduled for July 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.
local time, at 1925 West Field Court, Suite 300, Lake Forest,
Illinois 60045."

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets specialized generic and branded
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) drug products, and animal
health products in the United States and internationally.  The
company operates in two segments, Prescription Pharmaceuticals and
Consumer Health.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin by End of 2017 or Early 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.Com 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 the Company anticipates a trial in a
class action lawsuit will take place either at the end of 2017 or
beginning of 2018.

The Company said, "On December 30, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not
allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks
to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of our service
provider partners under principles of agency and vicarious
liability. The complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA,
injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney's fees."

"We answered the complaint on February 26, 2016. On May 5, 2017,
the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. Based on
the current schedule, we anticipate a trial will take place either
at the end of 2017 or beginning of 2018. Based on currently
available information, we determined a loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable at this time."

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. offers a comprehensive suite of cloud-
based solutions for the smart home and business, including
interactive security, video monitoring, intelligent automation and
energy management.


ALIBABA GROUP: Appeal on Federal Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissed federal consolidated
exchange act lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding Limited is
still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June 15, 2017, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.

In January 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in the first
of seven putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, Central District of California and Northern District of
California.  The operative complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who acquired the Company's American
Depositary Shares from October 21, 2014 through January 29, 2015,
inclusive.  The complaints assert claims under the United States
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In June 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of the actions in the Central District of
California to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the four actions before
that court.  In June 2015, the Panel ordered transfer of the
action pending in the Northern District of California to the
Southern District of New York.  The actions in the Southern
District of New York were consolidated under the master caption,
Christine Asia Co., Ltd. et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited
et al., No. 1:15-md-02631-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and related cases.

The Southern District of New York appointed a Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel on behalf of the putative class pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

In June 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which generally alleged that the registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and various other public statements contained
misrepresentations regarding the Company's business operations and
financial prospects, and failed to disclose, among other things,
regulatory scrutiny by the SAIC prior to the Company's initial
public offering.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Company should have
disclosed a 2014 SAIC anti-counterfeiting initiative in the e-
commerce market, a July 16, 2014 administrative guidance meeting
the Company had with the SAIC that was later the subject of a
self-described "white paper" issued and then withdrawn by the
SAIC, and the alleged impact of the sale of counterfeit goods on
the Company's financial results.

Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Company and Executive
Chairman Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then
Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Chief Financial
Officer Maggie Wei Wu for violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the United States Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In July 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.

In June 2016, the Southern District of New York issued an order
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
The order held that Plaintiffs failed to plead that Defendants
made actionable misstatements or omissions or that Defendants
acted with scienter.

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The matter is now
pending on appeal.  The appeal has been fully briefed and was
argued before the Second Circuit in May 2017.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates
as an online and mobile commerce company in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.  The Company operates in four
segments: Core Commerce, Cloud Computing, Digital Media and
Entertainment, and Innovation Initiatives and Others.  The Company
provides its solutions primarily for businesses.  Alibaba Group
Holding Limited has strategic collaborations with Driscoll's and
Thai Union/Chicken of the Sea to launch their food products to
China.  The Company was founded in 1999 and is based in Hangzhou,
the People's Republic of China.


ALIBABA GROUP: Calif. Consolidated Lawsuit in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a California state consolidated Securities
class action lawsuit filed against Alibaba Group Holding Limited,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on June 15, 2017, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.

In October 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in the first
of three securities class action lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Mateo County.  The three
actions were consolidated in October 2015, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on March 25, 2016.  A fourth named
plaintiff was added on February 14, 2017 with the filing of the
First Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The consolidated action is captioned Gary Buelow, et al. v.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., No. CIV-535692 (San Mateo
Sup. Ct.).  The consolidated action is brought on behalf of a
putative class of investors who purchased Alibaba American
Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the IPO.  The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the United
States Securities Act of 1933.

The consolidated complaint names the Company, Executive Chairman
Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief
Executive Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, Chief Financial Officer
Maggie Wei Wu, Director Masayoshi Son, General Counsel and
Secretary Timothy A. Steinert, and 34 separate underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering.  It alleges that the Company,
its senior officers who signed the registration statement, and the
underwriters made material misrepresentations in the Company's
initial offering materials similar to those alleged in the federal
consolidated complaint.

In May 2016, the Company filed a demurrer for failure to state a
claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction in response to the
consolidated complaint.  In December 2016, the Superior Court
sustained the demurrer as to Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 and
overruled the demurrer as to Section 11 with regard to the three
original plaintiffs.

In January 2017, the Company answered the consolidated complaint,
asserting a general denial as to all allegations and setting forth
affirmative defenses.

In September 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that the three original plaintiffs lack statutory
standing.

In February 2017, a First Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
that added a new plaintiff to the action.

In March 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to the First Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

Discovery in the action is ongoing.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates
as an online and mobile commerce company in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.  The Company operates in four
segments: Core Commerce, Cloud Computing, Digital Media and
Entertainment, and Innovation Initiatives and Others.  The Company
provides its solutions primarily for businesses.  Alibaba Group
Holding Limited has strategic collaborations with Driscoll's and
Thai Union/Chicken of the Sea to launch their food products to
China.  The Company was founded in 1999 and is based in Hangzhou,
the People's Republic of China.


ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Grier" Seeks Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Grier, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alliance Security, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01288 (E.D. Cal., June 23, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendant's failure to
pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, and failure to
authorize or permit required rest periods; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; and
reimbursement of business-related expenses.   The suit further
asserts unfair competition, and seeks injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant is engaged in the business of selling and installing
security systems and alarm systems where it employed Grier as a
technician to service and install them. Technicians utilize their
personal vehicles in traveling between properties and use their
personal cell phones as part of their day to day duties but
Defendant did not reimburse him for related expenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Tashroudian, Esq.
      TASHROUDIAN LAW GROUP, APC
      5900 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 561-7381
      Facsimile: (818) 561-7381
      Email: david@tashlawgroup.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
      WYLY AND COOK LLC
      4101 Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
      Houston TX
      Tel: (713) 236-8330
      Fax: (713) 863-8502
      Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com


AMERICAN CONTRACT: "Marcus" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marcus, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-11165, (D. Mass., June 23, 2017) is seeking payment of overtime
wages earned, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fee and
costs of this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The American Contract Bridge League is the governing body for
contract bridge games in the United States, Mexico, Bermuda and
Canada where the Plaintiff was as a tournament director. He was
allegedly passed on for job promotions due to his complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Oren Nimni Esq.
     14 Dudley Street #1
     Cambridge, MA 02140
     Tel: (206) 200-9088


AMERICAN HONDA: "Martinez" Claims Warranty on Defective Starter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Martinez, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., a California corporation and Honda North America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-04714 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2017) seeks to
compel Defendant to issue a voluntary recall for defective
vehicles; to remove, repair, and/or replace the defective starter
motor and battery components with suitable alternative products;
warranty, compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages, including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, breach of Implied Warranty pursuant to Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of implied warranty
pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Martinez purchased a new 2015 Honda Accord from Norm Reeves Honda,
an authorized Honda dealer in Cerritos, California. Plaintiff
alleges that the vehicle's starter motor prematurely failed due,
in part, to inadequate clearance between the starter motor's gear
and the engine's torque converter ring gear causing the starter
motor to wear prematurely.

American Honda Motor Co. is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling automobiles and
other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in California
and throughout the United States of America. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-4811
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com
            Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust 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 a securities class
action is in the early stage.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers are defendants
in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in
February and March of 2017 in the United States District Courts
for the Central District of California and the Southern District
of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between March 2015
and March 2017. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief. We believe the allegations to
be unfounded and will vigorously pursue our defenses; however, we
cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any,
due to the early stage of the proceedings."

AmTrust provides insurance coverage for small businesses and
products with high volumes of insureds and loss profiles that the
Company believes are predictable.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Defending New York Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
AmTrust 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 the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit in New York.

The Company said, "we and certain of our officers and directors
are defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April
28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit purport to
represent a class of purchasers of our common stock purchased in a
November 12, 2015 offering. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees,
and other relief. We believe the allegations to be unfounded and
will vigorously pursue our defenses; however, we cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss, if any, due to the early
stage of the proceedings."

AmTrust provides insurance coverage for small businesses and
products with high volumes of insureds and loss profiles that the
Company believes are predictable.


ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops "Clevlen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiff Uresomir Corak filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the case, Clevlen v. Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00715 (N.D. Cal.), on July 17, 2017.

Anthera Pharmaceuticals, 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 complaint was filed on
February 13, 2017, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Brian Clevlen v. Anthera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-715, on behalf of
a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.  The complaint
asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased
the Company's common stock between February 10, 2015 and December
27, 2016.  The complaint alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements and/or omissions with respect to the
CHABLIS-SC1 trial and SOLUTION study.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and such
other relief at the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 17, 2017, Uresomir Corak, a putative stockholder of the
Company, filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff, and to
have the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP appointed as lead
counsel in the action.

Also on April 17, 2017, a group of putative stockholders of the
Company, comprised of Kent Roberts, Kent Roberts FBO Evan Roberts,
Kent Roberts Parent FBO Owen Roberts, and Bobby King, filed a
motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff, to have the law firm of
Lifschitz & Miller LLP appointed as lead counsel, and to have the
law firm of Reich Radcliffe & Hoover LLP appointed as liaison
counsel in the action.

Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on advancing the development and commercialization of
innovative medicines that benefit patients with unmet medical
needs.


ATWOOD OCEANICS: "Composto" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Composto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atwood Oceanics, Inc., George S.
Dotson, Jack E. Golden, Hans Helmerich, Jeffrey A. Miller, James
R. Montague, Robert J. Saltiela and Phil D. Wedemeyer, Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01968 (S.D. Tex., June 27, 2017), seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and their counsel,
agents, employees and all persons acting under, in concert with,
or for them, from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition  of all outstanding shares of Atwood by Ensco.  The
suit further seeks rescissory damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, costs and disbursements of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses,
extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief and such further
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Ensco, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Echo Merger Sub LLC,
will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Atwood in an all-
stock transaction in which Atwood's stockholders will receive 1.60
shares of Ensco common stock for each share of Atwood common
stock. Proposed transaction has a total transaction value of
approximately $850 million.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose earnings,
interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, capital
expenditures, stock-based compensation, changes in net working
capital and proceeds from the disposal of assets. This data is
required for shareholders to make an educated vote on the merger.

Atwood is an offshore drilling company engaged in the drilling and
completion of exploration and development wells for others in the
global oil and gas industry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com

            - and -

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015 (fax)
      Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Class Lawsuits at Very Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Banc Of California, 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 lawsuits are at a very early stage
in the Central District of California.

On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action
lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-
00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J. McKinney,
Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of
California, James J. McKinney, and Steven A. Sugarman, and (2)
Cardona v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00621
(January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California,
James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, they
assert that the purported concealment of the defendants' alleged
relationship with Jason Galanis caused various statements made by
the defendants to be allegedly false and misleading. The lawsuits
purport to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased
stock in the Company between varying dates, inclusive of August 7,
2015 through January 23, 2017. The lawsuits seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper. The lawsuits are at a very early stage.

"Based on a review of the allegations, we believe that they are
without merit and intend to vigorously contest them," the Company
said.

Banc of California, Inc. is a financial holding company under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, headquartered in
Santa Ana, California and incorporated under the laws of Maryland.


BANDAS LAW: Edelson Case May Not Halt Settlement Objectors
----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge overseeing Edelson PC's proposed class action
against objector attorney Christopher Bandas for allegedly using
the class action objection process to extort cash payoffs lamented
the alleged scheme on July 11 but said she was unsure how it could
be stopped.

During arguments over Mr. Bandas' motion to dismiss the suit,
filed last year by plaintiffs firm Edelson, U.S. District Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer criticized the use of objections to class
action settlements as a tool for some attorneys to receive fees
without a lot of work, but said Mr. Bandas' arguments have "a lot
of merit."

Mr. Bandas' objections, as the suit describes, are meant "to get a
piece [of the class action settlement] into the hands of another
lawyer who really hasn't done much of anything," the judge said.

But after Mr. Bandas' arguments, which focused on case law
supporting the claim that litigation activity cannot constitute
the basis of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
claims, the judge said that she was "not hearing it's going to
stop."

Edelson had brought the RICO suit after Mr. Bandas represented an
objector to a settlement Edelson reached in a class action filed
in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.  Using a tried-and-true
methodology, Mr. Bandas filed a frivolous objection, hoping it
would be dismissed so he could appeal, according to Edelson's
suit.  The plan worked, and Mr. Bandas filed a notice of appeal
before asking Edelson for more than $200,000 to drop it, according
to the RICO suit.  Edelson, facing a yearslong holdup in the
appellate court, agreed to make the payment -- a decision that
many plaintiffs firms allegedly have faced after running into Mr.
Bandas.

Before arguments even began on July 11, Judge Pallmeyer asked
counsel for Mr. Bandas and other attorneys named in the suit if
their clients were still engaged in what Edelson describes as the
"Illinois objector enterprise."

Mr. Bandas' attorney Alexander Vesselinovitch of Freeborn & Peters
LLP told the judge the defendants are "still actively working as
lawyers."

Mr. Vesselinovitch argued that no matter how Edelson feels about
objectors or Mr. Bandas' filings, objectors have the right to
voice their opinion about settlements and can hire attorneys who
represent their interests.  However it goes from there, cases
around the country have established the actions Mr. Bandas takes
on a client's behalf as part of litigation cannot be used as
predicate acts for a RICO claim, Mr. Vesselinovitch said.

"Maybe they're not nice acts.  Maybe they're not proper acts.  But
they're not criminal," Mr. Vesselinovitch said.

Edelson is simply trying to attack the Cook County case from
federal court, he added.  If it has a problem with the way
Mr. Bandas objected, the firm is free to pursue a malicious
prosecution claim, take it up with attorney regulators, or just
say no to Mr. Bandas' demands.

"What is to stop Mr. Edelson, who is no delicate flower, from
turning down the demand?" Mr. Vesselinovitch asked, referencing
Edelson PC founder and principal Jay Edelson.

Alexander Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC, who is
representing his own firm, said it cannot shirk its fiduciary duty
to its class members by waiting for Mr. Bandas' appeal to be
adjudicated. Class members call the firm every day to check up on
their settlement money, he said.

But they should not have to make that choice, he added.

Judge Pallmeyer said that she found the argument that the conduct
does not have to be ethical to be legal "distasteful," but that
she was unsure how Edelson could find relief for the harms it
alleged through the other routes Mr. Vesselinovitch suggested.

The side industry could be stopped by an amendment to the federal
rules, Mr. Vesselinovitch said.

Judge Pallmeyer, who has served in the U.S. Judicial Conference,
said the rule-making process is "ridiculously arduous," as any
potential rules have to work their way through the conference over
the course of several months before they are passed on to
Congress, which votes them up or down.

A rule on class action objectors has been in the works at the
conference for several years, but may become law by the end of
next year.

"In the meantime, Mr. Bandas goes about his business," she said.

Edelson PC is represented in-house by Benjamin H. Richman, Rafey
S. Balabanian, Eve-Lynn Rapp, Alexander G. Tievsky and Ryan
Andrews.

Bandas is represented by Darren M. VanPuymbrouck, Alexander S.
Vesselinovitch and Matthew T. Connelly -- mconnelly@freeborn.com -
- of Freeborn & Peters LLP.

The case is Edelson PC v. The Bandas Law Firm PC et al, Case No.
1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer.  The case was filed December 5, 2016.  [GN]


BANKRATE INC: $13.8M of Settlement Funded from Insurance Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that approximately $13.8 million of the class
action settlement fund has been funded from insurance proceeds.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is
captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No.
14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court
dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice
for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or
omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8,
2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging
that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial
statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and
therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages.
Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a
March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive.
On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement,
subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class
action against all defendants.

Under the settlement, Bankrate agreed to pay a total of $20
million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims
asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9,
2014. The settlement further provided that Bankrate denies all
claims of wrongdoing or liability. The court granted final
approval of the settlement on February 6, 2017. The Company
accrued the settlement amount as of June 30, 2016 and funded
approximately $6.1 million to the settlement fund. Approximately
$13.8 million of the settlement fund has been funded from
insurance proceeds.


BEDFORD NISSAN: "Lindenbaum" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bedford Nissan, Inc., an Ohio
corporation, Defendant, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01344 (N.D.
Ohio, June 26, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to
cease all unsolicited text messaging activities and an award of
actual or statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff claims to have received unsolicited text message from
Bedford Nissan on her cellular telephone, advertising their
services.

Defendant Bedford Nissan operates a full service Nissan automobile
dealership in Bedford, Ohio. It sells and leases new and used cars
and also sells parts and offers service and collision repairs for
vehicles that it sells as well as vehicles purchased or leased
from other dealers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


BEHR PROCESS: "Elger" Sues Over Prematurely Flaking Paint
---------------------------------------------------------
William Elger and Philip Ross, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Behr Process Corp., Behr
Paint Corp., Masco Corp., The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01100 (C.D. Cal., June
26, 2017), seeks treble damages and/or any other form of monetary
relief provided by law for violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, restitution, disgorgement or other equitable relief,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, including expert witness fees and such other
and further relief under California and New York consumer
protection laws.

Behr released a new patio and deck product exclusively through
Home Depot, branded as "DeckOver" a supposedly durable coating
that could repair decks by filling in cracks and stopping
splinters. Plaintiff alleges that within mere months of
application, DeckOver begins to flake, peel and separate from deck
and concrete surfaces. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Michaels, Esq.
      Kathryn Harvey, Esq.
      MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
      2801 W. Coast Highway Suite 370
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Telephone: (949) 581-6900
      Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
      Email: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com
             kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: SAS@chimicles.com
              BFJ@chimicles.com
              AWF@chimicles.com


BELL CANADA: Class Action Over Fee Increases Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that a class-action suit against Bell in
Quebec over fee increases on television, internet and phone
services has been authorized to proceed by Superior Court Justice
Robert Castiglio.

Joseph Frainetti, the plaintiff in this case, alleges that he was
cheated by Bell Canada, Bell Express Vu and Bell Mobility when
they made changes to contracts without providing clear
notifications starting in November 2012.

He says the telecommunications giant "unilaterally" changed
service charges while his contract was in effect and only put the
information on his monthly bill.

Citing consumer protection laws, he says written notification of
all fee increases during a contract must be provided to clients at
least 30 days before the changes go into effect.

The class-action suit aims to recover the funds raised by Bell
since 2012 and seeks $100 in punitive damages for each of its
members.  The size of the class-action group is not yet known.

In his 18-page ruling, Justice Castiglio said he agreed to hear
the class action because the legal standard for authorization
stage simply requires that the allegations could lead to the
conclusion sought by plaintiffs.

At this stage, Justice Castiglio has simply allowed the suit to
proceed. He has yet to rule on the veracity of the arguments put
forward by the class-action group.

In April, the Superior Court authorized a class-action against
Bell in which a plaintiff alleged that the company had falsely
advertised its Fibe fibreoptic network. [GN]


BIOAMBER INC: New York Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Bioamber 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 against a putative
securities class action lawsuit.

On March 18, 2017, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Jean-Francois Huc, Fabrice
Orecchioni and Mario Saucier in federal district court in New York
alleging violations of the U.S. Exchange Act and the U.S.
Securities Act.

The complaint principally alleges that the prospectus for our
January 2017 follow-on public offering failed to disclose the
postponement of a large customer order. The Company believes the
suit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend it. The
potential loss is therefore remote.

Bioamber Inc. is an industrial biotechnology company producing
renewable chemicals.


BROCHE'S CATERING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Moraga" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Alberto Hernandez Moraga and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Broche's Catering Services, Inc., Charanga Catering
LLC a/k/a USDA Processing Distributors, Gilberto Broche,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22362 (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants jointly operate a food business where Plaintiff worked
as a chef and meat processor from August 27, 2015 through June 9,
2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


CENTURYLINK: State of Minnesota Files Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Snider, writing for USA TODAY, reports that
telecommunications giant CenturyLink faces a growing legal battle
as the state of Minnesota on July 12 filed a consumer fraud suit
against the company, which already faced class-action suits in
seven other states.

In the suit, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson charges the
Monroe, La.-based CenturyLink billed consumers higher monthly fees
than sales agents had quoted for broadband and pay TV service.
Within the complaint, the state lists 35 individual consumers, who
were quoted prices but were ultimately charged sometimes two or
three times the original price.

One customer mentioned in the suit had been quoted a $14.95
monthly rate for Internet service but said he was charged $29.95
instead. Another said he had been offered internet service for
$19.95 monthly but was sent a bill for $367.33 including monthly
Net service for $71.  "The company is quoting one price and
charging another for Internet and cable service," Ms. Swanson said
in an interview.

CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen said in a statement that the
company has been cooperating with Swanson's office "since its
inquiry began and have provided all information requested. ...  We
take these allegations seriously and will review and respond in
due course."

Lawsuits have been accumulating against the No. 3 landline
wireline provider in the U.S. since when former CenturyLink
employee Heidi Heiser filed a suit in Arizona saying she was
wrongfully fired after notifying CEO Glenn Post about unlawful
billing practices she had observed.

Subsequently, separate class-action suits have been filed against
CenturyLink in seven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington).  In those complaints, consumers
say they were not only charged higher than quoted prices, but also
billed for phone lines and services never requested, according to
the complaints.

Also, some consumers who had left CenturyLink would find
notifications of unpaid charges of $200 to $400 owed to a
CenturyLink-affiliated entity on their credit reports months after
ending service, said Ben Meiselas, an attorney at Geragos &
Geragos, handling the suits.  "The level of outrage has reached
such a fever pitch our firm is literally being invited to other
states and people are upset that we aren't yet filed in their
state," he said.

Damages to consumers could range from $600 million to $12 billion,
based on CenturyLink's 5.9 million subscribers, the suits charge.

About the suits, CenturyLink's Molzen said in a statement:
"Unfortunately, these types of opportunistic follow-on claims are
not unexpected.  The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a
wrongful termination suit into a punitive class-action lawsuit,
does not change our original position."

CenturyLink employees "know that if they have any concerns about
ethics or compliance issues, we have an Integrity Line in place,
24 hours a day, seven days a week," he said.

Ms. Heiser "did not make a report to the Integrity Line and our
leadership team was not aware of the alleged matter until the
lawsuit was filed," Mr. Molzen said.  "The allegations made by our
former employee are completely inconsistent with our company
policies, culture and Unifying Principles, which include honesty
and integrity.  We take these allegations seriously and are
diligently investigating this matter."

Minnesota AG Swanson said her office served CenturyLink with a
civil investigation demand last year after getting "hundreds of
complaints," she said.  The company gave the state more than 1,000
pages of documents, which it said were an "overview" of its
pricing policies, the suit charges.

The AG's office found that CenturyLink's pricing scheme involves
more than 1,500 different scenarios for arriving at what to charge
a consumer.  The findings revealed "an incredibly complicated
pricing scheme that they set up," Swanson said.  "And to charge
the right prices the salespeople have to understand it,  number
one, and then execute upon it and that clearly wasn't happening."

Consumers often have only one option when it comes to broadband
and pay TV service, although some customers had more and attempted
to comparison shop.  "It's very difficult when the company doesn't
give straight answers about what the prices are," Swanson said.

These legal challenges come as CenturyLink aims to close its $34
billion acquisition of Internet backbone provider Level 3
Communications, announced in October 2016. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: "Hanifen" Hits Credit Report, Fraudulent Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandi Hanifen, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc.,
CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc., CenturyTel of Idaho, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00267
(D. Idaho, June 23, 2017), seeks actual, consequential, statutory
and incidental losses and damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, costs of suit
and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and fraud.

Hanifen is a CenturyTel customer for internet service. She claims
to be unjustly charged for services that she did not avail of
and/or did not agree to in connection with her internet service
upgrade. Hanifen eventually terminated her service with
CenturyLink in December 2015. In May 2016, her credit monitoring
service reported a negative credit report traced to CenturyTel
arising from unpaid service charges. CenturyLink has refused to
remove the fraudulent charge. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
      WALSH PLLC
      PO Box 7
      Bly, OR 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
      Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

             - and -

      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
      Historic Engine Co. No. 28
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile (213) 232-3255
      Email: Geragos@Geragos.co006D


CENTURYLINK INC: "Lawhead" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jubilee Lawhead, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05487, (W.D. Wash., June 23, 2017), seeks actual,
consequential, statutory and incidental losses and damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, costs of suit and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and fraud.

Lawhead is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service. She
claims to be unjustly charged for services that she did not avail
of and/or did not agree to in connection with her internet service
upgrade. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
      WALSH PLLC
      PO Box 7
      Bly, OR 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
      Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

             - and -

      Michael Fuller, Esq.
      OLSEN DAINES PC
      US Bancorp Tower
      111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 201-4570
      Email: michael@underdoglawyer.com

             - and -

      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
      Historic Engine Co. No. 28
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile (213) 232-3255
      Email: Geragos@Geragos.com


CHINA XD: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied
the lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a class action
complaint.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16,
2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD)
and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-
5359 (GBD), respectively.  On November 21, 2014, the Court
consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs.

On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other
than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD
Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014,
both dates inclusive.  Specifically, the lead plaintiffs alleged
that the Company and two of its officers made false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q
for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also asserted
that the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The lead
plaintiffs sought damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint without prejudice.  On May 6, 2016, the lead plaintiffs
moved the Court for leave to amend the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  On June 24, 2016, the Company filed its opposition to
the lead plaintiffs' motion.

On August 8, 2016, in conjunction with filing the reply brief in
support of their motion, the lead plaintiffs moved to strike
certain documents referred to in the Company's opposition.  The
Company filed its opposition to the lead plaintiffs' motion to
strike on September 16, 2016.  The lead plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2016.

On March 8, 2016, the Court entered an Order in the Company's
favor denying the lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and
denying the lead plaintiffs' motion to strike.  The lead
plaintiffs had until May 10, 2017 to appeal the dismissal of their
lawsuits.

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


C&J ENERGY: No Hearing Scheduled on Fee Motion
----------------------------------------------
C&J Energy 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 the parties in a class action lawsuit
have not yet briefed or scheduled a hearing on a motion for award
of fees and costs.

The Company said, "In July 2014, following the announcement that
Old C&J, Nabors, and the Predecessor had entered into the Merger
Agreement, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported shareholder of Old C&J challenging the Merger. The
lawsuit is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et
al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, filed on July 30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation").
Plaintiff generally alleged that the board of directors for Old
C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith,
candor and independence by allegedly approving the Merger
Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process.
Plaintiff alleged that the Old C&J board directors, or certain of
them (i) failed to fully inform themselves of the market value of
Old C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best price reasonably
available for Old C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith and for improper
motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage other strategic
alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests ahead of the
interests of Old C&J shareholders. The Shareholder Litigation
further alleged that Old C&J, Nabors and the Predecessor aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Old C&J
board of directors."

"On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described above, that (i) the special committee of the
Old C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly conducted a
court-ordered solicitation process that the Delaware Supreme Court
vacated and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connection with the
Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits allegedly
material information concerning the Merger and court-ordered
solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserted, in
addition to the claims described, claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the
special committee of the Old C&J board of directors, its financial
advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain employees of Old C&J.
Following the death of Josh Comstock, our founder and former Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Plaintiff substituted the executor of Mr. Comstock's estate in
place of Mr. Comstock as a defendant in the Shareholder
Litigation.

"The defendants in the Shareholder Litigation filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. On August 24, 2016, the Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions and dismissed the Shareholder
Litigation in its entirety with prejudice. On September 22, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court,
appealing the dismissal of the Shareholder Litigation. On March
23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal with
prejudice of the Shareholder Litigation.

"On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion in the Court of
Chancery seeking an award of fees and costs on the basis that
Plaintiff allegedly conferred a benefit on Old C&J stockholders
(the "Fee Motion"). The parties have not yet briefed or scheduled
a hearing on the Fee Motion.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the Fee Motion or any lawsuit
that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Fee Motion. We
believe the Fee Motion is without merit and we intend to defend
against it vigorously."

C&J Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Successor"
and together with its consolidated subsidiaries and for periods
subsequent to the Plan Effective Date, "C&J" or the "Company") is
a leading provider of well construction, well completion, well
support and other complementary oilfield services to oil and gas
exploration and production companies in North America. The Company
offers a comprehensive, vertically-integrated suite of services
throughout the life cycle of the well, including hydraulic
fracturing, cased-hole wireline and pumpdown, cementing,
directional drilling, coiled tubing, service rigs, fluids
management and other support services. The Company is
headquartered in Houston, Texas and operates in all active onshore
basins in the continental United States and Western Canada.

C&J's business was founded in Texas in 1997 as a partnership and
converted to a Delaware corporation ("Old C&J") in 2010 in
connection with an initial public offering that was completed in
July 2011 with a listing on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
under the symbol "CJES." In 2015, Old C&J combined with the
completion and production services business (the "C&P Business")
of Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") in a transaction (the "Nabors
Merger") that nearly tripled the Company's size, significantly
expanding the Company's Completion Services business and adding
Well Support Services to the Company's service offering. Upon the
closing of the Nabors Merger, Old C&J became a subsidiary of C&J
Energy Services Ltd. (the "Predecessor" and together with certain
of its subsidiaries and for periods prior to the Plan Effective
Date (as defined below), the "Predecessor Companies," or the
"Company") and shares of common stock of Old C&J were converted
into common shares of the Predecessor on a 1-for-1 basis.


CANADA: Thalidomide Victims Lose Ottawa Class Action Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Minsky, writing for Global News, reports that a group of
Canadians claiming they are victims of thalidomide, the
prescription drug blamed for certain birth defects, are saying the
government has let them down, yet again, after a Federal Court
judge shot down an attempt to launch a class-action lawsuit
against Ottawa.

"I just feel like our government is letting us down, and down, and
down again.  It just doesn't end," said Michel O'Neil, one of
seven Canadians who announced they'd sue the government after they
failed to meet specific criteria and subsequently had their
applications for compensation rejected.

"It's a very sad day, and hopefully it gets better from here."

Bruce Wenham, another alleged victim of the drug commonly
prescribed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, has said he'll never
forget when his mother once told him she'd been prescribed and
taken thalidomide while pregnant with him.

He filed the application for a class-action suit after the
government told him and more than 150 other alleged victims born
with limb deformities they didn't meet the threshold for evidence
proving their cases and were therefore ineligible for
compensation.  Unable to afford a legal fight with Ottawa alone,
many of the alleged victims were hoping to take part in a class
action.

Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald rejected the claim.

"I am not satisfied that Mr. Wenham has established that his
application has a reasonable chance of success," she wrote in her
July 6 decision.

Wenham's lawyer, David Rosenfeld, said he is preparing an appeal
of Judge McDonald's decision.

"I'm surprised and disappointed," he said of the ruling.  "I think
there's a lot of frustration from those who've been rejected from
this program . . . Even people who had affidavits from their
mothers saying, 'I took this drug,' those people were still
rejected. It seems fundamentally unfair that this should happen."

Eligibility criteria for compensation require alleged victims to
either retrieve medical records from more than 60 years ago,
obtain testimony from the attending doctor at that time or be on
an existing list of victims.

In 2015, the Conservative government announced a compensation
package for 92 Canadian survivors of thalidomide, which included a
one-time payment of $125,000 and a yearly pension.

Left out of that announcement was the group of Canadians born with
limb deformities similar to those associated with thalidomide, but
without the medical records to prove their mothers took the drug
while pregnant.

In June, a House of Commons committee wrote to Health Minister
Jane Philpott urging the government to "err on the side of
compassion" when deciding which applicants born with disabilities
qualify for compensation under the Thalidomide Survivors
Contribution Program.

In the letter, committee chair and Liberal MP Bill Casey wrote
that he and his colleagues want to ensure all thalidomide
survivors are recognized and compensated.

No physical exams for applicants

During the committee's study of the federal compensation program,
the former director of the program in the U.K. (where settlements
were agreed to decades earlier than in Canada), described a
process for determining eligibility that was much more open than
Canada's.

"Probably 50 per cent of the original cases in the 1968 and 1973
[U.K.] settlements, where thalidomide exposure was agreed a
virtual certainty, had no documentary evidence," said Dr. Martin
Johnson, explaining the widespread and casual distribution of the
drug.

"From the outset, it was known that this standard could not be
insisted on in every case."

The U.K. required documentary proof that an applicant's mother
took thalidomide, but only if the individual was born after the
drug was taken off the shelves, if there was no record of the
drug's distribution in the area the claim arose, or if the
individual had symptoms atypical of thalidomide.

Another witness at committee, lambasted the government for
neglecting to include a physical exam among its criteria for
compensation.

Dr. Ivor Edwards, a professor of medicine who convened and chaired
a World Health Organization meeting of experts on thalidomide's
developmental effects on an embryo or fetus, told committee
members he was stumped as to how the government could reject
applicants without having them undergo physical exams.
[GN]


CARDCONNECT CORP: TS Kao Class Suit in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------
Cardconnect Corp. 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 by TS Kao, Inc. is at
an early stage and no discovery has occurred.

On July 11, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Order
governing "confidentiality of documents with court approval re:
certain statements; etc."  The stipulation was signed by the Hon.
J. William Ditter, Jr.

The Company said, "In November, 2016, a merchant, TS Kao, Inc. and
its principal Teh Shou Kao (the "Plaintiffs"), filed a class
action complaint against us asserting various claims including
declaratory relief seeking to invalidate our merchant contracts or
terms in such contracts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment
seeking to monetary damages."

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves from the claims asserted
to oppose any motion for class certification that Plaintiffs
file."

CardConnect Corp. (f/k/a FinTech Acquisition Corp.) ("CardConnect"
or the "Company") is a holding company that does not have any
operations or material assets other than the ownership of
CardConnect, LLC. Prior to January 15, 2015, CardConnect, LLC's
legal name was Financial Transaction Services, LLC, which had been
doing business as CardConnect since April 2013. CardConnect, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, is a provider of card-based
payment processing services. CardConnect, LLC facilitates the
exchange of information and funds between merchants' and
cardholders' financial institutions by providing electronic
payment processing services to merchants, including transaction
authorization and electronic draft capture, transaction clearing
and settlement, merchant accounting and support, and risk
management. CardConnect, LLC also offers a broad range of
technology solutions, including software, services and
peripherals.


CENTURYLINK INC: "Chavez" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc., Centurylink Broadband,
Centurylink Communications, LLC and Centurylink Public
Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01561, (D.
Colo., June 26, 2017), seeks actual, consequential, statutory and
incidental losses and damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, costs and suit and
such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and
consumer fraud.

Chavez is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service. He
claims to be unjustly charged for services that he did not avail
of and/or did not agree to despite having his service contract
terminated. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      Post-Montgomery Ctr.
      One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Orin Kurtz, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             okurtz@gardylaw.com
             jnotis@gardylaw.com

             - and -

      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
      Historic Engine Co. No. 28
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile (213) 232-3255
      Email: Geragos@Geragos.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court Stays False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen McConnell, Esq. -- smcconnell@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith, in an article for JDSupra, reports that we depend on young
associates to perform most of the legal research that supports the
arguments we make on behalf of our clients.  By and large, those
associates do an excellent job.  On those rare occasions when we
find ourselves grousing about the quality of research, it usually
has something to do with reliance on overly-specific computer
searches.  Sometimes it seems as if the lawyers punch a search
term into Lexis or Westlaw that would capture only cases that are
precisely on point.  The problem with that approach is the
possibility of missing cases that support general principles, or
offer other oblique ammunition for one's position.  The case,
Canale v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97506
(S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2017), is an example of that kind of helpful,
albeit indirect, authority.  The plaintiffs in Canale filed a
class action attacking the defendant for allegedly overstating the
whitening power of its toothpaste.  The toothpaste contained
hydrogen peroxide, and its advertising bragged of deep whitening -
- more than three shades.  The plaintiffs asserted that the
hydrogen peroxide was not strong enough and was not in contact
with tooth enamel long enough to achieve the promised results.
The causes of action were based on breach of warranty and
violations of New York's General Business Law sections 349 and
350, which outlaw deceptive practices and false advertising.

What can this case possibly have to say for drug litigation?
To begin with, the toothpaste's peroxide content meant that it was
both a cosmetic and an over-the-counter (OTC) drug.  A product
qualifying as both a cosmetic and drug is subject to the stricter
requirements applicable to drugs.  Either way, such a product
enjoys the preemption protections in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics
Act,  21 U.S.C. sections 379r and 379s.  The FDCA forbids state
law (including jury verdicts) or regulations that would impose a
requirement on cosmetics or OTC drugs that are "different from or
in addition to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a
requirement specifically applicable" via the FDCA.  Thus, the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, and
preemption was one of the grounds. The plaintiffs ultimately
evaded preemption because the court found no FDA requirement
regarding the tooth whitening claim, so there was nothing federal
that the state laws against deceptive advertising contradicted.

Okay, you're still probably wondering why a drug defense hack
would care about this case.  If an associate failed to find this
case in her research, who cares?

There are two preemption points in Canale that are valuable:

1. The plaintiffs' opposition to the defendant's motion rested
solely on implied preemption cases.  That is, the plaintiffs
argued that there was no impossibility preemption.  That is, the
plaintiffs had completely missed the point.  The defendant was not
arguing impossibility preemption.  Rather, the defendant argued
that Congress had expressly manifested an intent to preempt state
law.  The plaintiffs had confused express preemption with implied
preemption, but the Canale court kept the distinction straight.
So should you.

2.  The plaintiffs, predictably, argued that there was a
presumption against preemption.  But, consistent with point 1
above, the Canale court held that "where, as here, Congress has
expressly manifested its intent to preempt state law, no
presumption against preemption arises."  It is nice to have in
your pocket such a clear statement on this issue from SDNY.

Still, as we mentioned, the preemption argument did not carry the
day for the defendant.  So was this a win for the plaintiffs?  Not
at all.  The issue of whether or not the advertising for the
whitening toothpaste was deceptive had already been addressed to
the Federal Trade Commission.  The issue was pending. The FTC had
at least as much expertise as the court in deciding whether the
hydrogen peroxide in the toothpaste had sufficient whitening power
(let's face it, the FTC has more expertise), the FTC is
specifically tasked with discretion to police allegedly deceptive
labeling, there was a risk of inconsistent rulings, and the FTC
had gotten the issue first.  Consequently, the Canale court --
after observing that "primary jurisdiction" is something of a
misnomer because it isn't, strictly speaking, jurisdictional --
decided to stay the litigation to allow the FTC to do its job and
determine whether the toothpaste advertising really was deceptive.

Staying a class action is definitely a good result for the
defendant. [GN]


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Appeals Ruling in "Strautch" Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH STRAUTCH and TIMOTHY
COLBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00956-JBA, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Court did not certify any
North Carolina classes.  The Court likewise did not certify
proposed California and Connecticut Senior Professional sub-
classes.

The Court certified the California and Connecticut sub-classes
comprised of Associate Professional SAs defined as:

   California Class:

   "all persons who were, are or will be employed by CSC in
   California as Associate Professional System Administrators or
   Professional System Administrators, at any time from July 1,
   2010 through the date of the final disposition of this action,
   who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total amount
   compensation, who worked more than 40 hours per week, and who
   were not members of the "Test and Training Rangers" segment
   (TTR)of CSC".

   Connecticut Class:

   all persons who were, are or will be employed by CSC in
   Connecticut as Associate Professional System Administrators or
   Professional System Administrators, at any time from July 1,
   2010 through the date of the final disposition of this action,
   who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total amount
   compensation, who worked more than 40 hours per week, and who
   were not members of the "Test and Training Rangers" segment
   (TTR)of CSC".

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Computer Sciences Corp.,
Case No. 17-2185, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated, and Timothy Colby, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          1 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

Defendant-Petitioner Computer Sciences Corporation is represented
by:

          William J. Anthony, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          677 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 512-8700
          Facsimile: (518) 242-7730
          E-mail: William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com


CONWAY COUNTY, AR: Judge Okays Police, Firefighters Class Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Hicks, writing for thecabin.net, reports that a Faulkner
County circuit judge has OKed a class notice and notice plan
submitted by Conway police officers and firefighters in a class-
action lawsuit against the city.

"After review and consideration of the applicable law and the
positions of the parties, as expressed in materials submitted to
this Court, the Court hereby approves the Class Notice and the
Notice Plan detailed in the Motion," the order approving the class
notice reads.

The order, signed by Circuit Judge Troy B. Braswell Jr., was filed
in Faulkner County Circuit on July 7.

"The Court further finds that the Class Notice and Notice Plan are
reasonably calculated to apprise all interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to exclude
themselves from the litigation or present their objections," the
order approving the class notice reads.

Supreme court OKs police, fire employees' lawsuit
Conway man charged with assault after peeing on neighbor's door
In their request to notify the "class," Conway Police Department
K-9 officer Richard Shumate and Conway Fire Department Cpt.
Damon Reed laid out which employees and former employees would be
valid class members and how individuals would be notified and on
what steps to take to dismiss themselves or remain as part of the
suit.

The class, as previously certified in Faulkner County Circuit
Court, includes all Conway police and fire employees, excluding
department heads and elected officials, who were employed by the
city between Dec. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2012.

As part of the notification plan, the defendant (City of Conway)
will provide the last known address for each potential class
member so that plaintiffs can reach out and propose the first
phase of the notice -- the "long form" notice."  Notices may also
be sent via email.

The long form notice is an explanation of the case, explaining its
origin and who has a right to become a class member.

A "short form" will also be sent out in the newspaper "one time
per week for two consecutive weeks," according to the notice plan.

The short form is a summarized clip explaining the case and
notifying potential class members of who to contact.

Braswell approved the notice plan on July 7, and informed Shumate
and Reed to include an opt-out date in their notice.

"Plaintiffs are ordered to include within the Class Notice and
Notice Plan an opt-out date at least forty-five (45) days after
the last issuance or publication of Class Notice," the order
reads.

Attorney Justin Eichmann, who represents the city, said this
ruling was standard in moving forward with a class-action lawsuit.

"After these preliminary steps, the City of Conway will have the
opportunity to defend the remaining parts of this lawsuit," he
said in an email statement.  "The City has already prevailed on
the multi-million dollar attack on the sales tax which has been
used to support the salaries of the fire fighters and police in
Conway.  At trial, the City will continue to vigorously defend
itself against the unfounded claims that it was obligated to
provide certain pay raises during the economic rescission."

Attorneys Tom Kieklak and Christa Miller also represent Conway in
this litigation.

The Log Cabin also reached out to the plaintiff's attorneys for
comment on July 11.  However, calls were not returned by press
time.

This suit stems from a 2012 lawsuit Shumate and Reed filed in
Faulkner County Circuit Court that accused the city of breaching
its contract for salary improvements.

Through their attorneys Thomas Thrash and Russell A. Wood, the two
sought class-action status against the city on behalf of the
Conway police and fire departments.

In December 2015, Judge Braswell granted Shumate and Reed class
action status.  However, the city appealed the decision to the
Arkansas Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has since determined Judge Braswell did not
abuse his discretion when he certified about 200 Conway police
officers and firefighters in the breach of contract lawsuit.

"A court abuses its discretion when it acts improvidently,
thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. . . . We cannot say
that the court abused its discretion here, when it carefully
considered the complaint and matters in the record to find that
common questions were present," Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood
wrote in a majority opinion earlier this year.

Judge Braswell dismissed the plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim in
December 2015 but ruled in favor for police and fire employees
that were employed with the city between Dec. 1, 2001, and
Dec. 31. 2012, to move forward in a class-action suit against the
city.

The lawsuit stems from a Conway City Council-approved quarter-cent
sales tax that was to be used "exclusively to the salaries of the
employees of the City of Conway," according to the ballot
resolution that was passed by Conway voters in August 2001.

Employees allege they did not receive money they were promised.
[GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Guterman" Sues Over Fraudulent Sales Discounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Guterman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-04812 (S.D. N.Y., June 26, 2017),
seeks compensatory and/or actual and/or minimum statutory damages,
costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under New
York Tax Law.

Costco, through its coupons, has illegally charged its New York
customers Sales Tax on the full price rather than the reduced
price of their coupon-related warehouse purchases subject to Sales
Tax, and has illegally shifted its liability for Sales Tax to its
New York customers, notes the complaint.

Costco is engaged in the operation of membership warehouses that
offer its members low prices on a limited selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a wide range of merchandise
categories. Costco operates approximately 500 warehouses in the
United States and Puerto Rico, and more than 200 additional
warehouses in eight other countries worldwide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Weinstein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN
      199 Main Street, 4th Floor
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 997-2205


CORAL TELL: Class Suit in Israel Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. still defends itself against a class action
lawsuit in Israel related to Coral Tell Ltd., according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on June 14, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2017.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200,
or approximately US$5,300, was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa
District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that
owns and operates a website offering advertisements.  Coral Tell
Ltd. is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding
phone call overages, and has served a third-party notice against
Logia and two additional companies for the Company's alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages.  The suit relates to a
service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to
display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of
their real cellular number.

The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection
time between two segments of the call, instead of the second
segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser
did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of
the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text
messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not
support delivery of text messages.

The Company said, "We have no contractual relationship with this
company.  We believe the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of
liability on our part remote.  After conferring with advisors and
counsel, management believes that the ultimate liability, if any,
in aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period.

"The Company does not believe there is a probable and estimable
claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability."

Digital Turbine, Inc. provides mobile solutions for various mobile
operators in the United States and internationally.  The company
offers Digital Turbine Ignite, a mobile application management
solution that integrates Google's Android OS with smartphones; and
lets mobile operators to maximize the efficiency of pre and post
loading applications on smartphones for advertising revenue.  The
Company is based in Austin, Texas.  Digital Turbine, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Mandalay Digital Group, Inc.


CORIZON HEALTH: Sued for Allegedly Cheating Nurses' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Corin Hoggard, writing for KFSN, reports that Corizon Health
representatives on July 12 sent Action News evidence of a second
vote by registered nurses in which they chose to accept the
alternative workweek.  Unlike the documents Action News uncovered
related to the August 2014 vote in which they rejected working
three 12-hour days, the November 2014 vote was not filed with the
Department of Industrial Relations under Corizon's name, but in
the name of its attorneys, Littler Mendelson.  In the second vote,
70% of the jail's RNs voted to accept the alternative workweek,
which is above the two-thirds threshold required under state law
to exempt the workers from overtime laws.

The company also says it indemnifies Fresno County in case it gets
sued.

The plaintiff's attorney says he's not sure the vote was proper
since it was only about 60 days after the rejection vote.  He adds
that he can't find any vote allowing the alternative workweek in
Tulare County, and there are other issues with payment by Corizon,
so the lawsuit will move forward.

A jailhouse lawsuit could cost millions for taxpayers in a couple
Valley counties.

Registered nurses say the health care contractor is breaking state
laws.  Corizon Health took over as health care providers at the
Fresno County jail in 2014 and they do the same thing in Tulare
County.  A new lawsuit says they're cheating nurses out of
overtime pay and they know they're doing it.

Inside the Fresno County jail, about three dozen registered nurses
tend to the inmates' medical needs.  Some of them say they've been
getting ripped off for the last few years, but not by accused
criminals wearing jail uniforms.

"What we've learned is that the registered nurses are working well
beyond eight hours in a day and they're not receiving overtime as
required by California law," said plaintiffs' attorney Joshua
Richtel of Tuttle & McCloskey.

Mr. Richtel filed what could become a class action lawsuit against
Corizon Health, the company in charge of health care in the jail.
It claims RNs are forced to work 12-hour shifts, three days a
week.

State law says anything over eight should be paid as overtime,
with some exceptions -- like if two-thirds of the workers chose an
alternative workweek.  But Action News uncovered public records
showing Corizon held an election in 2014, and the RNs rejected 12-
hour work days.

Three years later, nurses say they still work long days and get no
OT pay.  Corizon's online job postings in Fresno County and Tulare
County even describe jobs with 12-hour shifts.

"It's pretty blatantly disregarding the election and blatantly
disregarding the will of the employees and under state law the
employees have to agree to 12-hour days," said legal analyst Tony
Capozzi.

Capozzi says if Corizon's been ignoring the law for years and in
as many as four counties, as the lawsuit claims, it could be
facing penalties of between $6 million to $8 million-- and the
counties themselves could be on the hook as well.

"If there's some kind of requirement of that supervision that they
should've been watching over Corizon to make sure they were
following the state law, the county may be liable, not only for
part of it, but for all of this," he said.

As it stands, the lawsuit does not name any county as a defendant.

The Fresno County administrative officer, Jean Rousseau, told us
the county "has no comment at this time."

As for Corizon, director of external affairs Martha Harbin sent us
this statement late on July 11:

"Because a lawsuit has been filed, we unfortunately are unable to
comment in detail on the litigation except to say that we strongly
believe our employment policies meet the letter and spirit of
California law and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against this frivolous lawsuit." [GN]


CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Assessing Shaya Edelman's Claim
--------------------------------------------------
Customers Bancorp 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 currently assessing Shava
Edelman's claims.

On April 13, 2017, a class action complaint captioned Shaya
Edelman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., WEX Bank, Inc., and
Customers Bancorp, Inc., Case 2:17-cv-01700-RBS, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The plaintiff generally alleges, among other things,
violations of state consumer protection statutes and federal
public policy promulgated in the Higher Education Act, Department
of Education Regulations, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
Regulation E and various common law violations through the
offering and use of the Higher One checking account and debit
card.

"We are currently assessing Ms. Edelman's claims, are unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine
the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss at
this time," the Company said.


DELTA AIR: Appeal on Dropped Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed July 13,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 that the plaintiffs' appeal
in the consolidated antitrust lawsuit against the Company and
AirTran Airways remains pending.

From May to July 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways
("AirTran"), alleging that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive
behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November
2008 based upon certain public statements made in October 2008 by
AirTran's CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for the
first checked bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first
checked bag on November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a
similar fee on November 12, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought to assert
claims on behalf of an alleged class consisting of passengers who
paid the first bag fee after December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages.  All of these cases have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Northern
District of Georgia.

On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On October 7, 2016,
the U.S. Court of Appeals granted the defendants' petition for
interlocutory review of this order, and that appeal remains
pending.

On March 29, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and that appeal remains pending.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a major American airline, with its
headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on July 12
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
holders of DigitalGlobe, Inc. ("DigitalGlobe") common stock on
June 16, 2017. This action was filed in the District of Colorado
and is captioned Machion v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-
1692.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 24, 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, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you can
view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/digitalglobe/. 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.

The complaint charges DigitalGlobe, its Board of Directors and
MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. ("MDA") with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection
with the proposed acquisition of DigitalGlobe by MDA. DigitalGlobe
specializes in defense and security applications and is the
world's leading provider of high-resolution Earth imagery, data
and analysis.

On February 24, 2017, DigitalGlobe and MDA announced they had
entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
DigitalGlobe will receive $17.50 in cash and $17.50 in MDA stock
for each share of DigitalGlobe stock they own (the "Proposed
Acquisition"), for a value of $35 per share based on the closing
price of MDA stock on February 16, 2017.  The complaint alleges
the value to be received by DigitalGlobe shareholders in the
Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues the Company.

In addition, the complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
encourage and obtain shareholder support for the Proposed
Acquisition, defendants filed a series of materially false and
misleading disclosure documents with the SEC, including a
registration statement on Form F-4 on April 27, 2017, an amended
registration statement on Form F-4 on June 2, 2017, a Prospectus
on June 22, 2017 (collectively the "Registration Statement"), and
a proxy statement on Schedule 14A on June 22, 2017 (the "Proxy
Statement").  The material misstatements and omissions from the
Registration Statement and the Proxy Statement render each
document false and misleading in violation of Sec 14(a) of the
1934 Act.  According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
and the Proxy Statement, both of which recommend that DigitalGlobe
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omit
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Acquisition,
including material information from DigitalGlobe's and MDA's
financial projections, which were relied on by the Company's
financial advisors in formulating their fairness opinions, and
material information from the analyses performed by DigitalGlobe's
financial advisors.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all holders of
DigitalGlobe as of June 16, 2017 (the "Class") or, if injunctive
relief is not available, monetary damages.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history.  For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report.  Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients.  Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


DOREL JUVENILE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Car Seat Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jones, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Judge
James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California has denied a motion from a child seat manufacturer that
requested he dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against the
company.

In his June 13 order, Judge Otero denied the assertions of
defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, a maker of Cosco-branded child car
seats sold at Target, that federal law already provides a remedy
to address the plaintiff's claims.

In January, Arriane Henryhand filed suit on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated consumers against Dorel Juvenile Group
Inc.  She alleged that she was a victim of deceptive practices
when she purchased a Cosco-branded convertible car seat that she
alleged doesn't have the functions as described by its labeling.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Henryhand alleges Dorel mislabeled its Cosco
Apt 40 and 50 car seats as rear-facing models appropriate for
children between 5 to 40 pounds, and/or 19 to 40 inches in height.
She claims that because of Dorel's failure to list the accurate
actual height and weight specifications of the car seats, the car
seats don't actually fit children who are of the advertised height
and weight.

Dorel responded with a motion to dismiss all six claims in the
complaint, arguing, among other defects, that the plaintiff's
claims were preempted by federal law governing motor vehicle
safety and that many of the claims presented were inadequately
pleaded.

In the opinion, Judge Otero disputed the preemption defense
stating: "The court determines that the Safety Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder neither expressly nor impliedly preempt
plaintiff's claims.

"The court need not resolve whether the issue presented is better
raised at the motion to dismiss or class certification stage, let
alone whether plaintiff's allegations of substantial similarity
between the car seats and/or their representations are sufficient
to confer standing on plaintiff over all the claims in the FAC."

As to the improper pleading claims, Otero granted the plaintiff
leave to amend the complaint to satisfy the standing requirements
set forth by federal law.

Judge Otero gave Henryhand 10 days to file an amended complaint
while providing Dorel 10 days to respond after the amended
complaint is filed. [GN]


DRAFTKINGS: Boston Court Set to Hear Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Nicholaus Garcia, writing for GamblingCompliance, reports that
in what could be a potential warm up for their case against the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), attorneys for DraftKings and
FanDuel were scheduled to be in a Boston courtroom on July 12 as a
hearing gets underway to dismiss a class action lawsuit against
the daily fantasy sports (DFS) sites.

The complaint, which includes more than 100 cases, was
consolidated last year after a case against DraftKings was filed
in Massachusetts, followed by a case against FanDuel in New York.

Those suing claim the DFS companies violated their "terms of use"
agreements and lied to players when assuring them the sites were
legal and could offer bonus money. [GN]


EGALET CORPORATION: Pennsylvania Class Actions Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Egalet 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 Court has entered an order consolidating
two class action cases.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and current officers Robert S.
Radie, Stanley J. Musial, and Jeffrey M. Dayno. These two
complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-
00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB,
assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation
securities between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017.

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases before it, appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting
of Johseph Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead
plaintiff and approving their selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  The allegations in the complaints center on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for oral abuse-deterrent labeling.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend these
actions vigorously.  The Company cannot determine the likelihood
of, nor can it reasonably estimate the range of, any potential
loss, if any, from these lawsuits.

Egalet Corporation is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical
company developing, manufacturing and commercializing innovative
treatments for pain and other conditions.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Opposes Application for Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, 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 opposes the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 1, 2017, the Company consummated its acquisition of Isle of
Capri Casinos, Inc.

In connection with the Isle Merger, a class action lawsuit was
filed by a purported stockholder of the Company alleging breach of
fiduciary duty by the Company board of directors in connection
with the Isle Merger. The case was filed on November 8, 2016 in
the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and is
captioned Assad v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., et. al, case no. CV 16-
02312. The case, which purports to be a class action on behalf of
all of the stockholders of the Company, alleged, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty in failing to disclose all
material information to stockholders in seeking approval of the
issuance of shares of Company Common Stock in the Isle Merger and
requested injunctive relief, which has since been withdrawn, and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company opposes the
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.


EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: Court Certifies Three Classes in "Hill" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Irene C. Berger grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and issuance of notice under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit styled APRIL
D. HILL v. EMPLOYEE RESOURCE GROUP, LLC, and WV NEIGHBORHOOD
HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-11507 (S.D.W. Va.).

The Plaintiff, April Hill, brought the purported class action
against the Defendants alleging that they did not inform tipped
employees of the tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, among other allegations.

In her third amended complaint, Ms. Hill defines the FLSA classes
as:

   (a) All persons employed by Defendants within the three years
       preceding the filing of this Complaint who worked as
       tipped employees and whose wages plus actual tips received
       did not add up to minimum wage in at least one or more
       statutory workweeks (the "Insufficient Tip Credit Class");
       and

   (b) All persons employed by Defendants within the three years
       preceding the filing of this Complaint who worked as
       tipped employees and (a) were required to perform
       non-tipped duties that were unrelated to their tipped
       occupation and were paid less than minimum wage for such
       work; or (b) worked a substantial amount of time (in
       excess of 20 percent) each week performing non-tipped
       duties related to their tipped occupation and were paid
       less than minimum wage for time spent performing such work
       (the "Dual Jobs Class").

Ms. Hill defines her Rule 23 Class as:

       All persons formerly employed by Defendants in West
       Virginia at any time five years prior to the filing of
       this Complaint through class certification who resigned
       their employment with Defendants and were not paid all
       wages on the last date worked or by the next regular
       payday if the resignation occurred prior to July 12, 2013,
       or by the next regular payday if the resignation occurred
       on or after July 12, 2013, but before June 11, 2015, or by
       the next regular payday on which the wages were otherwise
       due and payable, if the resignation occurred on or after
       June 11, 2015.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FFJGac5V


ERIN ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Erin Energy 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' motions to dismiss the
class action complaint remains pending.

On February 5, 2016, a class action and derivative complaint was
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the
Company and on behalf of a putative class of persons who were
stockholders as of the date the Company (1) acquired the Allied
Assets pursuant to the Transfer Agreement and (2) issued shares to
PIC in a private placement (collectively the "February 2014
Transactions"). The complaint alleges the February 2014
Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to assert
derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who served on
our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions and (2)
our majority shareholder, CEHL. The complaint also purports to
assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the
putative class against the seven individuals who served on our
Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions on the grounds
that they purportedly caused the Company to disseminate a false
and misleading proxy statement in connection with the February
2014 Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding and abetting
against Dr. Kase Lawal, the former Executive Chairman of the Board
of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The
plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and the putative
class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages. The Company
is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom the plaintiff
seeks no recovery.

On March 3, 2016, all of the defendants, including the Company,
filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions were heard
on January 18, 2017.

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

Erin Energy Corporation (NYSE MKT: ERN; JSE: ERN) is an
independent oil and gas exploration and production company engaged
in the acquisition and development of energy resources in Africa.


ESSA BANCORP: Defending Class Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, 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 Bank was named as a defendant in an
action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will
also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the
entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges
that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp, Inc., in the
process of making loans, received unearned fees and kickbacks in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Bank
intends to vigorously defend against such allegations. To the
extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in
exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently
estimable.


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners, 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 court has approved an order to
dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice.

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against the
directors of AFCO, AFCO, certain affiliates of AFCO and the
Company under the caption Parshall v. American Farmland Company
et. al., Case No. 24C16005745. The complaint alleges that the AFCO
directors breached their duties to AFCO in connection with the
evaluation and approval of the proposed merger with the Company.
In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company aided and abetted those breaches of duties. The initial
complaint sought equitable relief, including a potential
injunction against the AFCO Mergers, but the plaintiffs did not
seek further proceedings and the merger has closed.  On April 18,
2017, the court approved an order to dismiss the lawsuit without
prejudice.

Farmland Partners Inc., collectively with its subsidiaries, is an
internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to
acquire high-quality farmland located in agricultural markets
throughout North America.


FELCOR LODGING: "Assad" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
George Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Felcor Lodging Trust Incorporated, Thomas
J. Corcoran, Jr., Mark D. Rozells, Glenn A. Carlin, Robert F.
Cotter, Patricia L. Gibson, Dana K. Hamilton, Christopher J.
Hartung, Charles A. Ledsinger, Jr., Robert H. Lutz, Jr., Steven R.
Goldman, Felcor Lodging Limited Partnership, RLJ Lodging Trust,
RLJ Lodging Trust, L.P., Rangers Sub I, LLC, and Rangers Sub II,
LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01744 (D. Md., June 26, 2017),
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of FelCor Lodging Trust
Incorporated by RLJ Lodging Trust and its affiliates, awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger,
and reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Each outstanding share of common stock of FelCor will be converted
into the right to receive 0.362 common shares of beneficial
interest of RLJ, and each share of $1.95 Series A cumulative
convertible preferred stock of FelCor will be converted into the
right to receive one share of newly created Series A cumulative
convertible preferred shares of RLJ.

The Merger Agreement provides for a termination fee payable by the
FelCor to RLJ if its terminates the deal, thus locking up control
in favor of RLJ and precluding other bidders from making
successful competing offers.  Plaintiffs further allege that the
intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the
offer.

FelCor is a Maryland corporation operating as a real estate
investment trust. Its core portfolio consists primarily of upper-
upscale and luxury hotels located in major markets and resort
locations that have dynamic demand generators and high barriers-
to-entry. FelCor sells, acquires, rebrands, and redevelops hotels
to increase its return on invested capital, improve overall
portfolio quality, enhance diversification and improve growth
rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


FINISAR CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on June 16,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2017 that a case scheduling order has
been issued in a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in
California. The District Court has previously denied the Company's
bid to dismiss the case in May 2017.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011.  The named defendants are the Company and Jerry Rawls, its
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Eitan
Gertel, its former Chief Executive Officer.  To date, no specific
amount of damages has been alleged.  The cases were consolidated,
lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated complaint was
filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.  On January 16,
2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated
complaint.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
case.  On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, and
plaintiff appealed.

On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment in part for further proceedings in the District
Court.

On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
in the District Court.

On August 19, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss.  On May 1, 2017,
the District Court denied the motion and a case scheduling order
has been issued.

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

Finisar Corporation is a provider of optical subsystems and
components that are used in data communication and
telecommunication applications.  The Company's optical subsystems
consist primarily of transmitters, receivers, transceivers,
transponders and active optical cables, which provide the
fundamental optical-electrical, or optoelectronic interface for
interconnecting the electronic equipment used in these networks,
including the switches, routers, and servers used in wireline
networks as well as the antennas and base stations used in
wireless networks.


FITNESS CONNECTION: Arceneaux Seeks to Certify Class of Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled WESLEY ARCENEAUX, et al. v.
FITNESS CONNECTION OPTION HOLDINGS, LLC., et al., Case No. 4:16-
cv-03418 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify the case as a collective action under
      29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to all All person(s)
      who were/are employed by Titan Fitness (to include Titan
      Fitness, L.L.C., Titan Fitness Texas, LLC, Titan Fitness
      NC-Charlotte, LLC and Titan Fitness North Carolina, LLC),
      during the applicable period (plaintiff contends three
      years from the date the original complaint was filed:
      11-18-2013 to present), as Operation Manager, General
      Manager, Assistant General Manager, General Sales Manager,
      Membership Manager, District Fitness Manager, Fitness
      Manager and Assistant Fitness Manager who were declared
      exempt from FLSA overtime compensation requirements and
      Fitness Consultants and Personal Trainers who were declared
      as non-exempt but were required to work "off the clock";

   2. require that Defendant produce the names and all known
      addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for the
      collective members, so that notice may be implemented; and

   3. authorize the mailing of the proposed notice and consent
      forms (Exhibit 20) via regular mail and e-mail, and allow
      class members to execute their consent form electronically.

The Plaintiffs divide purported class members into two groups:

   (a) CLASS MEMBERS GROUP 1:

       All person(s) who were /are employed by Titan Fitness,
       during the applicable period (plaintiff contends three
       years from the date the original complaint was filed:
       11-18-2013 to present), as Operations Manager, General
       Manager, Assistant General Manager, General Sales Manager,
       Membership Manager, District Fitness Manager, Fitness
       Manager and Assistant Fitness Manager who were declared
       exempt from FLSA overtime compensation requirements; and

   (b) CLASS MEMBERS GROUP 2:

       All person(s) who were/are employed by Titan Fitness,
       during the applicable period (plaintiff contends three
       years from the date the original complaint was filed:
       11-18-2013 to present), as Fitness Consultants and Private
       Trainers who were declared non-exempt from FLSA overtime
       compensation requirements but were required to work in
       excess of 40 hours per week and not paid time and a half
       for all work performed in excess of 40 hours ("off the
       clock violation").

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
          RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
          1343 West Causeway Approach
          Mandeville, LA 70471
          Telephone: (985) 778-2215
          Facsimile: (985) 778-2233
          E-mail: rdalton746@aol.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Duck, Esq.
          DUCK LAW FIRM, LLC
          5040 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite 200
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 406-1144
          Facsimile: (337) 406-1050
          E-mail: krd@ducklawfirm.com


FTD COMPANIES: Oral Argument on Appeal Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, 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 date for oral argument on the appeal in a
class action lawsuit has not yet been set.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of putative
consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide
Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore
Marketing International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately
consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation.
Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in
subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards,
RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the
"Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered
items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were
presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership
Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers
allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or
otherwise allegedly improper transferring of billing information
to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their
credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the
Membership Programs.

In the operative fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted ten
claims against Provide Commerce and EMI: (1) breach of contract
(against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against
EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of
privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. After motion
practice regarding the claims asserted and numerous settlement
conferences and mediations in an effort to informally resolve the
matter, the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms
of a settlement on April 9, 2012, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement.

In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a
formal written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which the
court preliminarily approved on June 13, 2012. After notice to the
purported class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a
final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on
January 28, 2013, but did not rule.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
the Settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a
single objector. The court entered judgment on the Settlement on
February 21, 2013.

The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the
Ninth Circuit set oral argument for February 2, 2015. But on
January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring
argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's
decision in a matter captioned Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12 15705+.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Frank v.
Netflix issued on February 27, 2015. The district court ordered
supplemental briefing on the issue of final Settlement approval
May 21, 2015. After briefing, the district court conducted a
hearing on July 27, 2016 and took the matter under submission. On
August 9, 2016, the district court entered an order reapproving
the Settlement without any changes, and accordingly entered
judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. On September 6,
2016, the objector filed a notice of appeal.

On November 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
affirmance of the district court's judgment, to which the objector
responded and filed a cross-motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs'
motion for summary affirmance temporarily stayed briefing on the
appeal. On March 2, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs'
motion for summary affirmance and objector's cross-motion for
sanctions, and reset the briefing schedule. Objector filed his
opening brief on May 1, 2017. Thirteen state Attorneys General
filed an amicus brief in support of the objector on May 8, 2017.
Absent an extension, the parties' answering briefs are presently
due May 31, 2017, and the objector's optional reply brief is
presently due June 14, 2017. The date for oral argument on the
appeal has not yet been set.

FTD Companies, Inc., is a premier floral and gifting company.


FUSION LOGISTICS: Overtime Pay Sought in "Geffrard" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christial Geffrard, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fusion Logistics Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 6:17-cv-01161 (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fusion provides end-to-end logistics solutions and dedicated
delivery services to online retailers.  Geffrard worked for the
Defendant as delivery driver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR AND ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 E. Concord St.
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Tel: (407) 835-8968
      Fax: (407) 835-8969
      Email: sadams@labaradams.com
             rlabar@labaradams.com


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Gale Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MILLER v. GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00929 (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty on July 17 granting
the motion of the Gale Investor Group for consolidation,
appointment of lead Plaintiff, and approval of selection of Lead
Counsel, etc.

The Court denied as moot Mark Muir's Motion to Consolidate Cases;
and his Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff.

Galena Biopharma, 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 a shareholder
securities class action.

On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey entitled, Miller v. Galena Biopharma, Inc.,
et al. On February 15, 2017, a putative shareholder securities
class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey entitled, Kattuah v Galena Biopharma,
Inc., et al.

The actions assert that the defendants failed to disclose that
Galena's promotional practices for Abstral were allegedly improper
and that the Company may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered the Company's
statements about its business misleading.

Two groups of shareholders and one individual shareholder filed
three motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on April 14, 2017 and
April 17, 2017. Subsequently, one of the shareholders groups
withdrew its motion for lead plaintiff status and the individual
shareholder notified the court that he does not object to the
appointment of the remaining shareholder group as lead plaintiff.

The Company said, "The Court has not yet appointed a lead
plaintiff and we anticipate a court ruling on such motions during
the second quarter of 2017. Thereafter, once lead plaintiff's
counsel has been designated, we expect that an amended complaint
will be filed. Within the time allowed under the federal rules and
statutes, the Company and the other defendants, former and current
officers, will respond to the amended complaints through an
appropriate pleading or motion."

Galena Biopharma, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing
hematology and oncology therapeutics that address unmet medical
needs.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, 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 the case,
Patel vs. Galena Biopharma, Inc. et. al.

On April 27, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the Chancery Court of Delaware entitled Patel vs. Galena
Biopharma, Inc. et. al, CA No. 2017-0325 alleging breaches of
Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law and breaches
of fiduciary duties by the board of directors regarding the voting
results of authorized share and the reverse stock split proposals
in the proxy statements for the July 2016 and October 2016
stockholder meetings. The plaintiff has moved for expedited
consideration of its Section 225 claim.

The Company and the other defendants, former and current
directors, will respond to the complaint through an appropriate
pleading or motion filed within the time allowed under Delaware
law.

Galena Biopharma, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing
hematology and oncology therapeutics that address unmet medical
needs.


GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Class of Aides Certified in "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley grants the Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify the case captioned DEANGELA SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals
v. GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00807-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has sought to certify a class defined as:

     All current and former Home Health Aides or other job titles
     performing similar job duties (collectively, "HHAs")
     employed by Generations Healthcare Services, LLC and/or
     Generations Too, LLC at any time after January 1, 2015, who
     worked over 40 hours per week, and were not paid overtime
     for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Court directs the parties to confer on the form of notice and
submit agreed proposed Notice and Consent-to-Sue forms within 14
days of the date of this Order.  Once notice is approved, the
Defendants must provide a class list to Plaintiff's counsel within
14 days, and notice may then be distributed to putative class
members by regular mail and e-mail.  Notice may also be posted at
the Defendants' facilities if necessary.  The opt-in period should
last 90 days.

Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., and
Johnson Becker PLLC are appointed as interim class counsel.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Consideration of her Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Plaintiff's Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery are now moot, according to
the Court's opinion and order.

The Plaintiff brings the action for wage and hour violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and related Ohio laws, on behalf of
herself and individuals employed by Defendants Generations
Healthcare Services, LLC and/or Generations Too, LLC, as
registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, physical and
occupational therapists, and home health aides since after January
1, 2015.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ob8kvIYV


GENIE ENERGY: Ferrare Parties Finalizing Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 parties in the Anthony Ferrare class
action lawsuit are working towards finalizing a class action
settlement.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff.

On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the
Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay and denied its motion to
dismiss without prejudice.

The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with respect to a proposed
settlement of the above-referenced putative class action (as well
as the other putative class actions referred to in this section).
There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU
that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The
parties notified the Court of that development and are working
towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved
by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GENIE ENERGY: McLaughlin Parties Finalizing Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 parties in the Louis McLaughlin class
action lawsuit are working towards finalizing a class action
settlement.

Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on July 21 entered an order providing that
no later than July 24, the parties shall file a joint status
report.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008.

On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New
York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie
Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd.
(collectively, "IDT Energy").

On February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the named plaintiff opposed that motion. The
parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with
respect to a proposed settlement of the above-referenced putative
class action (as well as the other putative class actions referred
to in this section). There are a number of material issues not
addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can
be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development
and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need
to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims
in this lawsuit are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GENIE ENERGY: Aks Parties Finalizing Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 parties in the Kimberly Aks class action
lawsuit are working towards finalizing a class action settlement.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present. The parties were engaged in discovery prior to
mediation.

On April 20, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on behalf of herself and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey
against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd.

On June 27, 2016, defendants Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On August 26, 2016, the named plaintiff opposed that motion and
IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of
its motion to dismiss.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss, but the parties agreed to
set aside that decision to give the plaintiff an opportunity to
submit opposition papers that had not been considered by the Court
in rendering its decision. The parties participated in mediation,
and entered into a MOU with respect to a proposed settlement of
the above-referenced putative class action (as well as the other
putative class actions referred to in this section).

There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU
that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The
parties notified the Court of that development and are working
towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved
by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit.

The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy
International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie
Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc.
("GOGAS").


GENIE ENERGY: Estimates Settlement Payments of 3 Suits at $9-Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. has entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in three class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed on July 10, 2017 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The Company estimates the total
settlement payment to be approximately US$9 million based in part
on historical participation rates.  The settlement is subject to
entry of a final order by the court.

On July 5, 2017, Genie Energy Ltd. (the "Registrant") and its
subsidiaries, IDT Energy, LLC, Genie Retail Energy, Inc. and Genie
Energy International Corporation, Inc. (collectively, the
"Defendants") entered into a class action settlement agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") with the class action plaintiffs
Louis McLaughlin, Anthony Ferrare and Deborah Aks, acting
individually and on behalf of the entire class, in the lawsuits
entitled McLaughlin v. IDT Energy, Inc. (Civil Action No. 14 Civ.
4107), Ferrare v. IDT Energy, Inc. (Civil Action No. Civ. 4658)
and Aks v. IDT Energy, Inc., (Civil Action No. L-04936-14) (the
"Lawsuits"), currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Superior Court of New
Jersey Law Division, Essex County, respectively.

In these actions, which were brought shortly after the winter of
2013-2014, the named plaintiffs alleged that they and other former
and current electric or gas customers of Defendants were injured
as a result of Defendants' allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices.  During that winter, due to the unusually severe cold
weather, wholesale energy commodity costs rose dramatically,
contributing to a usually high volume of customer complaints
throughout the industry, particularly for suppliers with variable
rate plans.  Defendants took voluntary steps to address the impact
on its customers from the "polar vortex" and is dedicated to
customer satisfaction, The Registrant does not believe that there
was any wrongdoing on its part, and is entering into this
settlement to further its efforts to address its customers'
concerns.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Registrant has agreed to pay
certain amounts (the "Settlement Payment") to resolve the Lawsuits
and obtain a release of claims that were asserted or could be
asserted in the Lawsuits or that are related to or arise out of
the conduct alleged in the Lawsuits or similar conduct, wherever
it may have occurred.  The Settlement Payment includes payments to
customers who timely make a claim (the "Class Members"), class
counsel, and the named plaintiffs as well as the cost of a claims
administrator for administrating the claims process.

Class Members are to receive settlement payments in the form of a
check or credit against future invoices.  The amount of the
settlement payment will depend on a variety of factors, including
whether the Class Member was an electric, gas or dual meter
customer, energy usage level, and the length of time that the
Class Member was a customer of Defendants.

Electric customers will receive cash payments of between US$2.50
and US$3.50, depending on usage level, for each month Defendants
supplied electricity up to a maximum of 15 months or a credit of
between US$4.25 and US$5.25, depending on usage level, for each
month Defendants supplied electricity up to a maximum of 20
months.

Gas customers will receive cash payments of between US$0.75 and
US$1.00, depending on usage level, for each month Defendants
supplied gas up to a maximum of 15 months or a credit of between
US$1.70 and US$2.10, depending on usage level, for each month
Defendants supplied gas up to a maximum of 20 months.

Class Members who received certain rebates from Defendants will
also have the right to elect to have their rebate recalculated or
to receive a US$1.00 cash payment or US$2.00 invoice credit.  The
actual amount to be paid out will depend on several factors,
including the number of customers who elect to seek the settlement
payments to which they are entitled.  The Registrant estimates,
based in part on historical participation rates, that its total
Settlement Payment will be approximately US$9 million.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by
the court approving the Settlement Agreement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company.  The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas.  It was incorporated in
2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GIGAMON INC: Aug. 3 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Rodriguez v. Gigamon Inc., remains pending, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, an Amended Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel was filed by The Gigamon Investor Group.  The Hearing
on the request is set for Aug. 3, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom
4, 5th Floor, San Jose before te Hon. Edward J. Davila.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, a purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against us and three of our
current and former officers, Rodriguez v. Gigamon Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00434 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 27, 2017). The
plaintiff alleges that we made false and misleading statements
about our business, operations and prospects, including statements
about our guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016. The complaint
asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5 on
behalf of all persons and entities who acquired our securities
between October 27, 2016 and January 17, 2017. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other
relief."

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend
against it vigorously," the Company said.

Gigamon Inc. (the "Company") designs, develops and sells products
and services that together provide customers visibility and
control of network traffic. The Company serves global enterprises,
governments and service providers that seek to maintain and
improve the security, reliability and performance of their network
infrastructure.


GREGORY KISTLER: Care Workers Class Certified in "White" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. P.K. Holmes, III, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action, disclosure of contact information for potential opt-in
plaintiffs, and to send court-approved notice in the lawsuit
styled CATHERINE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER, INC.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02259-PKH (W.D. Ark.).

The Court conditionally certifies the case as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and authorizes notice to be
sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs.  The opt-in class will
consist of:

     "all employees of Defendant who were employed as Direct Care
     Workers on or after January 1, 2015, and who worked more
     than forty (40) hours in at least one workweek after
     January 1, 2015."

The Defendant is directed to provide the names, last known mailing
addresses, and e-mail addresses of all putative members.  The
Defendant has until July 25, 2017, to deliver the contact
information to the Plaintiff.

Upon receiving the information, the Plaintiff will have 60 days by
which to distribute notice and file opt-in plaintiffs' signed
consent to join forms with the Court.  The 60-day opt-in period
will begin on July 31, 2017.

The parties' agreed upon proposed notice, consent to join,
electronic notice and consent to join forms, and follow-up
postcard are approved subject to certain changes.

In all other respects, the Motion for conditional certification of
a collective action is denied.  The parties' joint stipulation as
to conditional certification and notice, which they have
characterized as an additional motion for conditional
certification of a collective action, is terminated as moot.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mb9ZD3xl


H&R BLOCK: Parties Resolve "Lopez" Compliance Fee Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on June 16, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2017 that parties have reached an agreement
to resolve the plaintiff's claims in the case filed by Manuel H.
Lopez III.

On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.
(Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail
tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  The plaintiff seeks
to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims.  The court denied the motion. The Company filed an appeal.

On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion.

On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand.
The Company filed an additional appeal, which was denied.

In its Form 10-Q filed on March 8, 2017, with the SEC for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2017, the Company said, "On
March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court. We filed an application for transfer of the appeal in
the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was denied. We subsequently
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, which was also denied. Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification . . ."

The Company further said in its latest Form 10-K filing, "The
parties subsequently reached an agreement to resolve the
plaintiff's claims in the case. A portion of our loss contingency
accrual is related to this matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax
solutions, and other services and products related to income tax
return preparation to the general public primarily in the United
States, Canada, and Australia.  The Company was founded in 1946
and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Parties Resolve "Perras" Lawsuit on Compliance Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on June 16, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2017 that parties have reached an agreement
to resolve the plaintiff's claims in the case filed by Ronald
Perras.

On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance
fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax
seasons.  The plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims.

In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the
remaining 2012 claims.  The plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18,
2015.

In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment,
along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the
state of California.  The Company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment on all claims.

On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot.  The plaintiff filed an appeal
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "The parties subsequently reached an agreement
to resolve the plaintiff's claims in the case.  A portion of our
loss contingency accrual is related to this matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted
income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax
solutions, and other services and products related to income tax
return preparation to the general public primarily in the United
States, Canada, and Australia.  The Company was founded in 1946
and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, NJ: School Board Settles Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, writing for The Trentonian, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by retired public schoolteachers,
administrators and secretaries against the Hamilton Township
School District has been settled.

The Hamilton Township Board of Education has approved a settlement
agreement that calls for the school board to pay $17 million over
the next 12 years to entitled district retirees, including former
Superintendent of Schools Neil Bencivengo, to resolve a contract
dispute.

Among the large list of plaintiffs who sued the school board are
Mr. Bencivengo and former district business administrator
Carol Chiacchio, who filed a complaint in Mercer County Superior
Court in March 2014 alleging the district failed to make
contractually obligatory cash payments to the retirees in lieu of
prescription drug coverage for the retirees and their dependents.

The cash payments, according to the complaint, were allegedly
supposed to be paid to certain retirees as annual replacement
compensation due to the school district ending its former policy
of providing retirees with lifetime prescription drug coverage.
The cash payments stopped being disbursed around July 2013, and
about $4 million in cash payments have allegedly not been paid in
2013, 2014 and 2015, according to the school district's annual
financial audit for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Seeking to fully and finally resolve, discharge and settle the
litigation, the school board on June 28 approved a settlement
proposal to disburse $4 million in retroactive payments and $13
million in prospective payments to the retirees.

"The decision of the board and retirees to enter into a settlement
was an economically responsible and just resolution to all sides
of the dispute," all sides said on July 10 in a joint statement.
"The agreement will provide financial certainty and stability for
the district while simultaneously guaranteeing full retroactive
and fair and equitable prospective payments to the retirees for a
fixed duration. The court will have an opportunity to weigh in on
the terms and approve them."

If the settlement receives court approval, $17 million over the
next 12 years will be paid at fixed intervals to former members of
the Hamilton Township Administrators and Supervisors Association
(HTASA) and Hamilton Township School Secretaries' Association
(HTSSA) who retired from the district on or before July 1, 2011,
and to former members of the Hamilton Township Education
Association (HTEA) who retired from the district on or before July
1, 2012.

Under the settlement agreement, which The Trentonian obtained
under an Open Public Records Act or OPRA request, the school board
agrees to pay up but does not admit any wrongdoing.

"Neither the fact of the compromise and Settlement, nor the
payment of any consideration thereunder, nor the execution of this
Settlement Agreement constitutes an admission of any liability by
any of the parties, or an admission that the claims or defenses
lacked merit," reads a clause in the agreement.

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The school board has agreed to make two equal retroactive payments
to the plaintiffs, with the first payment to be allocated from the
board's fiscal year 2016-17 budget and paid "as soon as
practicable" and for the second payment to be made from the
board's 2017-18 budget and paid in January 2018.  The payments
shall be retroactive to July 2013 for retirees, and some
dependents will receive compensation retroactive to July 2011 or
July 2012.

The retro pay is based upon "amounts definitively owed" to the
retirees and eligible dependents for the years 2011 through 2017.
The board further agreed to make the first of 10-annual
prospective payments commencing on or about January 2019 from the
board's 2018-19 fiscal budget.

The plaintiffs shall be responsible for the payment of counsel
fees and costs, which shall be paid through the settlement
proceeds, according to the agreement.

THE PLAINTIFFS

More than 30 retired employees of the Hamilton Township School
District filed the class-action lawsuit against the Board of
Education. Joan Gray, who retired from the district in January
2010, was the first plaintiff listed in the class.

Mr. Bencivengo, who retired from the district in July 2011, and
Ms. Chiacchio, who retired from the district in September 2010,
are arguably the highest-profile plaintiffs in the class.  Other
notable plaintiffs in the class include former Hamilton school
board member Kathleen Lord, who retired from the district in
August 2004 as a secretary, and former Hamilton school board
member Andrew Kaszimer, who retired early from the district in
July 2006 as a math teacher.

If the settlement agreement is approved by the courts, the
compensation that the plaintiffs shall receive will be in addition
to their monthly pension allowances.  Public records show some of
the retirees in the class collect about $2,000 in monthly pension
while some of the retired administrators collect more than $10,000
in monthly pension payments.

The lawyers who helped the parties reach the settlement agreement
include Hamilton school board attorney Patrick F. Carrigg of the
Lenox Law Firm, Robert M. Schwartz of the Schwartz Law Group that
represented retired Hamilton administrators and their dependents
and spouses, and Richard A. Friedman of the Zazzali Law Firm that
represented retired teachers, secretaries and other subclass
members who once worked in the Hamilton Township School District.
[GN]


HD SUPPLY: September 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 11, 2017 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against HD
Supply Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:HDS), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of HD Supply and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaq-hdsto learn more.  If you wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 11, 2017.

About the Lawsuit

HD Supply Holdings and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) HD Supply's 2017 operating and
growth leverage guidance was not feasible (ii) the recovery of its
Facilities Maintenance supply chain was not in line with prior
expectations and planning; (iii) the sale of its Waterworks
segment was being explored; (iv) Defendant Joseph DeAngelo, with
full knowledge of these undisclosed materially-adverse facts, sold
off his personal holdings of HD Supply stock, resulting in over
$54 million in profits; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, HD
Supply's financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Panza" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Panza and Eric Miller, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Healthcare Services Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-01342 (N.D. Ohio, June 26, 2017),
seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate,
attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and further and
additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and pursuant to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendant provides healthcare, dining and nutrition and janitorial
services to various nationwide facilities where Miller and Panza
were employed as account managers at a facility in Portsmouth,
Ohio since August 2012. Defendants did not maintain time-keeping
records thus failing to account for Plaintiffs' overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

             - and -

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California
customer has filed a class action lawsuit against Honda, alleging
breach of contract, breach of implied warranty breach of warranty,
and unjust enrichment.

Carolina Martinez filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, June 26 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. and Honda North America, Inc., alleging they
manufactured defective Honda Accord and Honda Crosstour vehicles
with low-capacity batteries.

According to the complaint, Ms. Martinez was damaged monetarily
from purchasing a new 2015 Honda Accord that had defective
components that prematurely failed.  The plaintiff alleges the
defendants failed to fix the starter motor defects of the Honda
vehicle.

Ms. Martinez seeks trial by jury, enjoin the defendant,
compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages, interest, all
remedies, disgorgement, attorney' fees, and all other appropriate
relief.  She is represented by attorneys Jordan L. Lurie, Tarek H.
Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett and Karen L. Wallace of Capstone Law APC in
Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04714-SJO-SS
[GN]


IDT CORP: Class Action by Straight Path Shareholders Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation is facing a putative class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court related to certain
stockholders of Straight Path Communications Inc., according to
the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 7, 2017.

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path
Communications Inc., and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path
as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court against IDT Corporation
(the "Registrant"), The Patrick Henry Trust, Howard Jonas, and
each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that IDT aided and abetted Straight Path's
directors and Howard Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with a settlement of claims between
Straight Path and the Registrant related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations
under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"), as well as the proposed sale of
Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. ("IP
Group") to the Registrant in connection with that settlement.

The Registrant and Straight Path entered into a binding term sheet
that provides for, among other things, the settlement and mutual
release of the potential indemnification claims asserted by each
of the Registrant and Straight Path in connection with, among
other things, liabilities (including but not limited to fines,
fees or penalties) that may exist or arise relating to the subject
matter of the investigation by the FCC.  Pursuant to the term
sheet, in exchange for the mutual release, the Registrant will pay
Straight Path US$16,000,000; Straight Path will transfer to
Registrant or its designee Straight Path's ownership interest in
IP Group, which holds intellectual property primarily related to
communications over computer networks; and stockholders of
Straight Path will receive 22% of the net proceeds, if any,
received by IP Group from any license, transfer or assignment of
any of the patent rights held by IP Group as of the effective date
of transfer, or any settlement, award or judgment involving any of
the patent rights (including any net proceeds received following
the effective date of transfer).

The Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path board would be
futile and is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii)
awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders are receiving
in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications for
their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iii)
ordering Howard Jonas, Davidi Jonas and the Registrant to disgorge
any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs.

The Company said, "The Registrant intends to vigorously defend the
action."

IDT Corporation is a multinational holding company with operations
primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries, based
in Newark, New Jersey.  IDT has three reportable business
segments, Telecom Platform Services, Unified Communications as a
Service, or UCaaS, and Consumer Phone Services.


IGNACIO NOEMI: "De La Luz" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Rebollo De La Luz, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Ignacio Noemi Food,
Inc. (d/b/a Jake's Pizza Northbrook), Nachito Food, Inc. (d/b/a
Pizano'z Pizza) and Ignacio Carvajal, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04756, (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law.

Defendants operate two restaurants commonly known as Jake's Pizza
located at 2722 Dundee Rd, Northbrook, Illinois and Pizano'z Pizza
located at 1137 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Plaintiff
worked as a cook and cashier. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Direct: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: McVicar & Ritter Dropped from "Whitehead"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10025 (D. Mass.), a Stipulation of Dismissal
was entered on July 20 as to Defendants William McVicar and Dale
Ritter.

On July 10, an Amended Complaint was filed against David P.
Southwell, Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Rudolf A.
Baumgartner.

On June 19, 2017, the court set these deadlines:

     Amended Complaint due by July 10

     Answer to Amended Complaint or Motion to Dismiss
     due by Sept. 8

     Response to Motion to Dismiss due by Nov. 7

     Reply due by Dec. 22

The Hon. Leo T Sorokin presides over the case.

Inotek Pharmaceuticals 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, Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, et al.

The Company said, "On January 6, 2017, a purported stockholder of
the Company filed a putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company,
David Southwell, Rudolf Baumgartner, Dale Ritter, and William
McVicar, captioned Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-10025. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding our MATrX-1 phase 3
clinical trial of trabodenoson. The lawsuit seeks among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief."

Inotek is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for
glaucoma and other diseases of the eye.


INTREXON CORPORATION: Court Entered Final Judgment in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intrexon 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 court has entered final judgment in a
class action case.

The Company said, "In May 2016, two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al.
and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of our common stock between May 12, 2015 and April
20, 2016, or the Class Period."

"In July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a
lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants us and certain of our current and former officers, or
the Defendants. It alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
during the Class Period with respect to our business, operations,
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs'
claims are based in part upon allegations in a report published in
April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

"The Defendants moved to dismiss the case. On February 24, 2017,
the court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds
that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, while granting the
plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff subsequently notified the
court that it would seek to appeal the court's ruling rather than
amend its complaint. On April 26, 2017, the court entered final
judgment in the case. Any appeal must be filed by the plaintiff by
May 26, 2017. We intend to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this case."

Intrexon Corporation ("Intrexon"), a Virginia corporation, forms
collaborations to create biologically based products and processes
using synthetic biology. Intrexon's primary domestic operations
are in California, Florida, Maryland, and Virginia, and its
primary international operations are in Belgium and Hungary. There
have been no commercialized products derived from Intrexon's
collaborations to date.


ITERIS INC: Sept 8 Hearing Set for "Ionni" Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iteris, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on June 13, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2017 that the court has scheduled a
settlement approval hearing for September 8, 2017 to resolve the
lawsuit styled Ionni v. Bergera, et al.  The settlement has
obtained preliminary court approval on June 2, 2017.

On September 15, 2016, a stockholder class action and derivative
action (captioned Ionni v. Bergera, et al., Case No. 16-cv00807-
RGA) was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Court") against certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers (the
"Individual Defendants") and the Company as a nominal defendant
(together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants").  The
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff contends that, in 2014 and 2015, the Individual
Defendants caused the Company to issue purportedly false and
misleading proxy statements in connection with the Company's
annual meeting of stockholders in 2014 and 2015 (collectively, the
"Proxy Statements").  In those Proxy Statements, the Company's
stockholders were asked to approve amendments (the "Amendments")
to increase the number of shares of the Company's common stock
reserved for issuance under the Iteris, Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Incentive Plan (the "2007 Plan").

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statements
were materially false and misleading because they affirmatively
represented that no person could receive more than 500,000 stock
options or SARs under the 2007 Plan in any fiscal year (the "Share
Limit") and failed to disclose that the Compensation Committee had
the discretion to approve an annual grant to a 2007 Plan
participant in excess of that amount.  Plaintiff contends that, in
voting to approve the Amendments, the Company's stockholders were
not fully informed and, therefore, the Amendments were not valid.

Plaintiff seeks rescission of any stock options granted pursuant
to the Amendments, including the option to purchase up to
1,350,000 shares of the Company's common stock that was granted in
September 2015 to Mr. Bergera (the "CEO Option") in connection
with his appointment to serve as President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company.

The Individual Defendants deny that they breached their fiduciary
duties and the Company believes the Amendments were properly
approved and that all of the options granted pursuant to the
Amendments, including the CEO Option, were valid.

Nonetheless, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainty of
the litigation, on November 8, 2016, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreement
in principle to resolve the litigation.  In consideration for a
release of claims and dismissal of this litigation with prejudice,
the Company agreed to submit a proposal at its 2016 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders seeking stockholder approval for that portion of
the CEO Option that exceeds the Share Limit (i.e., the 850,000
options above the Share Limit (the "Excess Shares")).  The Company
submitted a proposal of the Excess Shares for approval by the
Company stockholders at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
On December 15, 2016, the Company's stockholders approved the
Excess Shares.

On April 28, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement and Compromise (the "Stipulation") that provides for,
among other things, a release of claims against Defendants.  Under
the Stipulation, Defendants agreed not to oppose any award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff up to US$215,000.  On
May 2, 2017, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement.

On May 11, 2017, the Court issued an order requesting briefing
from the parties regarding the scope of the proposed release in
the settlement, and on May 22, 2017, Defendants and Plaintiff each
filed a letter brief to the Court in response to the order.

On June 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting the motion for
preliminary approval, approving notice of the settlement, and
scheduling a settlement approval hearing for September 8, 2017.

The Company said, "We recorded an immaterial accrued liability for
the settlement in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as
of March 31, 2017."

Iteris, Inc., is a provider of intelligent information solutions
for both the traffic management and global agribusiness markets.
The Company is focused on the development and application of
advanced technologies and software-based information systems that
reduce traffic congestion, provide measurement, management and
predictive traffic and weather analytics, and improve the safety
of surface transportation systems infrastructure.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Defending Against Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is defending against putative
shareholder class actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 will need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits," the
Company said.

Headquartered in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic
of China, the Company is one of the People's Republic of China's
("China") leading producers and manufacturers of electric vehicle
("EV") products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in China
and global markets. The Company conducts its primary business
operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Zhejiang Kandi
Vehicles Co., Ltd. ("Kandi Vehicles"), and the partially and
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Kandi Vehicles.


KEY CLUB III: "Garcia-Ponce" Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eusebio Garcia-Ponce and Socorro Bravo-Atempa individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Key
Club III, Inc. (d/b/a Key Club Cleaners) and Kyeong Hee Jo,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04774 (N.D. Ill., June
26, 2017), seeks owed unpaid overtime wages, damages and any other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendants own and operate a dry-cleaning business located at 4456
Oakton Street, Skokie, Illinois where Plaintiffs worked.  Both
allege that the defendants failed to maintain time-keeping records
and thus faied to account for the plaintiff's overtime.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Direct: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


LA BOTA RANCH: Homeowners File Class Action Against Board Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Gonzalez, writing for KGNS, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against La Bota Ranch.

The petition was filed at the end of June against the board
members of La Bota Ranch Owners Association.

According to the plaintiff's petition, there are claims of
mismanagement of Homeowner's Association money.

The budget they allege has grown to one million with no additional
service to the homeowners.

The increase has been seen in their quarterly dues.

We reached out to the defendants and received a statement that
reads, "The increase in dues are due in large part to attorney's
fees paid to a law firm to collect delinquencies that resulted
from the Great Recession'.

The Statement further says that the dues were kept at an
artificially low for 15 years. [GN]


LEXINGTON LAW: "Hodges" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenni Hodges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lexington Law Firm and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at-00643 (E.D. Cal., June 22,
2017) seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and
negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and
such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number in
an effort to solicit their credit services using an automatic
telephone dialing system. Defendant's calls constituted calls that
were not for emergency purposes, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Still Defends Class Action
------------------------------------------------
MaxPoint Interactive, 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 against
a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We, certain of our officers and directors, and
certain investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in
connection with our initial public offering, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed August 31,
2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by not including
information regarding customer concentration, which the complaint
characterizes as a known trend and/or significant factor required
to be disclosed under federal securities regulations. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and other costs."

"The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on March 24, 2016. The Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that
motion on May 9, 2016, and we filed a reply brief on June 8, 2016.
On February 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dismissing the First Amended Complaint against us, the individual
defendants and the underwriter defendants. The Plaintiff filed a
motion with the Court to reconsider the Order of dismissal and
reinstate the claims against the defendants on February 27, 2017.

"We filed an opposition brief on March 13, 2017.

"We dispute the claims alleged in the lawsuit and will continue to
defend this matter vigorously."

MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. is a provider of business intelligence
and marketing automation services.


MERRIMACK PHARMACEUTICALS: Garfield Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, 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 Garfield Action has been
dismissed with prejudice.

The Company said, "On February 28, 2017, a putative stockholder
class action suit was filed by a purported stockholder of ours in
the Superior Court of Massachusetts for the County of Middlesex
against us and our directors. The case was captioned Robert
Garfield v. Merrimack Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., or the
Garfield Action. The Garfield Action complaint alleged that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
asset sale agreement with Ipsen and that the definitive proxy
statement relating to the asset sale contained inadequate
disclosures and omissions. Although we believed that the Garfield
Action was without merit, to avoid the risk of the litigation
delaying or adversely affecting the asset sale and to minimize the
expense of defending the litigation related to the asset sale, we
agreed to make supplemental disclosures related to the asset sale
and to pay the plaintiff's counsel $375,000 in attorney's fees in
connection with the resolution of the Garfield Action. As a
result, the Garfield Action was dismissed with prejudice."

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") is a
biopharmaceutical company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts that
is outthinking cancer to ensure that patients and their families
live fulfilling lives. The Company's mission is to transform
cancer care through the smart design and development of targeted
solutions based on a deep understanding of cancer pathways and
biological markers. All of the Company's product candidates,
including three in clinical studies and several others in
preclinical development, fit into the Company's strategy of (1)
understanding the biological problems the Company is trying to
solve, (2) designing specific solutions and (3) developing those
solutions for biomarker-selected patients. This three-pronged
strategy seeks to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

On April 3, 2017, the Company announced that it commenced
operating as a new, refocused research and clinical development
company in connection with the completion of its previously
announced transaction (the "Asset Sale") with Ipsen S.A.
("Ipsen"). Pursuant to the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement,
dated as of January 7, 2017 (the "Asset Sale Agreement"), between
the Company and Ipsen, the Company sold to Ipsen its right, title
and interest in the non-cash assets, equipment, inventory,
contracts and intellectual property primarily related to or used
in the Company's business operations and activities involving or
relating to developing, manufacturing and commercializing ONIVYDE,
the Company's first commercial product, and MM-436 (the
"Commercial Business"). The Company received $575.0 million in
cash (subject to a working capital adjustment) upon the closing of
the Asset Sale and is eligible to receive up to $450.0 million in
additional regulatory approval-based milestone payments. The
Company also retained the rights to receive net milestone payments
of up to $33.0 million that may become payable pursuant to the
license and collaboration agreement with Baxalta Incorporated,
Baxalta US Inc. and Baxalta GmbH (collectively, "Baxalta") for the
ex-U.S. development and commercialization of ONIVYDE.


MIDLAND STATES BANCORP: Defending Against "Rader" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Midland States Bancorp, 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 against
the case, Rader v. Battles, et al.

Centrue, the Company,  Sentinel Acquisition, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub") 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. Battles, 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, the
Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary
breaches. Plaintiff claims, 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 undue 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 his costs and attorneys' fees.

The defendants believe that the claims in this lawsuit is wholly
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. It is possible
that other potential plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction.


MOCON INC: "Ellebracht" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------
In the case, Ellebracht v. Mocon, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-
01662 (D. Minn.), Judge Joan N Ericksen signed on the parties'
Stipulation of Dismissal.  The Stipulation provides that:

     (1) As to Pat Ellebracht's claims on behalf of himself, the
         action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  All claims on behalf
         of the putative class are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

     (2) Within 28 days of the date of this Order, Ellebracht
         shall file his motion for attorney's fees and expenses.

MOCON, Inc., in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 14, 2017, filed supplemental
disclosures to its definitive proxy statement in relation to Pat
Ellebracht's putative class action. A full-text copy of the Form
8-K with the supplemental disclosures is available at
https://is.gd/JZeBZg

On April 16, 2017, MOCON, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("MOCON"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), with AMETEK, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("AMETEK"),
and AMETEK Atom, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of AMETEK ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among
other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into MOCON, with
MOCON surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of AMETEK (the
"Merger").  On May 18, 2017, MOCON filed a definitive proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the solicitation of proxies in connection with a
special meeting of MOCON's shareholders to be held on June 21,
2017 to vote upon, among other matters, a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement and approve the merger of Merger Sub with and
into MOCON, with MOCON as the surviving corporation in the Merger.

On May 18, 2017, a purported MOCON shareholder filed a putative
class action on behalf of a class of all MOCON shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
case is captioned Pat Ellebracht, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MOCON, Inc., Robert L. Demorest,
Robert F. Gallagher, Bradley D. Goskowicz, Tom C. Thomas, David J.
Ward, Kathleen Iverson, and Paul R. Zeller.  It claims that MOCON
and the Individual Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks, among other matters, to
enjoin or rescind the Merger, seeks an award of unspecified
damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and requests
that the case be certified as a class action.

The Company said, "MOCON and the Individual Defendants named in
the Ellebracht Action believe that the plaintiff's claims are
without merit and deny all allegations of wrongful or actionable
conduct asserted in the action, and MOCON's Board of Directors
vigorously maintains that the Proxy Statement is complete and
accurate in all material respects and that no further disclosure
is required under applicable law.

"However, solely to alleviate the costs, risks, distraction and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and any potential delay of
the proposed Merger, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, MOCON has determined to make the below supplemental
disclosures to the Proxy Statement.  This supplemental information
should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which
should be read in its entirety.  The Company and the Individual
Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they have
committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law
or breaches of duty to MOCON shareholders, and expressly maintain
that, to the extent applicable, they complied with their fiduciary
and other legal duties.  Nothing in the supplemental disclosures
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the supplemental disclosures set
forth herein.  To the extent that the information set forth herein
differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy
Statement, the information set forth herein shall supersede or
supplement the information in the Proxy Statement.  All page
references in the information below are to pages in the Proxy
Statement, and all capitalized terms used below shall have the
meaning set forth in the Proxy Statement."

MOCON, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufacturers, and markets test and measurement, analytical,
monitoring, and consulting products to barrier packaging, food,
pharmaceutical, consumer products, industrial hygiene, air quality
monitoring, oil and gas exploration, and other industries
worldwide.  It was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.


MYLAN N.V.: Settlement with Modafinil Direct Buyers Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 Modafinil antitrust litigation, the putative
direct purchaser class moved for preliminary approval of
settlement.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Discovery
is closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade
(and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion). On January 28,
2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment
motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis
decision.

In an order on June 1, 2015, vacated and reissued on June 11,
2015, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a petition for leave to appeal the certification decision,
which was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on
December 21, 2015.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On October 9, 2015, the Third Circuit granted defendants' petition
for leave to appeal the class certification decision.

On October 16, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay the
liability trial, which had been set to begin on February 2, 2016,
with the District Court pending the appeal of the decision to
certify the direct purchaser class; this motion was denied on
December 17, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the District Court approved the form and
manner of notice to the certified class of direct purchasers; the
notice was subsequently issued to the class.

On December 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay with
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which was granted on
January 25, 2016; accordingly, the trial was stayed and the case
was placed in suspense. On September 13, 2016, the Third Circuit
reversed the district court's certification order and remanded for
further proceedings.

On October 14, 2016 direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition
seeking rehearing. On October 31, 2016 the petition seeking
rehearing was denied.

On December 12, 2016, the District Court removed the case from
suspense and set the trial for June 5, 2017.

On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with
the putative indirect purchasers, and on November 20, 2015, Mylan
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect
purchasers for approximately $16 million. Plaintiffs have not yet
moved for preliminary approval of that settlement.

In December 2016, Mylan reached a settlement with the putative
direct purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for
$165 million, of which approximately $68.5 million was paid before
December 31, 2016. The settlement with the retailer opt-out
plaintiffs has been completed. The settlement with the putative
direct purchaser class will undergo the court approval process.

On February 3, 2017, the putative direct purchaser class moved for
preliminary approval. The Company has accrued approximately $112.5
million related to this matter at March 31, 2017 and December 31,
2016.

On June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed suit
in the District of Rhode Island against the same parties named as
defendants in litigation pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, including Mylan, asserting state law claims based on
the same underlying allegations.  All defendants, including Mylan,
moved to dismiss the suit on October 15, 2015, and the case was
subsequently settled.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: Pioglitazone Direct Purchasers Filed Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that the Pioglitazone direct purchasers have filed an
amended complaint and the Court has set a schedule for briefing on
Supplemental Motions to Dismiss.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014. Two additional complaints were
subsequently filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent classes
of direct purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus
Met(R).

On September 23, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers amended complaints with
prejudice.

The indirect purchasers filed a notice of appeal on October 22,
2015; however they have since abandoned and dismissed their appeal
of the District Court's dismissal of claims asserted against
Mylan.

The putative direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint on
January 8, 2016. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on
January 28, 2016 and the briefing has been completed.

The case was stayed pending the resolution of the indirect
purchasers' appeal against the defendants remaining in that case.

A decision was issued by the Second Circuit on February 8, 2017,
reversing in part and affirming in part, the District Court's
decision as to the remaining defendants.

Following this decision, the direct purchasers filed an amended
complaint and the Court has set a schedule for briefing on
Supplemental Motions to Dismiss.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: Federal Securities Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. continues to defend against a federal securities
litigation in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this
paragraph, the "defendants") in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ. The complaints alleged that defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact,
in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with
disclosures relating to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification
of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for
purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The complaints
sought damages, as well as the plaintiffs' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2017, after the actions were consolidated, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging substantially
similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but
adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both federal securities laws (on behalf of a
purported class of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.
and/or Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on
behalf of a purported class of certain purchasers of securities of
Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange).

Defendants' response to the consolidated amended complaint was due
May 30, 2017.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims in the consolidated
amended complaint are without merit and intend to defend against
them vigorously."

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: Israeli Securities Litigation Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that the Israeli Securities Litigation remains pending.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors
and officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the
"defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, in violation of both U.S. and
Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli
Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other
remedies.

On January 19, 2017, the Court stayed this case until a final
judgment is issued in the securities litigation currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact
in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect
to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law.
Service of process has not been effected in the April 30, 2017
lawsuit.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Civil Litigation Ongoing in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector civil litigation in New Jersey.

Beginning in August 2016, Mylan Specialty L.P. and other Mylan-
affiliated entities have been named as defendants in thirteen
putative class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of
the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan
affiliated companies also have been named as defendants in some of
the class actions. These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Courts for the Northern District of California, Northern District
of Illinois, District of Kansas, Eastern District of Michigan,
Western District of Washington, District of New Jersey and the
Western District of Pennsylvania, as well as the Hamilton County,
Ohio Court of Common Pleas (later removed to the Southern District
of Ohio).

All but four of these lawsuits (one in Illinois, one in Washington
and two in New Jersey) have either been dismissed or consolidated
into a single putative class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs in these cases
assert violations of various federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims.
Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of
the product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

Plaintiff in one of the putative class action lawsuits in New
Jersey has filed a request with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of the cases into a
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the District of New
Jersey.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

On April 24, 2017, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC ("Sanofi") filed a
lawsuit against Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty L.P. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In this lawsuit,
Sanofi alleges exclusive dealings and anti-competitive marketing
practices in violation of the antitrust laws in connection with
the sale and marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

"We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 22 Class Suits over Doxycycline and Digoxin Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that 22 putative class action complaints are pending against
Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers in a multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff
indirect purchasers, direct purchasers and independent pharmacies
generally allege anticompetitive conduct with respect to certain
Doxycycline and Digoxin products. Mylan and its subsidiary believe
that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to
deny liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 12 Class Suits over Pravastatin Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that 12 putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other
pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and
direct purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with
respect to certain Pravastatin products. These cases have been
transferred to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiary believe that the
claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to deny
liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 8 Class Suits over Divalproex Filed
-----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that eight putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and another
pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and
direct purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with
respect to certain Divalproex products. These cases have been
transferred to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiary believe that the
claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to deny
liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 10 Class Suits over Levothyroxine Filed
---------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that 10 putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers in the United States District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and direct purchasers generally
allege anticompetitive conduct with respect to certain
Levothyroxine products. These cases have been transferred to the
MDL. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. believes that the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to deny liability and to
defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 10 Class Suits over Propranolol Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that 10 putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., UDL Laboratories,
Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and direct
purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with respect
to certain Propranolol products. The Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss the South District of New York cases was granted as to
some state law claims but otherwise denied on April 6, 2017. These
cases have been transferred to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiaries
believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to deny liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 8 Class Suits over Clomipramine Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that eight putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan N.V. and
another pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, the District of New Jersey
and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and
direct purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with
respect to certain Clomipramine products. These cases have been
transferred to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiaries believe that
the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to deny
liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 4 Class Suits over Albuterol Filed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that four putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and another
pharmaceutical manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect and direct
purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with respect
to certain Albuterol products. These cases have been transferred
to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiary believe that the claims in
these lawsuits are without merit and intend to deny liability and
to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: Class Suit over Benazepril HCTZ Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that one putative class action complaint has been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and another
pharmaceutical manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff indirect purchaser
generally alleges anticompetitive conduct with respect to certain
Benazepril HCTZ products. This case has been transferred to the
MDL. Mylan and its subsidiary believe that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intend to deny liability and to
defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: 4 Class Suits over Amitriptyline Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that four putative class action complaints have been filed
against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other
pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York; plaintiff indirect and direct
purchasers generally allege anticompetitive conduct with respect
to certain Amitriptyline products. These cases have been
transferred to the MDL. Mylan and its subsidiary believe that the
claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to deny
liability and to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


MYLAN N.V.: RICO Suit over Doxycycline Filed
--------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that a complaint was filed on January 31, 2017 by putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers against Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Plaintiffs generally allege anticompetitive conduct and RICO
violations with respect to, among other things, certain
Doxycycline products. This case has been transferred to the MDL.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. believes that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to deny liability and to
defend against them vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a variety of dosage
forms and therapeutic categories.


NALCOR: Faces Class Action Over Mud Lake Flooding
-------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a lawyer in Halifax is launching a class-action
lawsuit against Nalcor for residents affected by flooding at Mud
Lake.

On July 10 a post was made on the Uncle Gnarley blog revealing
what is believed to be leaked information of a letter sent to
Nalcor's subsidiary, Muskrat Falls Corporation, placing the blame
for the flooding of Mud Lake on Nalcor.

Ray Wagner, the lawyer behind the suit, says if the information
presented in the Uncle Gnarley post is accurate, it certainly
strengthens the case for a class-action against the Crown
corporation.

He says his firm has been planning a class-action against Nalcor
and the new information presented in the post is helpful in
outlining details of alleged negligence demonstrated by Nalcor
during the flooding.

The post alleges that Nalcor refused to pay the contractor for
costs incurred after protesters formed a blockade at the Muskrat
Falls gates because the blockade was out of Nalcor's control.

The contractor, Bernard Pennecon LP, allegedly fired back at
Nalcor stating the blockade was within their control because it
was formed because protesters suspected Nalcor was responsible for
flooding at Mud Lake.

According to the letter sent by the contractor and published on
the Uncle Gnarley blog, the contractor stated:

"The blockade is the result of the Company's release of water or
failure to properly manage the downstream flows which resulted in
the flooding of the Mud Lake Community.  This was clearly within
the Company's control and the result of the Company's fault or
negligence."

Mr. Wagner says they still have to draft a claim that he expects
to file before the start of the school year and the new
information puts Nalcor in a defensive position where the company
must prove the leaked information is inaccurate. [GN]


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in "Rabin" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al.,
remains pending, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551
(E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court
entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on May 18, 2016."

"Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage
of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any,
liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as
the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit,
and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously."

Nasdaq, Inc. is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public
company services.


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets,
Inc., et al., remains pending, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City
of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as
under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3,
2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges
essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015.

"On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice, concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were
foreclosed by absolute immunity and in any event that the
plaintiffs failed to state any claim.

"The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second
Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016. On August 25,
2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting the SEC's
views on whether the district court had subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune
from suit regarding the challenged conduct. The SEC filed its
brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and plaintiffs filed
supplemental briefs responding to the SEC's brief on December 12,
2016."

"Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly
the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the
claims are without merit and will continue to litigate
vigorously."

Nasdaq, Inc. is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange
technology, regulatory, securities listing, information and public
company services.


NATERA INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------
Natera, 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 has been stayed, or held, in a
class action lawsuit pending the Company's appeal.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo, against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and
5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters
of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").
The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among
other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions
were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court.
The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed,
or held, pending the appeal. The Company has also filed a
demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the
Superior Court, which has not yet been heard.

The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot
provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an
adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition and results of operations. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of these actions, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome and is unable to make a meaningful
estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result
from any unfavorable outcome.

Natera, Inc. (the "Company") was formed in the state of California
as Gene Security Network, LLC in November 2003 and incorporated in
the state of Delaware in January 2007. The Company's mission is to
change the management of genetic disease worldwide. The Company
operates a laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments ("CLIA") providing a host of preconception
and prenatal genetic testing services. The Company determines its
operating segments based on the way it organizes its business to
make operating decisions and assess performance. The Company has
only one segment, which is the discovery, development and
commercialization of genetic testing services, and it has a
subsidiary that operates in the state of Texas.


NEUSTAR INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dropped Suit Without Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, 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 plaintiffs of the class action complaints
have voluntarily dismissed their cases without any payment.

The Company said, "We, along with other parties to the merger
agreement and our Board of Directors, were named as defendants in
a class action complaint filed on January 20, 2017, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled
Parshall v. NeuStar, Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00060-LPS. We and
our Board also were named as defendants in a class action
complaint filed on February 1, 2017, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Rubin v. NeuStar,
Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00104. The complaints alleged violations
of the federal securities laws by the defendants in connection
with the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by us
with the SEC with a filing date of January 7, 2017. The complaints
sought, among other things, an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if it was
consummated or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 28, 2017, the plaintiffs of these complaints voluntarily
dismissed their cases without any payment."

NeuStar, Inc. helps clients grow and guard their business with the
most complete understanding of how to connect people, places, and
things using its authoritative OneIDTM system.  The Company uses
its expertise in real-time addressing, authentication, and
analytics to provide marketing, risk security, registry, and
communications solutions to over 11,000 clients. The Company's
cloud-based platforms and differentiated data sets offer
informative, real-time analytics, which enable clients to make
actionable, data-driven decisions. The Company provides chief
marketing officers a comprehensive suite of services to plan their
media spend, identify and locate desired customers, invest
effectively in marketing campaigns, deliver relevant offers and
measure the performance of these activities. Security
professionals use the Company's solutions to maximize web
performance and protect against malicious attacks. The Company
enables the exchange of essential operating information across
multiple carriers to provision and manage services, assisting
clients with fast and accurate order processing and immediate
routing of customer inquiries. The Company provides communications
service providers in the United States critical infrastructure
that enables the dynamic routing of calls and text messages.

On December 14, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement), with Aerial Topco, L.P.
(the Parent), and Aerial Merger Sub, Inc., a subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with and
into Neustar. As a result of the merger, the Company will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were
formed by Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc. and GIC Special
Investments Pte Ltd. On March 14, 2017, the Company's stockholders
voted in favor of the adoption of the Merger Agreement. The
merger, which is expected to close no later than the end of the
third quarter of 2017, is subject to the receipt of required
regulatory approvals from the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States and the Federal Communications Commission as
well as the satisfaction or waiver of other customary closing
conditions.


NEW YORK: OOID Class Action Participants Set to Get Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Go By Truck News reports that more than 100,000 class action
participants of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association's lawsuit against New York will soon receive checks
reimbursing them for discriminatory registration and decal taxes.
The state of New York agreed to pay $44.4 million under a
settlement it reached with OOIDA in September 2016 regarding its
imposition of the unconstitutional registration and decal taxes.
OOIDA had previously obtained a court ruling that the taxes
violated the U.S. Constitution, and an injunction prohibiting New
York from collecting the taxes in the future.

OOIDA challenged the taxes as unconstitutionally discriminatory
against out-of-state truckers who drive their trucks mostly in
other states -- in contrast to New York-based truckers, who drive
a disproportionately higher number of miles in New York.  OOIDA
established that the challenged taxes resulted in a higher
per-mile tax rate being imposed on out-of-state trucks, and
therefore violated the Commerce Clause.

Truck drivers are eligible to receive a refund if they are
interstate motor carriers as defined in New York Tax Law as: (A)
residing outside the State of New York; and (B) who have paid the
$15.00 registration fee and the $4.00 decal fee imposed by the
state. [GN]


NOODLES & COMPANY: Selco Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 4, 2017, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend the Selco Litigation.

The Company said, "On June 28, 2016, we announced that a data
security incident compromised the security of the payment
information of some customers who used debit or credit cards at
certain Noodles & Company locations between January 31, 2016 and
June 2, 2016. In addition to claims by payment card companies with
respect to the data security incident, we are the defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, Selco Community Credit Union vs.
Noodles & Company, alleging that we negligently failed to provide
adequate security to protect the payment card information of
customers of the plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated
credit unions, banks and other financial institutions alleged to
be part of the putative class, causing those institutions to
suffer financial losses (the "Selco Litigation"). The complaint in
the Selco Litigation also claims we were negligent per se based on
alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act, and it seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees."

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend the Selco Litigation.
We cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential losses that
will be associated with the Selco Litigation because it is at an
early stage. We also cannot assure you that we will not become
subject to other inquiries or claims, such as claims brought by
customers, relating to the data security incident in the future.
Although we maintain data security liability insurance, and
certain fees and costs associated with this data security incident
and the Selco Litigation to date have been paid or reimbursed by
our data security liability insurer, we currently believe that it
is possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are
unsuccessful in defending this litigation, with respect to the
Selco Litigation will be in excess of the limits of our data
security liability insurance coverage applicable to claims of this
nature."

Noodles & Company, a Delaware corporation, develops and operates
fast casual restaurants that serve globally inspired noodle and
pasta dishes, soups, salads and appetizers. As of April 4, 2017,
the Company had 409 company-owned restaurants and 73 franchise
restaurants in 31 states and the District of Columbia.


NORTH SHORE BAKING: "Martinez-Matias" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeriano Martinez-Matias, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v.
North Shore Baking Corp. d/b/a North Shore Kosher Bakery, and
Tehiya Benezra, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04779, (N.D. Ill.,
June 26, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law.

Defendants operate a bakery called North Shore Baking Corp. that
does business as North Shore Kosher Bakery, located at 2919 W.
Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL where Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a baker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Office: 312-800-1017
      Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


NOVARTIS PHARMA: "Young" Claims Overtime Wages, Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chantae Young, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17CIV02798 (Cal. Super., June 23,
2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize
or permit required meal periods, and failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties in
the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees
all wages due including upon separation of employment; and
reimbursement of business-related expenses.
The suit also asserts unfair competition, and seeks injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Located in East Hanover, NJ, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
is an affiliate of Novartis AG Switzerland which provides
innovative medicines, cost-saving generic and biosimilar
pharmaceuticals and eye care.

Plaintiff worked for Novartis at their San Mateo, CA location.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Sept. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on July 12 announced the filing of
a securities class action lawsuit against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc.
("Ocular" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: OCUL).  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 5, 2017 and
July 6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the Firm in advance of the September 5, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Ocular shares during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esq., of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone:
(949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member 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 half of
lots manufactured by Ocular contain bad product; that such
manufacturing issues could endanger the approval of DEXTENZA by
the Food and Drug Administration; and that as a result of the
above, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  When this information was
announced, shares of Ocular declined in value materially, which
caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, Esq., a prominent litigator for almost two decades,
by telephone at (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.
[GN]


ORLEANS PARISH: "Caliste" Sues Over Conflict of Interest
--------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Caliste and Brian Gisclair, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harry E. Cantrell,
Magistrate Judge of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06197, (E.D. La., June 27, 2017),
seeks a declaration that Cantrell's conduct violates the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Cantrell has an institutional financial conflict of interest in
every secured money bond that he imposes because he acts both as a
supposedly neutral judicial officer and as an executive
responsible for managing the funds generated by each bail order
that he sets, asserts the complaint.

Caliste and Gisclair were in the custody of the Orleans Parish
Sheriff's Office where Cantrell imposed secured bonds they cannot
afford to pay as a condition of release. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
      Eric A. Foley, La Bar No. 34199, T.A.
      Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
      4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 620-2259
      Fax: (504) 208-3133
      Email: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org
             eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org

             - and -

      Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
      CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
      910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202)-681-2409
      Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org


PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug and Bhowmik lodged a putative class action lawsuit
against Pacific Personnel Services, Inc. for allegedly failing to
provide their workers in California with the legally required
thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods and the proper overtime
pay.  The class action also alleges that Pacific Personnel
Services failed to properly reimburse their California employees
for necessary business expenses they incurred on the company's
behalf.

The Pacific Personnel Services class action is currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 17-cv-03594.

The lawsuit filed against Pacific Personnel Services alleges that
the property management company failed to accurately "record and
pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for the actual
amount of time these employees worked, including overtime worked."

Under the California Labor Code, an employee who is classified as
non-exempt must be paid overtime wages for time worked in excess
of eight hours in a workday and time worked over forty hours in a
workweek.

The Class action lawsuit also alleges that the golden state
employees working for Pacific Personnel Services were not provided
thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth hour
of work.  California law requires employers to provide their non-
exempt employees with thirty minute meal periods before the
employee works five hours.

Finally, the class action lawsuit also asserts federal claims on
behalf of a nationwide class under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
stating that Pacific Personnel Services failed to adequately
disclose and obtain proper authorization to conduct background
checks on their employees.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Pacific Personnel Services, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw
at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a Northern California
employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping
employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including
violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN]


PANERA BREAD: Files Supplementary Disclosures on Merger Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company has voluntarily filed supplementary
disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
the Definitive Proxy Statement in connection to its merger with
JAB Holdings B.V., among other entities, in an effort to avoid the
risks that could be brought about by certain merger-related
lawsuits filed against the Company.  The disclosures can be found
in the Company's Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, a full-text copy of which can
be accessed at https://is.gd/T0WlIW

On April 4, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Rye Parent Corp., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), Rye Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), and JAB Holdings B.V., a private limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands ("JAB"), providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

In connection with the Merger, four putative class action
complaints have been filed against the Company and its directors
(collectively, the "Merger Litigation").

     John Remorenko Litigation

A putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by John
Remorenko on June 2, 2017 in an action captioned Remorenko v.
Panera Bread Co. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01610-DDN.  On June 14,
2017, the plaintiff filed motions for a preliminary injunction and
an expedited hearing before the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders to vote to adopt the Merger scheduled to be held on
July 11, 2017.

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

On July 11, 2017, the Company issued a press release stating:
"Panera Bread Company (NASDAQ: PNRA) announced that at a special
meeting today, Panera's stockholders overwhelmingly approved the
previously announced merger agreement relating to the proposed
transaction between Panera and JAB Holdings. Subject to the terms
and conditions of the merger agreement, at the effective time of
the merger, each share of Panera common stock will be cancelled
and converted into the right to receive $315 in cash.

"The transaction remains subject to certain closing conditions and
is expected to close in July 2017."

     Phillips Litigation

On June 7, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Lawrence Phillips, a purported stockholder of the Company, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware against
the Company and each member of the board of directors of the
Company in an action captioned Phillips v. Panera Bread Company et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00697-RGA.  The complaint asserts claims
against the Company and each of its directors for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Regulation G.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants disseminated a materially incomplete
and misleading definitive proxy statement, filed by Panera with
the SEC on June 1, 2017, in connection with the Merger (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement").  The complaint seeks various forms
of relief, including injunctive relief, money damages and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.  Phillips also filed motions for a
preliminary injunction and an expedited hearing before the special
meeting of the Company's stockholders to vote to adopt the Merger
scheduled to be held on July 11, 2017.  The court has scheduled a
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction for June 30,
2017.

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

     Scott and Gina Rudy Living Trust

On June 7, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Scott and Gina Rudy Living Trust Dated March 18, 2011, a purported
stockholder of the Company, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri against the Company and each
member of the board of directors of the Company in an action
captioned Scott and Gina Rudy Living Trust Dated March 18, 2011 v.
Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01627-HEA.  The
complaint asserts claims against the Company and each of its
directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
disseminated a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary
proxy statement, filed with the SEC on May 12, 2017, in connection
with the Merger.  The complaint seeks various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief, money damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

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

     Berg Litigation

On June 8, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Robert Berg, a purported stockholder of the Company, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
the Company, each member of the board of directors of the Company,
JAB, Parent and Merger Sub in an action captioned Berg v. Panera
Bread Co. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01631-DDN.  The complaint
asserts claims against the Company, each of its directors, JAB,
Parent and Merger Sub for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the Definitive Proxy
Statement disseminated to stockholders was materially incomplete
and misleading and seeks various forms of relief, including
injunctive relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Panera Bread Company, together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises retail bakery-cafes. The company operates
through three segments: Company Bakery-Cafe Operations, Franchise
Operations, and Fresh Dough and Other Product Operations.  The
Company was formerly known as Au Bon Pain Co., Inc. and changed
its name to Panera Bread Company in August 1998.  Panera Bread
Company was founded in 1981 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


PEREGRINE PHARMA: July 27 Hearing Set for "Michaeli" Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
on July 14, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2017 that a hearing on the
proposed settlement of the lawsuit styled Michaeli v. Steven W.
King, et al., will be held before the Court on July 27, 2017.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court"), purportedly on behalf of the Company, which is named a
nominal defendant, against certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors (collectively, the "Defendants").

On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint").  The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants
breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with
certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by the
Company's board of directors during the past four fiscal years
ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option
to Mr.  King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based
stock option grant to the Company's directors, executives, all
other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and
(iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015, of compensation to the Company's non-employee directors.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking
stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false
and misleading proxy statement for the Company's 2013 annual
meeting of stockholders.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr.
King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the
Defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any
excessive compensation paid to the Company's non-employee
directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and
other monetary relief for the Company's benefit.

On May 15, 2017, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release setting forth
the terms of the proposed settlement of the claims in the Amended
Complaint.  A hearing on the proposed settlement will be held
before the Court on July 27, 2017.

The Company said, "We do not expect to incur a loss associated
with this matter should the Court approve the terms of the
proposed settlement."

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
committed to improving the lives of patients by manufacturing high
quality pharmaceutical products through its contract manufacturing
business and through advancing and licensing its novel,
development-stage immunotherapy products.


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Accrued $2.3 Million for Wilder Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2017, that as of April 1, 2017 the Company
has accrued $2.3 million for the settlement in the case, Wilder,
et al. v. Roma Food Enterprises, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "In October 2014, three former delivery drivers
who worked in our former Roma of New Jersey warehouse in
Piscataway, New Jersey filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County
against us. The lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of
delivery drivers who worked in our Roma, broadline and Vistar
facilities in New Jersey from October 2012 to the present that,
under New Jersey state law, we failed to pay minimum wages and
overtime compensation to the delivery drivers in these facilities.
The lawsuit seeks the following relief: (1) award of unpaid
minimum wages and overtime under New Jersey state law; (2) an
injunction preventing us from committing the alleged violation;
(3) a declaration from the court that the alleged violations were
knowing and willful; (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
(5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The case is in the
preliminary phases of discovery, and no class has been certified.
The plaintiffs have expressed their desire to include temporary
delivery drivers in the alleged class; however, the court has not
ruled as to whether those temporary workers may join the lawsuit."

"On October 4, 2016, we engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs,
and on October 25, 2016, we indicated our non-binding agreement to
settle the lawsuit on the basis of a settlement fund of $2.3
million, subject to negotiation of a mutually agreeable settlement
agreement. On February 1, 2017, the parties filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement stipulation with the Court,
and a hearing on that motion occurred on March 1, 2017, during
which the court requested additional pleadings from the parties
and continued the motion for preliminary approval until such
pleadings have been filed. As of April 1, 2017 the Company has
accrued $2.3 million for this settlement."

The Company markets and distributes over 150,000 food and food-
related products to customers across the United States from
approximately 77 distribution facilities to over 150,000 customer
locations in the "food-away-from-home" industry.


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Funded $1.4 Million Laumea Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2017, that in the case, Laumea v.
Performance Food Group, Inc., the court entered a final order
approving the Stipulation for Settlement and Release of Class
Action Claims on December 16, 2016. The final order took effect
February 15, 2017, and the Company funded the $1.4 million
settlement on February 23, 2017, thereby ending the litigation.

The Company markets and distributes over 150,000 food and food-
related products to customers across the United States from
approximately 77 distribution facilities to over 150,000 customer
locations in the "food-away-from-home" industry.


PETSMART INC: "Lepine" Suit Seeks OT Pay for Missed Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Lepine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Petsmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01288 (W.D. Wash., June 26, 2017), seeks lost and/or unpaid
wages, exemplary damages, interest and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to Revised Code Washington and the Washington
Annotated Code.

Defendant is a specialty retailer of pet food, live animals, pet
supplies and pet services, including grooming and dog training.
Defendant operates over 1,400 stores in the United States,
including 28 stores in Washington State where LePine was employed
as a pet groomer at its Lacey, Washington location since 2015.
She claims to have worked through meal and rest breaks without
overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW PC
      1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (310)601-6766
      Fax: (310)295-2385
      Email: jhammmond@hammondlawpc.com


PHYSICIAN TECH: "Carey" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Carey, Elizabeth Okakpu and Bikramjit Mathaun, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Physician Technology Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03802 (E.D. N.Y., June 23, 2017), seeks back pay damages including
unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Physician Technology Partners, LLC is a corporation providing
information technology educational services for the healthcare
industry across the country. Plaintiffs provided educational and
support services to healthcare staff at Defendant's various
locations.  They claim to be denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

            - and -

      David Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER
      221 North Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Tel: 734-929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

             - and -

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net
             elechtzin@bm.net

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com


PIXARBIO CORP: Securities Suits in Massachusetts & NJ Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
PixarBio Corporation is defending itself in two federal securities
class actions pending in Massachusetts and in New Jersey,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filed on June 16, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 3, 2017, the Company received a copy of a federal
securities class action filed against the Company and CEO Francis
Reynolds in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for alleged violations of federal securities law.

In addition, on February 10, 2017, the Company received a separate
federal securities class action against the Company and Mr.
Reynolds filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey for alleged violations of federal
securities law.

The Company said, "As of the date of this Form 8-K, the two said
class actions have not been proceeded except with respect to a
motion to appoint the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the New
Jersey lawsuit.  The Company and Mr. Reynolds deny all allegations
of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  The
Company and Mr. Reynolds believe that they shall be successful in
these law suits.  There can be no assurance that the Company and
Mr. Reynolds shall be successful."

The Company further stated, "On February 6, 2017, a law firm
announced that a class action lawsuit against the Company and Mr.
Reynolds has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased our
securities between October 31, 2016 and January 20, 2017,
inclusive.  No service has been made in such lawsuit upon the
Company and Mr. Reynolds.

"In addition, on March 10, 2017, another law firm announced its
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased our securities.  The suit is for recovery of investor
losses.  No class has been certified in such action as of the date
of this Form 8-K.

"The Company and Mr. Reynolds deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and intend if served to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  The
Company and Mr. Reynolds believe that if served they shall be
successful in these lawsuits.  There can be no assurance that the
Company and Mr. Reynolds shall be successful."

Pixarbio Corporation is a specialty pharmaceutical/biotechnology
company focused on preclinical and commercial development of novel
neurological drug delivery systems for post-operative pain.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Parties Working to Finalize Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service 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 the
Haverhill Litigation are working to finalize and document a
settlement, which will then be presented to the Court for
approval.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL ("Haverhill Litigation").

On October 10, 2016, the Court granted an extension of the stay of
the proceeding from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017, in
order to allow the special litigation committee, created by the
Company's Board of Directors, additional time to complete its
investigation, review and evaluation of the facts, circumstances
and claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine
the Company's response thereto.

On January 20, 2017, the special litigation committee advised the
Court that the parties to the litigation and the special
litigation committee had reached an agreement in principle to
settle all of the claims in the litigation.

The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, which
owns interests in subsidiaries and other companies that are
primarily engaged in the provision of healthcare and workforce
development services for public and private sector entities
seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.


PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Settlement Awaits Maryland Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Bancorp, 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 class action
lawsuit is subject to Maryland Court approval.

Two putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuits,
Parshall v. Eugene Andruczyk et al. ("Parshall Lawsuit") and Baron
v. Eugene Andruczyk et al., consolidated as Parshall v. Eugene
Andruczyk et al., were filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland (the "Maryland Court") on July 21, 2016 and
August 29, 2016, respectively (both lawsuits are collectively
referred to as the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit named as defendants
(the "Defendants") the directors of Polonia Bancorp and Polonia
Bancorp and the Parshall Lawsuit also named the Company as a
defendant. The Lawsuit alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the
Polonia Bancorp directors and Polonia Bancorp by approving the
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between the Company and
Polonia Bancorp dated as of June 2, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement")
pursuant to which Polonia Bancorp will merge with and into the
Company (the "Merger") for (i) inadequate merger consideration and
(ii) the inclusion of preclusive deal protection measures in the
Merger Agreement. The Parshall Lawsuit also alleges that the
Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The relief sought includes preliminary and permanent injunction
against the consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory
damages if the Merger is completed, costs and attorney's fees.

Although the Company believed the claims were without merit, to
avoid a potential delay of the Merger, on October 6, 2016, the
Company and Polonia reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in
the Lawsuit ("Plaintiffs") providing for a non-monetary settlement
of the Lawsuit that required the Company and Polonia to issue
certain disclosures and waive certain standstill provisions
related to the Merger Agreement which they did. The terms of the
settlement are set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU").  The settlement is subject to Maryland Court approval.
The Plaintiffs sought attorneys' fees and expenses in connection
with the Lawsuit as set forth in the MOU. Subsequent to entry into
the MOU, the parties reached an agreement to pay Plaintiffs'
counsel fees and expenses in the total amount of $325,000.

Polonia Bancorp's insurer prior to the Merger advised the Company
that it would cover approximately $260,000 of the $325,000 of fees
and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel under the terms of
the settlement.

The Merger was completed effective as of January 1, 2017.

On January 13, 2017, the Maryland Court entered an Order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  As per the settlement and
the Maryland Court's Order, on January 26, 2017, Polonia Bancorp /
Prudential, through a third-party administrator, mailed notice of
the settlement to all record and beneficial holders of shares of
common stock of Polonia Bancorp (excluding Defendants and members
of the immediate families of the individual Defendants) who held
such stock at any time during the period beginning on and
including June 2, 2016 (the date of the Merger Agreement) through
October 25, 2016 (the date the shareholders of Polonia Bancorp
approved the Merger).

Although it is expected the settlement will receive final approval
of the Maryland Court, no assurances can be provided when or if
the settlement will receive final approval. A settlement hearing
was held on March 31, 2017.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 2018
---------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the court set a trial for November 6,
2018, in the case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et. al.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015,
lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on
behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July
22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we
and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.  On
November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard
oral argument on March 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court
denied our motion to dismiss.  The court set a trial for November
6, 2018. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., or Puma, is a biopharmaceutical company
based in Los Angeles, California with a focus on the development
and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer
care.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Mediation Set for August 31
----------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, Ingrid Barahona v.
Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc.,
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services,
Inc., the Court has ordered the parties to participate in
mediation by August 31, 2017.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the
"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for
temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of
herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under
California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along
with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class
were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,
including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among
others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for
work-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly
employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant
and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny
that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members
in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations
based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and
legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the
Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the
Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not
believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since,
among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains
highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the
Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be
characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant
Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii)
wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for
amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the
uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these
types of cases to trial; and (iv) Ms. Barahona has indicated her
desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement.

Ms. Barahona admitted in a report to the court that she is unable
to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records
she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or
Accountabilities ("Debtors"), and the case has been stayed as to
them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which was
continued multiple times so that the parties could attempt to
obtain the necessary documents. DBA and the Company informally
obtained all records within co-defendants' bankruptcy estate
through their trustee's counsel; however, those records were
incomplete and did not contain the requisite time, payroll and
personnel records. Based on its belief that the debtors have
additional records and in an effort to lift the bankruptcy "stay",
Ms. Barahona obtained the dismissal of the debtors without
prejudice from the state court action.

The court set a deadline of November 30, 2017, for Ms. Barahona to
file her motion for class certification, and set a further status
conference for December 14, 2017, to set a briefing schedule for
the motion for class certification. The court has also ordered the
parties to participate in mediation by August 31, 2017. At this
time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely
outcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") operates as a third party
logistics company, providing multi-modal transportation and
logistics services primarily in the United States and Canada.


RESOLUTE FOREST: Class Action at Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products 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 proposed class action lawsuit
is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified.

The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S.
OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare
eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare
Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan.
On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("District Court") on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees
who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee;
Catawba, South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama, mills, and
their spouses and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the
modifications described above breach the collective bargaining
agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in
the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care
benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed
class in the lawsuit."

"The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss was denied by the
District Court on March 1, 2017. The proposed class action lawsuit
is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified.
Accordingly, we are not presently able to determine the ultimate
resolution of this matter or to reasonably estimate the potential
impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements."

Resolute Forest Products Inc. is a global leader in the forest
products industry with a diverse range of products, including
market pulp, tissue, wood products, newsprint and specialty
papers, which are marketed in over 70 countries.  It owns or
operates over 40 pulp, paper, tissue and wood products facilities,
as well as power generation assets in the United States and
Canada.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Discovery Underway in "Levin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Resource Capital 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 parties in the class action by Daren
Levin have commenced discovery.

The Company said, "In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.  In
November 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead
plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and
order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
In February 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging that we and certain of our officers and directors
materially misrepresented certain risks of our commercial loan
portfolio and processes and controls for assessing the quality of
our portfolio."

"Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims
for violation of the securities laws and seeks a variety of
relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs
and attorneys' fees.  In April 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, which the court denied on October 5, 2016.
The parties have now commenced discovery.  We believes the amended
complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously."

Resource Capital Corp. and its subsidiaries is primarily focused
on originating, holding and managing commercial mortgage loans and
other commercial real estate ("CRE") related debt investments.


RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Roberson Moves for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DAVID ROBERSON, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v.
RESTAURANT DELIVERY DEVELOPERS, LLC d/b/a DOORSTEP DELIVERY, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00769-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify the action as a collective action
       under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); and

   (2) order that notice be issued to all Doorstep delivery
       drivers, who have worked for Doorstep since March 31,
       2014.

David Roberson has brought this case on behalf of delivery
drivers, who have worked for Defendant Restaurant Delivery
Developers, LLC, doing business as Doorstep Delivery.  Doorstep is
a food delivery service, which dispatches drivers through a mobile
phone application or through Doorstep's Web site or call center.

Mr. Roberson alleges that Doorstep has misclassified its delivery
drivers as independent contractors and, thereby, has failed to
comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying the
delivery drivers minimum wage for each work week and by failing to
pay the delivery drivers time-and-a-half for the hours that they
worked beyond 40 per week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C0RhLA7W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Lindstrom, Esq.
          EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A.
          231 E. Colonial Drive
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (352) 672-6901
          E-mail: elindstrom@eganlev.com


REX ENERGY: Still Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy 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 a
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of
Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them on behalf
of the Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the
rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as
well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees. We filed affirmative defenses and preliminary
objections to the plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made
various responsive filings throughout the first quarter of 2012.

"In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between
us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
during the second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court
reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte
case contained the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale
case. The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are
similar to those in Cardinale and the plaintiffs would be included
in a class under Cardinale and Billotte if one were certified.

"These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons
in light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency
of the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases
were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale
case. When the Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to
consolidate the Billotte and Cardinale cases; the cases have
proceeded as Cardinale. The Meeker case remains stayed, and has
not been consolidated.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class
certification in September 2015.

"In June 2016, the parties each presented arguments on the appeal
before a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the
"Superior Court"). In January 2017, the three-judge panel vacated
the trial court's denial of class certification and remanded the
case to the trial court. We promptly applied for reconsideration
or reargument with the entire Superior Court (en banc); however,
that application was denied in March 2017.

"In April 2017, we petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for
an allowance of appeal to appeal the Superior Court's decision.
As of the date of this filing, we have not received notice as to
whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will allow the appeal.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."

Rex Energy Corporation, together with our subsidiaries (the
"Company"), is an independent condensate, natural gas liquid
("NGL") and natural gas company with operations currently focused
in the Appalachian Basin.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Files More Merger Info to Address Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. has voluntarily supplemented its proxy
statement related to its merger plan with British American Tobacco
p.l.c., among other defendants, in an effort to avoid the risks
that two putative class action suits in North Carolina can cause
to the merger. The supplementary disclosures can be read in the
Company's Form 8-K filed on July 11, 2017 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, a full-copy of which can be accessed at
https://is.gd/xNkyZW

The Company said, "This Current Report on Form 8-K is filed in
connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
January 16, 2017 (the "Merger Agreement"), as it and the plan of
merger contained therein were amended as of June 8, 2017, by and
among British American Tobacco p.l.c., a public limited company
incorporated under the laws of England and Wales ("BAT"), BATUS
Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of BAT, Flight Acquisition Corporation, a North
Carolina corporation and indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BAT
("Merger Sub"), and Reynolds American Inc., a North Carolina
corporation ("RAI"), pursuant to which, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, RAI will become an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BAT (the "Merger").

"In connection with the Merger, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina against RAI and the members of the RAI
board of directors.  The two lawsuits are captioned Drew v.
Reynolds American Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00547 (filed June 16,
2017) and Sneed v. Reynolds American Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-
00584 (filed June 26, 2017) (collectively, the "Merger
Litigation").  The complaints, which were filed by alleged RAI
shareholders, generally allege that the definitive proxy statement
that RAI filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on June 14, 2017 (the "RAI Proxy Statement"), omitted
certain material information in connection with the Merger in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaints seek injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the Merger unless the allegedly material
information is disclosed, damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

"RAI believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation
are without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law.  However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger
Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, RAI
has determined to voluntarily supplement the RAI Proxy Statement
as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K.  Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein.  To the contrary, RAI specifically
denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that any
additional disclosure was or is required."

Reynolds American Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures,
and sells cigarettes and other tobacco products in the United
States.  It operates through RJR Tobacco, Santa Fe, and American
Snuff segments.  It distributes its products primarily through
direct wholesale deliveries from a local distribution center and
public warehouses.  Reynolds American Inc. was founded in 2004 and
is headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Suit by West and Hopson Pending
-------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 against the
case by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their complaint,
plaintiffs assert various tort claims seeking relief for damages
allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
injury to property and for the purchase of insurance policies
allegedly needed by the plaintiffs and the proposed class for
seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of
wastewater disposal wells. An estimate of reasonably probable
losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time.
The Company has not established any reserves relating to this
action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas exploration and
production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with
its principal focus on developing high-return, growth-oriented
projects in the U.S. Mid-Continent and Niobrara Shale.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust
remains pending, Sandridge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The
complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf
of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust are responsible for making false and misleading statements,
and omitting material information, concerning a variety of
subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial
public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of its
reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

"Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it
appropriate, begin reserving funds for potential losses that may
arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment
will be required in making any such estimates and any final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the
Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and
has not established any reserves relating to the Securities
Litigation.  The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation
if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any
rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any
claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation,"
the Company said.


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Still Defends MSLO Stockholder Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, 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
against the MSLO Stockholder Complaint.

In connection with the merger of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. in December 2015, the following 13 putative stockholder class
action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o David
Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al., filed on
June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al., filed on June 26, 2015; (3) Daniel Lisman v. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al., filed on June 29, 2015; (4)
Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et.
al., filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold Litwin v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al., filed on July 5, 2015; (6) Richard
Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart, filed on July 7, 2015; (7) Cedric
Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al., filed on
July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al., filed on July 8, 2015; (9) Paul Dranove v. Pierre De
Villemejane. et. al., filed on July 8, 2015; (10) Phuc Nguyen v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al., filed on July 10,
2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.
et. al., filed on July 16, 2015; (12) Karen Gordon v. Martha
Stewart et. al., filed on July 27, 2015 against the MSLO Board of
Directors, Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger; and
(13) Anne Seader v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. et. al.,
filed on July 28, 2015.

All of the 13 class action lawsuits name the Old Sequential, MSLO,
the MSLO board of directors, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer
Merger Sub, Inc. and the Company as defendants and allege that (a)
members of the MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties and (b) Old Sequential, MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc.,
Singer Merger Sub Inc. and the Company aided and abetted such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the MSLO board of
directors.

On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et. al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.

On January 12, 2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the
plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, naming Ms. Martha Stewart, the Company, Old Sequential,
Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. and Singer Merger Sub, Inc. and alleging
that (a) Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties to MSLO's
stockholders and (b) the Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger
Sub, Inc. and Singer Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted Ms.
Stewart's breach of her fiduciary duties.

On April 4, 2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential defendants filed
respective motions to dismiss the Verified Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On June 15, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the
complaint and file the Verified Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, which Judge Slights granted on July 14, 2016.

On July 18, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second
Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants, asserting that
Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties and asserting that
Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub, and Holdings
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

On July 28, 2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential defendants filed
respective motions to dismiss the Verified Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. On October 26, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss.

On November 29, 2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential Defendants
filed reply briefs in further supports of their motions to dismiss
the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Oral argument
on the motions to dismiss occurred on March 22, 2017. The
plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained
by the plaintiffs, restitution and disgorgement by Ms. Stewart,
the recovery of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and other relief.

The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the claims made by the plaintiffs, and we are vigorously defending
such claims. Litigation costs in this matter may be significant.
We do not expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will
have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements."

Sequential Brands owns a portfolio of consumer brands in the
fashion, home, athletic and lifestyle categories, including Martha
Stewart, Jessica Simpson, AND1, Avia, Joe's Jeans, Heelys and
GAIAM.


SITO MOBILE: Red Oak Funds Filed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, Roper v. Sito Mobile Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01106 (D. N.J.), an Amended Complaint has been filed against Jerry
Hug, Sito Mobile Ltd., Kurt Streams, Betsy J. Bernard, Jonathan E.
Sandelman, Peter D. Holden, Joseph A. Beatty, Richard O'Connell,
Jr., Brent Rosenthal, filed by Red Oak Funds.

The Court has appointed Red Oak Funds as Lead Plaintiff and
approved its selection of counsel.

Judge Esther Salas oversees the case.

Sito Mobile Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that discovery has not commenced in a securities
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "A purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed on February 17, 2017 in the United States District Court of
New Jersey against us, Jerry Hug, our former Chief Executive
Officer and Director, and Kurt Streams, our former Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections  78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240. This action
was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired SITO common stock between February 9, 2016
and January 2, 2017 and seeks unspecified money damages. The
allegations in this complaint center on allegedly materially false
and/or misleading statements, misrepresenting SITO's media
placement revenues. A lead plaintiff was appointed on May 8, 2017
and had until June 22, 2017 to file an amended complaint.
Discovery has not commenced."

The Company provides a mobile engagement platform that enables
brands to increase awareness, loyalty, and ultimately sales.


SP PLUS: Collier Appeals From N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kathryn G. Collier and Benjamin M. Seitz filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Kathryn
Collier, et al. v. SP Plus Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-10587, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Kathryn Collier, et al. v. SP
Plus Corporation, Case No. 17-2431, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by July 28, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 23, 2017, for
      Kathryn G. Collier and Benjamin M. Seitz.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHRYN G. COLLIER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and BENJAMIN M. SEITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Micah M. Siegal, Esq.
          GOTTSCHLICH & PORTUNE, LLP
          201 E. Sixth Street
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 913-0200
          Facsimile: (937) 824-2818
          E-mail: msiegal@gplawdayton.com

Defendant-Appellee SP PLUS CORPORATION is represented by:

          Steven H. Gistenson, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          Ten S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 627-2267
          E-mail: sgistenson@dykema.com


SQM GROUP: "Eisenband" Sues Over Survey Calls from Call Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Eisenband, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SQM Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-04641 (D. N.J., June 23, 2017), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, equitable remedies resulting from
illegal actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates a survey call center located at 7400 Mineral
Drive, Suite 600, Coeur d'Alene, ID, 83815 and places thousands of
calls annually to consumers nationwide. Plaintiff claims to
receive pre-recorded survey calls from the Defendant made via an
auto-dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE P.C.
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08083
      Tel: (856) 797-9951
      Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz & Rosen Named Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stemline 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 class has appointed Pomerantz
LLP and the Rosen Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel.

On February 3, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Stemline, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from January
19, 2017 through February 1, 2017, as well as violations of
Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act")
arising from our January 2017 follow-on public offering.

On February 3, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Stemline, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from January
19, 2017 and February 1, 2017 .

On February 8, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Stemline, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from January
19, 2017 through February 1, 2017, as well as violations of 1933
Act arising from our January 2017 follow-on public offering.

On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Stemline, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Operating Officer, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from January
6, 2017 through February 1, 2017.

Each of the above lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
by failing to earlier disclose that a cancer patient in a Stemline
clinical trial of SL-401 who experienced the side effect of CLS,
died on January 18, 2017.  Additionally, the complaint alleges
that, as a result of the foregoing, certain of the defendants'
statements about Stemline's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

In April 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated these four shareholder actions
into a single action, and appointed three purported individual
investors in the Company as Lead Plaintiff to represent the
proposed class. This class appointed Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen
Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel.

Stemline is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, acquiring, developing and potentially commercializing
novel therapeutics for oncology indications of unmet medical need.


SUNRUN INC: "Greenberg" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 United States District Court for the Northern
District of California has granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, with respect to the Greenberg action.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection
with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering
regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public
offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including
interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief
deemed appropriate by the court.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April
22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Brown et
al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April 29,
2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 6, 2016,
a purported shareholder class action captioned Greenberg v. Sunrun
Inc., et al., Case 3:16-cv-02480, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 10,
2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v.
Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On June 10,
2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Steinberg v.
Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 539064, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Mancy, Brown, Baker,
Greenberg, Nunez and Steinberg complaints are substantially
similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against
similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making false or misleading statements in connection with an August
5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business
practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The
Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar
relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Mancy, Brown, Greenberg,
Nunez, Steinberg and Baker actions.

On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Brown, Cohen, Mancy, Nunez,
Pytel and Steinberg actions were consolidated. On February 9,
2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, with respect to the Greenberg action.

Sunrun Inc. was originally formed in 2007 as a California limited
liability company and was converted into a Delaware corporation in
2008. The Company is engaged in the design, development,
installation, sale, ownership and maintenance of residential solar
energy systems ("Projects") in the United States.


SUNRUN INC: Aug. 10 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 against the Fink complaint.

On July 3, 2017, a Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, and Motion to Consolidate Cases were filed by Stephen
Knauer.  A hearing on the request is set for Aug. 10 at 10:00 a.m.
in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Vince
Chhabria.

On July 17, a Response to Motions for Appointment of Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel was filed by defendants Lynn Michelle
Jurich, Robert Patrick Komin Jr., and Sunrun Inc.

On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by
making false or misleading statements in connection with public
filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017
regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after
signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system. On May 4,
2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Hall, et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California. The
Hall complaint is substantially similar to the Fink complaint, and
seeks similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of a
substantially similar class.

Sunrun Inc. was originally formed in 2007 as a California limited
liability company and was converted into a Delaware corporation in
2008. The Company is engaged in the design, development,
installation, sale, ownership and maintenance of residential solar
energy systems ("Projects") in the United States.


TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, on July 12
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Tahoe Resources, Inc. (NYSE: TAHO; TSX: THO) ("Tahoe" or
the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 3, 2013 and July 5, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased Tahoe securities during the Class Period
may, no later than September 5, 2017, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit www.ktmc.com/new-cases/tahoe-resources-inc#join.

Tahoe shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

According to the complaint, Tahoe operates multiple mines to
develop precious metals assets in America.  On June 8, 2010, upon
successful completion of its initial public offering, Tahoe
acquired the Escobal mine assets located in Guatemala through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Minera San Rafael, S.A. ("MRM"), a
Guatemala corporation.

The Class Period commences on April 3, 2013, when Tahoe issued a
press release about the Escobal exploitation license from
Guatemala's Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The complaint alleges that, on July 5, 2017, after the market
closed, Tahoe issued a press release announcing the suspension of
the Escobal mining license.  The press release stated, in part,
"the Supreme Court of Guatemala has issued a provisional decision
in respect of an action brought by the anti-mining organization,
CALAS, against Guatemala's Ministry of Energy and Mines ("MEM").
The action alleges that MEM violated the Xinca Indigenous people's
right of consultation in advance of granting the Escobal mining
license to Tahoe's Guatemalan subsidiary, Minera San Rafael."

Following this news, the stock price declined from a close of
$8.27 per share of Tahoe stock on July 5, 2017, to a close of
$5.56 per share on July 6, 2017, a drop of approximately 33%.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Tahoe's exploitation
license of the Escobal mine assets was in violation of the
indigenous people's rights to be consulted; (2) Tahoe was not in
compliance with governmental law and regulations; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements about Tahoe's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Tahoe shareholders may, no later than September 5, 2017, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com--
prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout
the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in
the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action
was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. [GN]


TARGET CORP: "Fellman" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jeffrey Fellman, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Target
Corporation and Target Stores, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-
17-8295 (D. Minn., May 30, 2017), was removed from the Hennepin
County District Court in the State of Minnesota to the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 26,
2017, under Case No. 0:17-cv-02267.

Plaintiff filed this suit in connection with his purchase of
allegedly defective pleather furniture from Target.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jacob M. Saufley, Esq.
       Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
       Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
       LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
       100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
       Mpls, MN 55401-2179
       Tel: (612) 339-6900
       Fax: (612) 339-0981
       Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              jmsaufley@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Emily E. Chow, Esq.
      Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
      FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
      2200 Wells Fargo Center
      90 South Seventh Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
      Telephone: (612) 766-7000
      Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
      Email: michael.ponto@faegrebd.com
             emily.chow@faegrebd.com


TELEPAY USA: "Cannon" Action Seeks Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Anne Cannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Telepay USA, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04740 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, equitable relief, liquidated damages,
taxable costs of court, attorneys' fees and such other relief as
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a phone sex business, where plaintiff worked as
home-based phone agent. Cannon is paid 6 cents per minute, way
below the minimum wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Mahany, Esq.
      MAHANY LAW
      8112 West Bluemound Road, Suite 101
      Wauwatosa, WI 53213
      Telephone: (414) 258-2375
      E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.com

              - and -

      John Bruster Loyd, Esq.
      JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD
      4400 Post Oak Pkwy, Ste. 2360
      Houston TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 225-9000
      Tel: bruse@jgl-1aw.com

           - and -

      Joseph M. Tully, Esq.
      TULLY & WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      713 Main Street
      Martinez, CA 94553
      Telephone: (925) 229-9700
      Email: Joseph@Tully-Weiss.com


TEMPUR SEALY: Court Sought Briefs on Order Denying Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy 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 case, Alvin
Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International,
Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed
October 25, 2013, the Court has requested briefs from the parties
on whether the prior Order denying class certification should be
modified.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider
class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015;
however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at
which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and
the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court
considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on
September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
lower court's decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the
Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following
the denial of class certification by the District Court and
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to the denial of class certification on April 12, 2017.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and
requested briefs from the parties on whether the prior Order
denying class certification should be modified.

As a result, the outcome of the case remains unclear, and the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

The Company develops, manufactures, markets and sells bedding
products, which include mattresses, foundations and adjustable
bases, and other products, which include pillows and other
accessories.


TEMPUR SEALY: "Buehring" Class Suit in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy 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 against the case, David Buehring, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen,
filed March 24, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy
common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The
complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its then existing and future
financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers,
Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to
vigorously defend against these claims. The case is in the early
stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is
unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company
can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations," the Company said.

The Company develops, manufactures, markets and sells bedding
products, which include mattresses, foundations and adjustable
bases, and other products, which include pillows and other
accessories.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Still Faces Multidistrict Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action complaint in a multidistrict litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.  The
Company has filed its motion to dismiss the case on June 9, 2017
and the plaintiffs' opposition was due on July 14, 2017.

On July 27, 2016, lead plaintiff Municipal Employees' Retirement
System of Michigan in the Horowitz et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et
al. action (E.D.  Mo.) moved to transfer various actions pending
in federal district courts to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel.

On October 4, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an
order transferring the following cases to the SDNY for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings:

   * Fraser v. Wuebbels et al.
   * Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm
     Global, Inc. et al.
   * Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v.
      SunEdison, Inc. et al.
   * Glenview Capital Partners, L.P.  et al. v. SunEdison,
     Inc. et al.
   * Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al.

Four of these actions, Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Iron Workers
Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al., were initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo on October 23, 2015,
December 3, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 4, 2016,
respectively.  These four separate purported class actions were
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
each of the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and SunEdison.

A separate class action, Agrawal v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.,
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo on October 30, 2015.  This action was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in February 2016.

Additionally, two separate purported class action lawsuits,
Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. and Pyramid Holdings,
Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., were filed on October 29,
2015 and November 5, 2015, respectively, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the same
defendants.  The class action plaintiffs assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act").  The class action complaints
allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's registration statement for the IPO
regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business
strategy.  Among other relief, the class action complaints seek
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the remaining state actions to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  On May 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs in the cases removed from state court filed motions to
remand.

On June 1, 2016, the defendants filed motions to transfer the
cases to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's
bankruptcy is pending.  The previous briefing schedule has been
vacated as a result of the October 4, 2016 transfer order issued
by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel.

On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff in Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al. voluntarily dismissed the case.

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff in Beltran v. TerraForm Global,
Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed the case.

On December 22, 2016, the court consolidated Pyramid Holdings,
Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v. TerraForm Global,
Inc. et al., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al., and Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. as In re
TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities Litigation and ordered the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint.

On January 16, 2017, the plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  On April 21, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the remaining complaints and, as a result, is
unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position and results of operations.

     Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Suit

On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company
and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO.  The
plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Company's registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison
and its recent operating results and business strategy.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other
relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may
deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to
remand.  On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the
case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's bankruptcy
is pending.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing
the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable
to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

    Glenview Capital Suit

On March 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed Glenview Capital Partners,
L.P.  et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company
and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's August 5,
2015 bond offering and SunEdison's August 18, 2015 preferred stock
offering.  The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland
Securities Act.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted other
material facts necessary to make the statements in the offering
documents not misleading.  The complaint further alleges that
these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion
of the plaintiffs' Class D securities into restricted common
stock, that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase
Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs, and that the
defendants made negligent misrepresentations in connection with
the Company's Class D registration statement.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including
equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and
proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand.  On May 27, 2016, the defendants moved to
transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which
SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending.  The Court held a hearing on
the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18,
2016.  On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion to remand and granting the defendants' motion
to transfer.  The Court also certified a legal issue for
interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring
all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's transfer order on the motion for
permission to appeal.  On December 8, 2016, the parties filed
their responses.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

     Omega Capital Suit

On March 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed Omega Capital Investors et al.
v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and
SunEdison, and the underwriters of SunEdison's preferred stock
offering.  The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland
Securities Act.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection
with the Company's IPO, and that these false and misleading
statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D
securities into restricted common stock.  The complaint further
alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D
Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made
negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company's
Class D registration statement.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or
injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand.  On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to
transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which
SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending.  The Court held a hearing on
the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18,
2016.  On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion to remand and granting the defendants' motion
to transfer.  The Court also certified a legal issue for
interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring
all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's transfer order on the motion for
permission to appeal.  On December 8, 2016, the parties filed
their responses.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

     Conditional Transfer Cases

On October 5, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued
conditional transfer orders in three cases, Kingdon Associates et
al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.; VMT II LLC v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al.; and Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.

On July 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed Kingdon Associates et al. v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
TerraForm Global, LLC, certain officers and directors of the
Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO.
The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act, as well as state law claims for breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Maryland
securities laws.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Company's
registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its
recent operating results and business strategy and that these
false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of
their Class D securities into restricted common stock.  The
complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9,
2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the
plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection
with the Company's Class D registration statement.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other relief
(including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem
just and proper.

On September 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs did not oppose the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order, and
the matter was transferred to the multidistrict litigation on
October 20, 2016.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

On August 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et
al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, certain officers and directors of the Company and
SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO and
SunEdison's August 18, 2015 preferred stock offering.  The
plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, as well as the California Corporate Securities
Law.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material
facts necessary to make the statements in the offering documents
not misleading.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or
injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper.

On September 8, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  On September 26, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  On October 6, 2016,
plaintiffs filed an amended motion to remand.  On October 20,
2016, defendants filed their opposition to that motion, and on
November 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed their reply.

On October 19, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the case
until a final transfer determination could be made by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel.  On November 2, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion to stay.  The Court held a
hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to stay on November
10, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order.  On November 16, 2016, defendants
filed an opposition to the motion to vacate.

On November 17, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing
the motions to stay and vacate, which the court entered.  On
November 22, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferred
the case to the SDNY for consolidated or coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

On September 16, 2016, plaintiff filed VMT II LLC v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and
the underwriters of SunEdison's preferred stock offering.  The
plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act.  The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
IPO, and that these false and misleading statements led to the
forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted
common stock.  The complaint further alleges that the Company
breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the
Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations
in connection with the Company's Class D registration statement.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such
other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the
court may deem just and proper.

On September 28, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs did not oppose the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order, and
the matter was transferred to the multidistrict litigation on
October 20, 2016.  The Company is in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was
held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY.

     2017 Updates

The Court entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March
31, 2017, and entered an order requiring all parties to the
multidistrict litigation, including the parties to the conditional
transfer cases, to participate in the mediation process that is
being conducted in connection with the SunEdison Bankruptcy, which
also includes the derivative claim.  The mediation commenced on
February 10, 2017.

On February 6, 2017, the Company filed pre-motion letters with the
Court describing the grounds for anticipated motions to dismiss in
the following matters: In re TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v.
SunEdison, Inc. et al., Glenview Capital Partners, L.P.  et al. v.
SunEdison, Inc. et al., Omega Capital Investors et al. v.
SunEdison, Inc. et al., Kingdon Associates et al. v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al., Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and VMT II LLC v. TerraForm Global,
Inc. et al. The plaintiffs in those matters filed responses on
February 20, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, the partial stay expired.  On April 13, 2017,
the Court held a status conference and entered a briefing schedule
for the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in In re TerraForm Global,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The Company filed its motion to
dismiss on June 9, 2017.  Plaintiffs' opposition was due on July
14, 2017, and the Company's reply is due on August 4, 2017.
Further proceedings in the remaining multidistrict litigation
matters described above have been stayed pending resolution of the
initial motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2017, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued
conditional transfer orders in Domenech v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al. and Perez v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and these
matters were transferred to the multidistrict litigation on April
13, 2017 and May 31, 2017, respectively.

TerraForm Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
dividend growth-oriented company formed to own and operate
contracted clean power generation assets.


TESLA INC: Appeal in Class Action Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Tesla, 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 plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in a class
action lawsuit.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March
6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the
original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint and entered a judgment in SolarCity's favor on August 9,
2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company
said.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and energy products.  In
addition, as a result of the Company's acquisition of SolarCity
Corporation on November 21, 2016, Tesla also designs,
manufactures, installs and sells or leases solar energy systems,
or sells electricity generated by its solar energy systems to
customers.


TESLA INC: Stockholder Class Action Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Tesla, 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 against a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit.

On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and
a former officer.

On March 20, 2017, the purported stockholder class filed a
consolidated complaint that includes the original matter in the
same court against SolarCity, one of its officers and three former
officers. As consolidated, the complaint alleges that SolarCity
made projections of future sales and installations that it failed
to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made.
The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from
May 6, 2015 to May 9, 2016.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible
loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company said.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and energy products.  In
addition, as a result of the Company's acquisition of SolarCity
Corporation on November 21, 2016, Tesla also designs,
manufactures, installs and sells or leases solar energy systems,
or sells electricity generated by its solar energy systems to
customers.


TESLA INC: Defending Against Suit over SolarCity Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, 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 against litigation relating to
the SolarCity acquisition.

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by
purported stockholders of Tesla challenging Tesla's acquisition of
SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as
defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors and alleges,
among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts
both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported
class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond
to the defendants' motion, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On March 17, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint; that motion is pending. These same plaintiffs
filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017, adding claims for
violations of the federal securities laws.

On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to
inspect Tesla's books and records, purportedly to investigate
potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
SolarCity acquisition. On April 17, 2017, the purported
stockholder filed a petition for a writ of mandate in California
Superior Court, seeking to compel Tesla to provide the documents
requested in the demand.

On March 24, 2017, another lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported Tesla
stockholder challenging the SolarCity acquisition. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Tesla's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition
and alleges violations of the federal securities laws.

Tesla believes that claims challenging the SolarCity merger are
without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss, if
any, associated with these claims.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and energy products.  In
addition, as a result of the Company's acquisition of SolarCity
Corporation on November 21, 2016, Tesla also designs,
manufactures, installs and sells or leases solar energy systems,
or sells electricity generated by its solar energy systems to
customers.


TILLY'S INC: Reaches Settlement in Principle in "Minniti" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle the
putative class action lawsuit filed by Lauren Minniti alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the
Company's Form 8-K filed on July 13, 2017 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, captioned
Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's, Inc. (Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM), asserting
a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending unsolicited
automated messages to the cellular telephones of the plaintiff and
others.  The complaint seeks class certification and damages of
US$500 per violation plus treble damages under the TCPA.  The
Company filed its initial response to this matter with the court
on March 15, 2017.

On July 7, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval and the execution of a final settlement
agreement, to settle the putative class action lawsuit.

In exchange for the resolution of all claims arising from the
lawsuit, the Company has agreed to provide each member of the
putative class with a 50% discount voucher, which may be used for
a single purchase transaction with the Company, not to exceed
US$1,000 in total purchases, which shall remain redeemable for
twelve months after receipt by such member.  Each member may elect
to reject this voucher as his or her remedy, and may alternatively
elect to receive US$25 in cash from the Company.  The Company has
agreed to send such vouchers to each of the 615,593 members of the
putative class.  In addition, the Company has agreed to pay the
putative class members' legal fees and costs in connection with
the litigation.  The Company expects to record an estimated loss
provision of approximately US$6.2 million in connection with the
proposed settlement in the second quarter ending July 29, 2017,
which was not contemplated in the Company's original outlook range
for the quarter.

The Company said, "The settlement of this lawsuit remains subject
to the execution of a written settlement agreement executed by the
parties and the approval of such settlement by the court.  There
can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be executed
or that the settlement will be finalized and approved.  The actual
outcome of this matter may differ materially from the terms of the
settlement described herein.

"The Company has denied and continues to deny each and all of the
claims alleged in the litigation.  Nothing in this report or any
settlement agreement shall be deemed to assign or reflect any
admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to the Company, or
of the appropriateness of a class action in such litigation."

Tilly's, Inc. is an American retail clothing company that sells
action sports-branded clothing, accessories, shoes, and equipment.
The Company is headquartered and operated from Irvine, California.


TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------
Time, 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 are awaiting the court's decision in a
class action appeal.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages. On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to
dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state
claims for relief and because the named plaintiff lacked standing
because she suffered no injury from the alleged conduct.

On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim
but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On
November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the
named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents
who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a
subscription to Time, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any
website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com.

On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
the class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000
consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved
for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed
briefs in opposition to their adversaries' motions.

On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the
District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. On May 26, 2016,
Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that
plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims.

On September 22, 2016, the Motions Part of the Circuit Court
issued an order directing that Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
appeal should be decided by the appellate panel that was assigned
the plaintiff's appeal on the merits.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief and on
December 21, 2016, Time Inc. filed its opposition to Plaintiff's
appeal and a cross-appeal to the District Court's order certifying
the class. Plaintiff filed a reply and opposition to Time Inc.'s
class certification appeal on February 6, 2017 and Time Inc. filed
a sur-reply on February 20, 2017. Oral argument on the appeal was
heard on April 26, 2017.

"We are awaiting the court's decision," the Company said.


TIME INC: "Perlin" Complaint Underway in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
Time, 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 filed answer the Perlin Complaint.

On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Coulter-Owens
filed a class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
alleging violations of the VRPA as well as a claim for unjust
enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents
who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc. On May 6, 2016
and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint. Perlin
filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and Time Inc. filed its
reply brief on July 11, 2016. On February 15, 2017, the Court
denied Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss and on March 1, 2017, Time
Inc. answered the Complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters
described above," the Company said.


TRAVELEX AMERICA: "Jahedmanesh" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jahedmanesh, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Travelex America Inc. and
Kellen Hancock, Defendant, Case No. 666332 (Cal. Super., June 23,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due including upon separation of
employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Defendants operated a currency exchange in Los Angeles where
Plaintiff worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


TRUECAR INC: NY Lanham Act Litigation in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------
Truecar, 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 NY Lanham Act Litigation is currently in
the discovery phase.

On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the
NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous
automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar
platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as
well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and
deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising
and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the
alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to
TrueCar Certified Dealers.

On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July
13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On January 6, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the advertising and
promotional activities challenged in the amended complaint. The
litigation is currently in the discovery phase.

The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint
that survived the Company's motion to dismiss are without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. We have
not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31,
2017, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably
estimable.

TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") is an Internet-based information,
technology, and communication services company.


TRUECAR INC: Discovery Underway in "Rose" Suit
----------------------------------------------
Truecar, 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 proceeding in a class action
lawsuit by Gordon Rose.

On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the
"California Consumer Class Action"). The complaint asserted claims
for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages,
interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. In
the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of
California consumers defined as "[a]ll California consumers who
purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate
during the applicable statute of limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference,
which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16,
2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of
that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled
for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of
discovery was continued until a second status conference, which
was scheduled for October 12, 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended
complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as
the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees. On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a
demurrer to the amended complaint.

On October 12, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the
demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint,
dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss
the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation.
At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the Court ruled
that discovery may proceed regarding matters related to class
certification only at this time.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The
Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of
March 31, 2017, as the Company does not believe a loss is probable
or reasonably estimable.

TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") is an Internet-based information,
technology, and communication services company.


TWILIO INC: Discovery Underway in Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Twilio 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 has already begun in a class action lawsuit.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled
Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the
Company's products permit the interception, recording and
disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint
seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On
August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer in
part and granted it in part, with leave to amend by August 18,
2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law. The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint.

Discovery has already begun, and will continue until August 2017,
when the plaintiff must file its motion for class certification.

Twilio Inc. provides a Cloud Communications Platform that enables
developers to build, scale and operate communications within
software applications through the cloud primarily as a pay-as-you-
go service.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Granted Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Ramirez, writing for Dallas Morning News, reports that a
judge has granted a group of Uber drivers in North Carolina
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
possibly opening the door for a class-action lawsuit against the
ride-sharing company that could include Texas-based drivers.

U. S. District Judge Catherine Eagles' ruling would allow 15,000
to 19,000 drivers nationally who initially opted out of
arbitration to join collective action to pursue full worker status
and back-pay claims against Uber, New York-based attorney Paul
Maslo says.

"The judge found that Uber drivers across the country, including
Texas, were sufficiently 'similarly situated' for certification,"
Mr. Maslo said in an email.

At issue is whether Uber drivers are independent, as the
San Francisco-based company considers them, or employees.  A
federal class-action lawsuit filed in Houston charges that Uber's
grip on them is so strong that they should be considered the
latter.

Mr. Maslo's motion for conditional certification, filed in North
Carolina's Middle District on behalf of 20 drivers in that state,
paves the way for what he said will probably be the only
nationwide action against Uber under the Fair Labor Standards Act
going forward.

"This should also be the first and only time that a court will
decide whether drivers are employees on a nationwide basis," he
said.

A lawyer for Uber has declined to comment, The New York Times
reported.  But a written statement from the company said it was
"disappointed with this decision, particularly because a Federal
District Court recently denied conditional certification in
another [Florida] case."

In addition to Houston, similar lawsuits seeking compensation have
been filed around the country and, if successful, could disrupt
the ride-calling app's business model.

"Uber tracks every move that a driver makes," Houston lawyer Kevin
Michaels told the Houston Chronicle.  "As long as they are on the
app, they are under Uber's control."

For instance, drivers who don't often make themselves available by
activating the app can be deactivated, as can drivers who cancel
too many rides.

The Houston lawsuit challenges the San Francisco-based company's
assertions, in promotional materials, that drivers can earn
$100,000 annually, saying that when calculations take into account
drivers' waiting for fares, their earnings can be below minimum
wage.

"An individual would have to drive an exorbitant number of hours
on a daily, weekly and monthly basis to even approach gross fares
totaling this amount, much less earn this amount," the lawsuit
says.  "Uber knew such statements were fraudulent and misleading
and also knew that individuals would rely on such
misrepresentations when deciding to become Uber drivers."

In addition to demanding that drivers be given full-employee
status with benefits, the suit asks for back pay of accrued
overtime. [GN]


UBS AG: Settles Class Action Over Swaps-Rate Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, Jack Newsham, Evan Weinberger and Eric Kroh,
writing for Law360, report that banking giants UBS AG and HSBC
Bank USA NA have each agreed to pay $14 million to settle class
action claims that they participated in a conspiracy with other
banks to manipulate a benchmark interest rate used to set terms
for swaps transactions.

The agreements totaling $28 million come in the wake of major
settlements in the litigation reached last year, including $324
million from seven banks including Bank of America Corp.,
Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., and a $56.5 million
settlement reached with Goldman Sachs.  In their suit, the
investor plaintiffs accuse the banks and interbank broker ICAP
Capital Markets LLC of having rigged the ISDAfix benchmark rate,
which determines valuations for interest-rate derivative products.

Under the deals struck with UBS and HSBC, the banks will provide
the investors with cash payments totaling $28 million, but also
"valuable confirmatory discovery, which will assist plaintiffs in
the prosecution of the non-settling defendants," according to a
motion for approval submitted to the court by the investors on
July 11.  Similar obligations were included in the agreements with
the other banks.

The information the investors will receive includes transaction
data involving ISDAfix instruments and up to three witness
interviews of current employees at HSBC and UBS relating to the
suit's alleged conduct, according to the July 11 settlement
motion.

Daniel Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, an attorney for the nationwide
class, told Law360 on July 11 that the class and its counsel are
pleased to see another $28 million added to the settlement pool.

The UBS and HSBC settlements bring the total recovery to over $408
million for the class, said the investors co-lead counsel, David
Scott of Scott+Scott LLP.

"Equally important, however, such settlements ensure that
important benchmarks like ISDAfix, which play a vital role in
supporting pension funds and public entities, remain free of
manipulation," Mr. Scott said in a written statement.

Five defendants still remain in the litigation, according to
Brockett: Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, BNP Paribas SA, Wells Fargo
Bank NA, Nomura Securities International Inc. and ICAP Capital
Markets LLC.

In April, the plaintiffs asked a New York federal judge to appoint
an authority to ensure that Morgan Stanley turns over files
ordered by the court.

"[S]omething is fundamentally broken with Morgan Stanley's
approach to discovery in this case," they wrote.  "Plaintiffs can
no longer rely on claims of good faith and vague promises as to
when documents might be produced.  That is why a discovery master
or magistrate judge is necessary here, to supervise Morgan
Stanley's document production, at Morgan Stanley's expense, to
break the cycle of over-lawyered responses, dodges and delays that
have characterized Morgan Stanley's approach to this case from the
start."

Morgan Stanley has maintained that it is complying with court
orders; its lawyers said that it had not stopped its review and
turnover of documents, but simply found that less than 1 percent
of the documents that came up when it plugged in the plaintiffs'
search terms were actually responsive to their requests.

According to the plaintiffs, who sued in September 2014, the banks
worked closely with interdealer broker ICAP PLC, which until
January 2014 was tasked by the International Swaps and Derivatives
Association with managing the daily setting of the U.S. dollar-
rate version of ISDAfix.

The banks were responsible for submitting rate quotes, which ICAP
essentially compiled. But the suit says the parties worked
together to set the rate at the point where it was most profitable
for them, including engaging in a process known in the industry as
"banging the close" where they bought and sold derivative products
just before the fix was closed in order to get the price they
wanted.

The proposed settlement class includes all persons or entities who
"entered into, received or made payments on, settled, terminated,
transacted in or held an ISDAfix Instrument" between Jan. 1, 2006,
and Jan. 31, 2014.

Representatives for HSBC did not respond to requests for comment
on July 11.  UBS declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott & Scott LLP, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Grant &
Eisenhofer PA, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Berger & Montague PC and
McCulley McCluer PLLC.

Morgan Stanley is represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. BNP
Paribas is represented by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. ICAP
is represented by Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP. UBS is represented by
Gibson Dunn. Wells Fargo is represented by Friedman Kaplan Seiler
& Adelman LLP.

HSBC is represented by Locke Lord LLP. Nomura is represented by
Shearman & Sterling LLP.[GN]

The case is Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank Of America
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07126 (S.D.N.Y.), filed
September 4, 2014.  The case is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Kotlyar" TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lena Kotlyar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The University of Chicago
Medical Center, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case 2017-CH-
07571 (Ill. Cir., March 26, 2017), was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 23, 2017, under case No. 1:17-cv-04729.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing unsolicited telephone
calls using a prerecorded voice. Plaintiff seeks actual and
statutory damages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     William P. Kingston, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: emeyers@mcgpc.com
            eturin@mcgpc.com
            wkingston@mcgpc.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq.
     Jeanah Park, Esq.
     Bryan K. Clark, Esq.
     VEDDER PRICE P.C.
     222 North LaSalle Street
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 609-7500


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owners Suffer Poor Performance After Fix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Brignall, writing for The Guardian, reports that more than
half of VW, Audi and Skoda owners who had their cars "fixed"
following the "diesel-gate" emissions scandal have subsequently
suffered poor performance and worse fuel consumption, according to
a legal firm behind a class action against VW.

Around 41,000 owners have so far joined the action by Harcus
Sinclair UK.  VW has recalled 1.2m cars in the UK after it was
caught cheating emissions tests two years ago, but growing numbers
of owners are refusing to have the free work done because of the
alleged post-fix problems.

Harcus Sinclair says its survey found that 53%, or 2,706 drivers,
had reported reduced fuel efficiency following the "fix".  More
than 40% suffered reduced power and acceleration, while 739
reported a sudden loss of power as the car went into "limp home"
mode.

VW has so far refused to compensate those affected in the UK and
has vowed to fight the legal action.  It also faced fresh
allegations that the "fix" for affected cars may not make a
difference in the real world, following a leak of internal
documents in German media.

Damon Parker, head of litigation at Harcus Sinclair UK, said:
"These results show that the 'fix' intended to reduce NOx
emissions may, in fact, have a detrimental impact on the car's
performance and running costs.  It has been almost two years since
the scandal was exposed and the only thing that UK consumers have
been offered is a so-called 'fix'.  A survey of our clients
suggests it has caused other mechanical problems, leading to
greater inconvenience, anxiety over their cars' safety and
additional cost to them."

Affected cars include VW, Audi, SEAT and Skoda with 1.2, 1.6 and
2.0 EA 189 diesel engines manufactured between 2009 and 2015. Most
require a simple software upgrade, but some -- those with the 1.6
litre diesel engine -- have needed major work.

Mr. Parker says the legal case will likely focus on whether the
cars should have been certified as fit for sale as they allegedly
produced higher emissions of NOx than the rules allowed due to
their engines being fitted with a "defeat device".

The UK government has supported the "fix" which, for most
vehicles, has been approved by German regulators.  Transport
minister, John Hayes, said in April that he was calling on VW to
offer a compensation package to UK consumers.  The Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has said NOx emissions cause
23,000 premature deaths in the UK each year.

In March, the Guardian featured the case of James Harrison who
claimed that the "fix" had ruined his family's 2010 Golf 1.6
diesel.  Following the work the car began to stall and was
difficult to restart.

Other VW owners have reported that components from the exhaust gas
recirculation system and the diesel particulate filter are
commonly in need of being replaced after the "fix" is applied.  In
some cases VW has paid for the work, but in others it has left the
owner with large รบ1,000+ bills.

A spokesman for VW said: "This survey has been designed by a law
firm to support the claim it is bringing for compensation against
Volkswagen.  We have serious misgivings about its impartiality and
methodology.  It is limited to the law firm's clients who are
likely to have different characteristics from the population of
affected vehicle owners in the UK as a whole.  Even among that
interested group the survey response rate was less than 25%, and
only half the respondents reported any problem.

"In stark contrast, in the UK Volkswagen has implemented the
technical measures in over 720,000 vehicles and in over 5m
vehicles across Europe.  There is no systemic problem.  The
overwhelming majority of our customers have been fully satisfied.
Put another way, around 5m customers have not reported any
problems with the technical measures."

He added: "We also want to stress that the technical measures do
not affect the performance or safety of a vehicle.  Implementation
of the technical measures does not cause limp home mode to engage
nor does it increase the incidence of limp home mode occurring."
[GN]


VTECH: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has pulled the plug on a class action suit
against electronic toymaker VTech, which alleged VTech did not
protect parents' and childrens' personal data from a hacker,
saying plaintiffs failed to show how the security breach harmed
them.

The July 5 ruling was issued by Judge Manish Shah, of U.S.
District Court for Northern Illinois.  The decision favored VTech
Electronics in a suit brought against the company by 22
plaintiffs.  VTech is headquartered in Hong Kong, with its North
American operations based in suburban Arlington Heights.

VTech makes digital learning toys for children, which includes
smartphones and tablets.  VTech offered online services, Kid
Connect and The Learning Lodge, to which its products could
connect.  Customers could use these services to download content,
acquire applications and updates, browse the Internet and send
text, voice and image messages.  Access to group bulletin boards
was also available.

Customers had to furnish personal data, such as names, ages,
addresses and photos, to sign on to these services.  Children, as
well as their parents, would also transmit similar information
through VTech's online services.

On Nov. 14, 2015, a hacker broke into VTech's servers and
downloaded the personal data for more than 2.8 million children
and parents.  The hacker contacted a reporter, who published a
news story about the breach.

Several suits were filed in succeeding weeks; the suits were
consolidated a few months later.  Plaintiffs include eight adults
and 14 children.  The adults alleged that because of VTech's
inadequate security measures, they fear they are at increased risk
of identity theft and their children could suffer harm at the
hands of predators.

Plaintiffs claimed that, although VTech promised in its customer
privacy policy to encrypt customer data during transmission and
store the data in a place inaccessible to the Internet, the
company did not do so.

VTech filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which Judge Shah
granted.

Judge Shah concluded plaintiffs did not show how they were harmed.
Rather, they only made contentions that were "speculative."

"Plaintiffs fail to make the connection between the data breach
they allege and the identify theft they fear. Specifically,
plaintiffs do not explain how the stolen data would be used to
perpetrate identify theft," Judge Shah said.

If increased risk of identity theft has occurred, plaintiffs
failed to say what costs they've incurred mitigating the risk, the
judge said.

Judge Shah also noted the personal data did not include financial
data, such as credit card numbers.

Judge Shah further pointed out that in the news story about the
hacking, the hacker said he was not going to do anything with the
information.

"Frankly, it makes me sick that I was able to get all of this
stuff," the hacker was quoted in the article.

A status hearing is set for July 14.  Judge  Shah noted in his
dismissal ruling that it is customary to give plaintiffs the
chance to keep their action going by amending their suit.

Plaintiffs are represented by the following firms: Stephan, Zouras
LLP, of Chicago; The Hinton Law Firm, of New York; Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, of Tampa, Fla.; Rosen Law Firm, of New
York; Abbott Law Group, of Jacksonville, Fla.; Wexler Wallace, of
Chicago; Hefner Hurst, of Chicago; Keller Rohrback LLP, of
Seattle; and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, of New York and
San Francisco.

VTech is defended by Steptoe & Johnson, of New York and Chicago.
[GN]


VWR CORP: Bushansky Files Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky on July 19 filed a Stipulation of Dismissal in
the case, Bushansky v. VWR Corporation et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
02616 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is before Judge Wendy Beetlestone.

On July 7, the Court entered an Order providing that Defendant's
unopposed faxed request to stay all proceedings and deadlines
pending the finalization of the terms of a settlement agreement is
granted.  The hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction in Case No. 17-2616 scheduled for July 11 was
cancelled.  The briefing deadlines were terminated, and the cases
are stayed.

VWR Corporation files supplemental disclosures to the proxy
statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
related to its planned merger with Avantor, Inc., among other
entities. The additional disclosures can be found in the Company's
Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 6, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/9ZUN17

The Company said, "This Form 8-K is being filed in connection with
the execution of a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to
settle certain litigation arising out of the previously disclosed
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 4, 2017 (the "merger
agreement"), by and among Avantor, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Avantor"), Vail Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Avantor ("Merger Sub"), and VWR
Corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company (the "merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation.

"Three putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed
merger have been filed on behalf of Company stockholders (the
"plaintiffs") in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The actions are captioned Stephen
Bushansky v. VWR Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02616-WB,
Robert Berg v. VWR Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02676-MSG
and Lawrence v. VWR Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02758-
WB.

"The plaintiffs allege, among other claims, that the Company
failed to disclose to stockholders all material information
related to the merger.  In connection with a settlement of such
actions contemplated by the MOU, the Company agreed to make the
supplemental disclosures contained herein (the "settlement").  The
settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed merger
or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of the
Company scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2017, beginning at 11:00
a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, at The Radnor Hotel, 591 E. Lancaster
Avenue, St. Davids, Pennsylvania 19087 to vote upon a proposal to
approve the merger agreement."

VWR Corporation provides laboratory products, services, and
solutions to the life science, general research, and applied
markets worldwide.  It operates in two segments, Americas and
EMEA-APAC.  The Company was formerly known as VWR Investors, Inc.
and changed its name to VWR Corporation in June 2014.  VWR
Corporation was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Overdraft Fee Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a New Jersey consumer alleges he was unlawfully charged an
overdraft fee.

Angelo Clamor filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. alleging breach of contract and violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he is a
Wells Fargo customer and that his deposit agreement states that
the defendants would not assess overdraft fees on any one-time
debit card transactions.  The plaintiff states that in September
2016, he made a one-time payment for a Lyft ride and was charged a
$35 overdraft fee.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages twice the
amount of the usurious interest paid, interest, all legal fees and
any other relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by
Annick M. Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP in Oakland and
Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 4:17-cv-03782-DMR [GN]


WELLS FARGO: "Jabbari" Suit Accord Wins Preliminary Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company has received the court's preliminary
approval of its settlement agreement related to a class action
lawsuit over improper retail sales practices, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed on July 10, 2017 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Specifically, on July 8, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement in the case styled Jabbari v. Wells Fargo &
Co., et al., according to the Company's press release dated July
9, 2017.

The Company stated, "With the court's preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs are preparing
to issue notices that will provide information about the process
for making claims.

"Wells Fargo expects this settlement to resolve substantially all
claims in 10 other pending class actions that allege unauthorized
accounts were opened in customers' names or that customers were
enrolled in products or services without their consent.

"Within the next three months, broad outreach to current and
former customers will begin, and notices will be issued to
potential class members that will provide information about the
process for making claims, and customers who believe they should
be included in this settlement will be able to submit claims. The
settlement agreement is subject to final court approval, which
will be required before payments are made to class members."

A full-text copy of the press release is available at
https://is.gd/1Oew8f

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  It was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: January 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
James Rufus Koren, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
federal judge signed off on a deal under which Wells Fargo & Co.
will pay $142 million to settle a bevy of class-action lawsuits
over the bank's creation of unauthorized accounts.

If you think the San Francisco-based financial institution created
sham accounts in your name, here's what you need to know to get a
piece of the settlement.

Am I eligible?

Yes, if you are, or were, a Wells Fargo customer between May 2002
and April of this year, and you believe the bank opened or applied
for a checking account, savings account, credit card or line of
credit without your permission.  Customers who obtained identity-
theft protection services from the bank also are eligible.

How much will I get?

That depends. If you paid fees on accounts you didn't open, you'll
get those fees back -- unless the bank already has reimbursed you.
Following a settlement with regulators last year, the bank has
refunded about $3.2 million in fees tied to unauthorized accounts,
averaging about $25 per account.

If the bank opened an unauthorized credit card or credit line and
it damaged your credit score, causing you to borrow money at a
higher interest rate, you could receive a payment to help cover
your higher borrowing cost.

Those payments will be determined using a complicated formula that
takes into account how much your credit was damaged, how much you
later borrowed and the likelihood that your credit was dinged
enough to affect your rate.  Here's a hypothetical example from
the settlement documents of a customer who borrowed $18,000 after
her credit score decreased by 12 points:

After reimbursements and credit-damage payments have been made,
all customers affected by the bank's practices will be eligible to
split an additional $25 million -- or more if there's other
settlement money left over -- based on the number and type of
unauthorized accounts in their names.

How much do the lawyers get?

Attorneys at Keller Rohrback, who negotiated the settlement with
Wells Fargo, plan to request 15% of the total settlement fund --
$21.3 million -- as compensation, according to court documents.

How do I sign up?

By mid-September, a settlement administrator will begin mailing
claim forms, but those will go only to customers who already were
identified by the bank as having potentially unauthorized
accounts, as well as customers who filed complaints with the bank
or federal regulators.  That means some affected customers won't
automatically receive claim forms in the mail.

All customers, though, can fill out a claim form online at the
settlement website, WFsettlement.com. The online claim form will
be available in September, but customers can go to the website now
and submit their names and contact information to receive
settlement updates.  Customers also can call a settlement hotline,
(866) 431-8549, though for now, that number only refers callers to
the website.

What if I want to sue the bank, not settle?

If you want to try suing the bank over unauthorized accounts, you
have to exclude yourself from the settlement -- meaning you won't
get any payments from the $142-million settlement fund.  To do
that, you have to file a special form, which will be made
available on the settlement website.

When will I get paid?

Not until early next year, at the earliest.  A federal judge over
the weekend gave the settlement a preliminary go-ahead, but he
must give final approval before payments go out. A final approval
hearing is scheduled for Jan. 4. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: "Hastings" Disputes Credit Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
John Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-03633 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2017) seeks
actual damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent
violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and such other
and further relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a nationwide financial institution engaged in
banking, lending and collection. Wells Fargo allegedly contacted
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in an attempt to collect an
alleged outstanding debt incurred by someone else using an
automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XACTLY CORP: "Berg" Suit Says Merger Lacks Info for Stockholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xactly Corporation, among other defendants, is facing purported
stockholder class action lawsuit filed by Robert Berg, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, related to the
Company's merger plan with Excalibur entities, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 5, 2017.

Xactly Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 29, 2017, as amended on
June 20, 2017 (the "Merger Agreement") with Excalibur Parent, LLC
("Parent") and Excalibur Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub), providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

On June 30, 2017, the purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Berg v. Xactly Corporation et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
03783, was filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of California against Xactly, its directors,
Parent, Merger Sub and Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.
("Vista").

The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the Merger offers inadequate
consideration to Xactly's stockholders, and that Xactly and its
directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by
purportedly omitting material information from the proxy statement
issued in connection with the Merger.

The lawsuit also purports to allege violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against Xactly's directors, Parent, Merger Sub
and Vista.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable
relief that would enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger,
rescission of the proposed Merger to the extent it is consummated,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company said, "Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the
future."

Xactly Corporation provides cloud-based incentive compensation
solutions for employee and sales performance management in the
United States and the United Kingdom.  The Company was founded in
2005 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends "Rezko" Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Xbiotech 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 the case,
Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR
Hambrecht & Co., LLC, in California.

The Company said, "On December 1, 2015, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed
against us, certain of our officers and directors and the
underwriter for our initial public offering in the Superior Court
for the State of California, Los Angeles County."

"On December 2, 2015, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and
Queena Han was filed against us and certain of our officers and
directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.

"The lawsuits are based on substantially similar factual
allegations and purport to be class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
April 15, 2015 through November 23, 2015. The complaint filed in
California state court alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the
complaint filed in federal court alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), in each case by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's Phase III clinical
trial conducted in Europe to assess Xilonix(TM) as a treatment for
colorectal cancer.

The California complaint purports to assert claims for violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the
federal complaint purports to assert claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Both complaints seek, on behalf of the
purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other
relief.

"In September 2016, a stay was granted at the Superior Court for
the State of California, Los Angeles County, in Yogina Rezko v.
XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co.,
LLC, in light of the ongoing case, Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard and Queena Han, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, leaving plaintiffs with an opportunity
re-file a complaint in Texas.

"In October 2016, the Texas securities class action lawsuit was
dismissed with prejudice.

"The California plaintiffs did not re-file a complaint in Texas,
and thus XBiotech continues to defend against this securities
class action lawsuit.

A hearing date rescheduled for June 7, 2017, has been set at the
Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County.

"We are unable to estimate the outcome of the California matter or
the resulting financial impact to us, if any," the Company said.

XBiotech Inc. is a pre-market biopharmaceutical company engaged in
discovering and developing True Human(TM) monoclonal antibodies
for treating a variety of diseases.


XENCOR INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company's insurance carriers have fully
funded the settlement account in a class action lawsuit.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

The plaintiffs and the Company agreed to separate the litigation
into two separate claims; Count I relating to the claim of Breach
of Fiduciary Duty by the current and former directors of the
Company and, Count II relating to the Invalidity of Directors and
Stockholders consents.

On December 14, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an Order
and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of the
invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the
complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint
(the invalidity claims)  and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee
award of $950,000. We have paid the plaintiff's legal award cost
of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been
reflected as a charge in our 2015 operations.

On September 27, 2016, the parties engaged in voluntary mediation
and agreed to settle the complaint's remaining claims, Count II,
for a total payment of $2.375 million to the class certified by
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement, which is subject
to approval by the Court, was reached without any party admitting
wrong-doing.  Under the terms of the settlement, no payments shall
be made to the plaintiffs by the Company or any of the defendants
in the lawsuit other than payments covered by the Company's
insurance.

On April 4, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the
Settlement between the parties. On May 1, 2017, the Company's
insurance carriers fully funded the settlement account.

The Company said, "We continue to recognize legal costs related to
the litigation as incurred and offset any insurance proceeds when
approved and issued. As of March  31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
we have reported the outstanding settlement amount of $2.355
million as a payable and also reflected a receivable of the same
amount for the insurance coverage that will fund the settlement."

Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibodies to
treat severe and life-threatening diseases with unmet medical
needs.


YELP INC: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 class action plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remains pending.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain
of its officers for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014.

These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal
of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24,
2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with
prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company's favor on December
28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

Yelp connects people with great local businesses by bringing "word
of mouth" online and providing a platform for businesses and
consumers to engage and transact. Yelp's platform is transforming
the way people discover local businesses; every day, millions of
consumers visit its website or use its mobile app to find great
local businesses to meet their everyday needs. Businesses of all
sizes use the Yelp platform to engage with consumers at the
critical moment when they are deciding where to spend their money.


YELP INC: Says Settlement Amounts Have Been Paid
------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 class action settlement amounts have been paid.

On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
former Eat24 Hours.com, Inc. ("Eat24") employees in the Superior
Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants
the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants
failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and
former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists,
and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California
Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 29,
2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an
additional cause of action for penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court
preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement received
final court approval on December 5, 2016 and the $0.6 million
settlement amount was paid on February 8, 2017.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that
Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January
2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this
matter, which the court preliminarily approved on August 29, 2016.
The settlement received final court approval on February 1, 2017
and the $0.2 million settlement amount was paid on March 29, 2017.

Based on the settlement agreements reached in connection with the
two lawsuits by former Eat24 employees described above, the
Company recognized a liability for each of the proposed settlement
amounts as part of its accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2017.

Yelp connects people with great local businesses by bringing "word
of mouth" online and providing a platform for businesses and
consumers to engage and transact. Yelp's platform is transforming
the way people discover local businesses; every day, millions of
consumers visit its website or use its mobile app to find great
local businesses to meet their everyday needs. Businesses of all
sizes use the Yelp platform to engage with consumers at the
critical moment when they are deciding where to spend their money.


* Attorney Lauds CFPB's Move to Allow Class Actions v. Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
Westside Today reports that Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer
praised a decision announced on July 10 by the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to allow class-action lawsuits against banks and
financial institutions.

The decision blocks the institutions from inserting arbitration
clauses into contracts that effectively block consumers from
banding together in class- action suits and instead requires them
take their complaints to arbitration.

Arbitration allows companies to avoid a jury trial and instead
brings the case before a third party, often a retired judge, for a
ruling.

"The CFPB action is a major victory for every American who's been
scammed by a financial institution 00 but blocked from getting
real relief because the amount pilfered from that one consumer,
taken alone, just didn't justify the fight," Mr. Feuer said.  "Now
everyday consumers can join forces to compel companies to stop
unfair practices.  That's good for consumers, and it's good for
competing businesses that play by the rules."

Many banking institutions were critical of the CFPB's ruling.  The
American Bankers Association issued a statement saying it is
"disappointed that the CFPB has chosen to put class-action lawyers
-- rather than consumers -- first."

Mr. Feuer addressed speculation that the Republican-controlled
Congress may also seek to overturn the CFPB's ruling on
arbitration.

"While already there's talk that Republicans in Congress will move
to block the CFPB's action, lawmakers would do so at their peril,"
Mr. Feuer said.  "Financial institutions may bankroll campaigns.
But consumers vote." [GN]


* Class Action Threat Leads to Rising Data Breach Costs
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq. -- kshepard@carltonfields.com -- and
Christine Stoddard, Esq. -- cstoddard@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, report that as the
number of data breaches continues to increase, so too do the
costs.  After a breach occurs, companies typically expend
significant sums conducting investigations, notifying customers
and regulators, and engaging in public relations.  They incur
additional expenses enhancing security and providing identity
protection services to victims.  And then, of course, there are
legal fees, involving both litigation and compliance, which can
add up to more than half the total cost of a data breach.  These
numbers can be substantial, particularly in the context of class
actions.

One recent example is health insurance giant Anthem, Inc., which
agreed to a class action settlement worth $115 million.  The
underlying litigation stemmed from a 2015 data breach -- one of
the largest in the world -- in which hackers gained access to
Anthem's system and accessed nearly 80 million records that
included Social Security numbers, addresses, email addresses, and
other personal information.  After the breach, over 100 lawsuits
were filed and eventually centralized in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs alleged that
Anthem, its affiliates, and certain Blue Cross entities violated
consumer protection laws by failing to protect their data. On June
23, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.  Pursuant to the agreement, Anthem agreed to triple
the amount it spends on information security and implement certain
security measures.  A $115 million settlement fund will also be
set up, with $15 million set aside for out-of-pocket costs
suffered by class members.  The rest of the settlement funds will
be used to provide two years of credit monitoring to victims of
the breach, extending beyond the two years of protection Anthem
originally offered after the breach occurred, while class members
who already have credit monitoring can receive cash compensation
instead.  Plaintiffs can additionally seek up to one-third of the
settlement fund for attorneys' fees. The motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement is currently set for August 17.

In addition to the threat of class action litigation, companies
suffering data breaches also face the risk of regulatory action.
Even investigations can be costly.  In May, Target paid $18.5
million to 47 states and Washington, DC to resolve an
investigation into the retailer after the 2013 data breach that
affected more than 41 million accounts and exposed customer's
credit card information.  The states' investigation determined
that hackers installed malware in Target's system that enabled
them to capture customer data in real time as payment cards were
used.  Target subsequently faced lawsuits by both consumers and
financial institutions, and it has reportedly spent over $200
million on legal fees and other expenses since that time. Pursuant
to the recent settlement agreement, each state received various
amounts based on population, with California receiving the most at
$1.4 million.  The agreement also requires Target to implement
various new security measures and segregate cardholder data in its
network.  Alabama, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not part of the
settlement.  A statement by the states' attorneys general touted
the settlement as the largest multistate deal reached in a data
breach case -- although, as the cost of data breaches continues to
rise, that statistic may not last. [GN]


* CFPB Issues Final Rule to Ban Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------------
Kristine Roberts, Esq. -- klroberts@bakerdonelson.com -- of Baker
Donelson, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on July 11, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its long-
anticipated final rule on arbitration clauses in contracts
governing consumer financial products and services.  While the
CFPB is not banning arbitration clauses outright, the new rule
would prevent the use of arbitration provisions to block class
action lawsuits.  The rule is set to go into effect in eight
months, but a major fight is already brewing as industry groups
and congressional Republicans mobilize in opposition to it.

What does the new rule require?
The final rule has two main components: First, the rule would
prohibit companies from using pre-dispute arbitration agreements
to block consumer class actions in court, and it would require
them to include language in their agreements reflecting this
limitation.  Second, the rule would require companies that use
pre-dispute agreements to submit certain records relating to
arbitral and court proceedings to the Bureau.  The Bureau is still
working on finalizing provisions that will require it to publish
the materials it collects on its website.

The rule broadly applies to companies that lend money, store
money, and move or exchange money to or for consumers.  These
include, for example, banks, credit card companies, auto lenders,
student lenders, payday lenders, check cashing companies, debt
collectors and credit reporting agencies.

How did we get here?
The CFPB has been studying pre-dispute arbitration provisions in
consumer contracts since 2012.  The Dodd-Frank Act tasked the CFPB
with reviewing the use of pre-dispute arbitration provisions in
consumer contracts.  In March 2015, the Bureau reported on its
study of arbitration agreements, including a comparison of
consumer finance disputes that were resolved through arbitration,
individual lawsuits and class actions.  Among other findings, the
study noted that roughly 32 million consumers each year were
eligible for relief as part of class action settlements in federal
court, and the Bureau expressed concern about arbitration clauses
blocking class actions.

In October 2015, the CFPB announced its proposed rulemaking, with
an outline of the proposals under consideration.  In May 2016, the
Bureau announced its proposed rule and invited public comment. Not
surprisingly, the proposal drew more than 100,000 comments from
groups and individuals on both sides of this issue.

What does this mean for the industry?
The new rule means that banks, consumer lenders and other
companies that provide financial services and products to
consumers would no longer be able to require customers to waive
the right to bring class action lawsuits.  As noted, there is no
outright ban on arbitration, so companies could still require
customers to bring individual claims through arbitration rather
than a lawsuit.

New contracts containing a pre-dispute arbitration agreement would
be required to include the following provision: "We agree that
neither we nor anyone else will rely on this agreement to stop you
from being part of a class action case in court.  You may file a
class action in court or you may be a member of a class action
filed by someone else."

The rule would also require companies to submit certain records to
the CFPB, including claims and counterclaims, answers to these
claims and counterclaims, and awards issued in arbitration.  The
Bureau will also collect correspondence from arbitration
administrators regarding companies' non-payment of arbitration
fees and their failure to follow the arbitrator's fairness
standards.  The Bureau intends to publish these redacted materials
on its website beginning in July 2019.

The rule would almost certainly lead to more class action
lawsuits.  Moreover, the prospect of publishing data on
arbitration claims and awards brings additional litigation and
even regulatory risks.  In his prepared remarks on the new rule,
CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that, "This will help us
better monitor arbitrations to make sure the process is fair for
individual consumers. . . This will promote transparency and give
consumers, providers, and other regulators more insight into how
arbitration works." Companies should thus expect that the CFPB
will be reviewing arbitration claims and awards for potential
regulatory or enforcement actions. With the new rule, banks,
lenders and other consumer finance companies would have to adjust
for these risks and price their products and services accordingly.

What is likely to happen next?
Industry and consumer groups are already gearing up for a fight,
as are members of Congress.  Director Cordray noted in his remarks
that he is "aware of those parties who have indicated they will
seek to have the Congress nullify this new rule."  Cordray is
referring to the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers
to review and overrule regulations within sixty legislative days
by a simple majority. House Financial Services Committee Chairman,
Jeb Hensarling, who previously described the proposed rule as a
"big, wet kiss to trial attorneys," has stated that Congress
should reject the new rule.  Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren
released a statement praising the new rule as allowing "working
families to hold big banks accountable when they're cheated and
help discourage the kinds of surprise fees that consumers hate."

The American Bankers Association has urged Congress to overturn
the rulemaking, arguing that rule "would essentially eliminate
arbitration -- and force consumers into court -- by requiring
companies to face a flood of attorney-driven class action lawsuits
from which consumers receive virtually nothing."  The Consumer
Bankers Association released a similar statement, touting "the
longstanding benefits of arbitration" and asking Congress "to move
swiftly and overturn this anti-consumer rule." In contrast,
consumer groups have spoken in favor of the rule. The Consumer
Federation of America called the new rule an "important step of
restoring law and order to the financial marketplace."  Public
Citizen issued a statement stating that elected officials should
embrace the rule and warning that "those who denounce it should
prepare to face the wrath of consumers fed up with widespread
financial scams and shams."

Absent congressional action, there are likely to be legal
challenges.  Given the breadth and scope of the final rule and its
potential impact on the consumer financial industry, lawsuits
challenging the rule seem inevitable.

What can banks be doing now?
As noted above, the new rule brings additional risk in the form of
more class action litigation and likely increased regulatory
scrutiny of arbitration proceedings and awards.  Banks, consumer
lenders and other consumer financial companies will have to factor
that additional risk in their pricing and service offerings.  In
addition, companies should start inventorying and reviewing
customer contracts containing arbitration provisions and consider
how those agreements will need to be redrafted to comply with the
new rule. [GN]


* CFPB's New Rules May Cost Financial Firms Billions of Dollars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Reiff, writing for Investopedia, reports that in 2010, the
Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul led to the creation of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency charged with
protecting the rights of American consumers in the wake of the
2008 financial crisis.  Now, in a move that is likely to have
widespread effects throughout Washington, the Bureau has adopted a
rule which permits American investing clients to bring class-
action lawsuits against financial firms.  Previously, banks and
credit card companies had the power to force their customers into
arbitration over a dispute, preventing them from grouping together
in order to file a class-action lawsuit. Jessica Silver-Greenberg
and Michael Corkery of the New York Times indicate that "the
change would deal a serious blow to Wall Street and could wind up
costing financial firms billions of dollars."

Draft of the Rule Presented in May 2016

The first draft of the new rule was issued in May 2016, when the
agency began to solicit the financial services industry for
comments.  The New York Times reports that the rule has remained
largely unchanged in the past year.  The agency has continued to
function as an independent entity, and the new rule is set to roll
back a number of legal standings put forward by major American
companies.  The director of the Bureau, Richard Cordray, indicated
in a statement that "these clauses allow companies to avoid
accountability by blocking group lawsuits and forcing people to go
it alone or give up."  The new rule would not apply to existing
accounts, only to new ones, and it does not explicitly outlaw the
process of arbitration.

Backlash Anticipated

There already seems to be a powerful wave of backlash against the
new rule.  Alan S. Kaplinsky, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr in
Philadelphia, a firm well-known for its work in arbitration,
suggested that "if this rule goes into effect, what we are going
to see is a huge avalanche of litigation and a loss to consumers
of the benefits of arbitration."  Mr. Kaplinsky and others opposed
to the rule believe that arbitration can be a quicker and more
efficient way of settling legal disputes between companies and
consumers.

There is also likely to be pushback against the rule from
Washington.  The Times notes that the Trump administration and
House Republicans have worked to limit the Bureau in order to
lighten regulation over the financial industry.  By the terms of
the Congressional Review Act of 1996, lawmakers will have 60
legislative days in order to overturn the new rule.  However,
given that the rule may have broad popular support, Republicans
and other pro-business groups may have a difficult time actually
overturning it within that timeframe.  Still, tensions between the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other government agencies
remain high.  In June, the Treasury Department issued a report
which recommended that the Bureau be removed of much of its power.
[GN]


* Consumer Bankers Association CEO to Fight CFPB Arbitration Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Yu, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the lucrative and
costly business of class-action lawsuits has been turned upside
down by a new federal rule.  And the fight to save or kill it has
just begun.

After years of review on the subject, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, an independent federal watchdog agency,
declared a new rule on July 10 that bans banks, credit card
companies, payday lenders and other financial firms from requiring
consumers to settle group disputes through arbitration. These
mandatory arbitration clauses, found in many credit card and bank
account contracts, have effectively killed class-action lawsuits.

With the rule in place, consumers can now freely band together to
fight back what they consider to be illegal or fraudulent products
or practices and more class-action lawsuits are inevitable.  It
will also force financial firms to proactively monitor their own
practices, its advocates say.

"The biggest step has been taken.  This is a huge victory for
consumers" said Amanda Werner, campaign manager at Americans for
Financial Reform and Public Citizen.  "We expect a lot of
misconduct is going to be rooted out sooner."

Wells Fargo's much-maligned fake-account scandal, revealed in 2013
by a Los Angeles Times report, would have been more widely known
sooner if the arbitration clause hadn't been in its contracts, she
says.  Consumers have repeatedly sought to sue the bank for years
for the bank's practice of creating unauthorized checking and
credit card accounts.  "But their case has been kicked out over
and over again" because of the arbitration requirement, Ms. Werner
said.

Wells eventually agreed to pay $185 million in penalties and $5
million in customer reimbursement for opening as many as 2 million
accounts without customers' authorization.

Consumers' narrow odds of winning arbitration

Odds are stacked against consumers when it comes to arbitration.
They lack the institutional knowledge of banks whose legal teams
are familiar with arbitrators.  And that's partly why there are so
few arbitration cases.  Only about 400 consumers file arbitration
per year against financial companies.

The likelihood of consumers winning in arbitration is also low.
Only 9% of consumers win in arbitration against financial
companies, the consumer bureau said in a report.

Compared to lawsuit outcomes, arbitration also leads to smaller
payouts for consumers.  In studying the five-year period from 2008
to 2012, the bureau said over 34 million harmed consumers received
payments of about $1 billion that were ordered by judges or juries
in lawsuits.  But in about 1,000 cases in the two years that the
bureau studied, arbitrators awarded about $360,000 to 78
consumers.

Bankers counter that the average per-individual payout is higher
in arbitration.  "The CFPB's own study shows the average consumer
receives $5,400 in cash relief when using arbitration and just $32
through a class action suit," said Richard Hunt, CEO of Consumer
Bankers Association.

For banks, the possibility of facing more class-action lawsuits
will likely drive them to store more funds in their reserves and
possibly pass-on costs to consumers in fees, Mr. Hunt said.

But there's no evidence to the assumption that banks will raise
fees, Mr. Werner said.  Bank of America and Capital One have
already dropped the arbitration clause for group disputes.  And
they haven't raised their fees as a result, she said.

Banks seek seldom-used Congressional procedure

Still, banks aren't whimpering away.  Mr. Hunt said he'd "leave no
stone unturned" in his fight to quash the rule.  And industry-
friendly lawmakers also promised carry on the fight to retain
banks' right to mandate arbitration.  Financial firms will lobby
to kill the rule in Congress.  And if that fails, there will
likely be lawsuits.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., heeded the industry's call, announcing
Tuesday he has started a process to kill the rule using a law
called the Congressional Review Act.  The law allows Congress to
kill an agency rule with 60 legislative days with simple majority
votes in both chambers.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who'schairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, also called for the rule to be killed.

Both sides expressed confidence that they will prevail.  The rule
has wide populist appeal and despite their majority, Republican
lawmakers could find it difficult amass enough votes, Werner said.
Last year, a poll by Pew Charitable Trusts found that 95% of
Americans support financial consumers' right to be heard in court.
"This is big-guy vs. little-guy."

If there's no legislative fix on their favor, financial firms will
sue and they will likely seek an injunction to block the rule from
going into effect while litigation is pending, said Quyen Truong -
- qtruong@stroock.com -- an attorney at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
and former deputy general counsel for litigation, enforcement, and
oversight at the bureau.

Leadership changes at the consumer bureau could also play a role
in how the rule is enforced. Richard Cordray, the Obama
administration appointee who runs the agency as its director, is
scheduled to step down next year and be replaced by a Trump
appointee.  "There may be new leadership at the CFPB that wouldn't
defend the rule as aggressively as the current leadership," Ms.
Truong said. [GN]


* Democrats, Consumer Advocates May Challenge CFPB's New Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia DePillis, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that in
September, the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case
that started after consumer advocates discovered that payday
lenders were taking their borrowers to court for missing payments
and even getting them thrown in jail.

The lenders required borrowers to sign post-dated checks as
collateral, cashing them if payments were missed and filing
criminal charges if the checks bounced.  The borrowers sued,
alleging the tactic qualified as an abusive and illegal debt
collection practice.

The case now turns on the question of whether the borrowers can
seek redress in the courts, since as a condition of the loan they
signed an agreement requiring that all disputes go through
arbitration, a process that tends for favor businesses.  Such
agreements are common the financial services industry, with banks,
stock brokers and mutual funds requiring them to open accounts or
take out loans.

But soon, it could be a lot easier for consumers to band together
and sue financial companies after the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau issued a final rule that would ban those
companies from using contracts that waive their customers' right
to join class action lawsuits.

The rule comes after years of research by the agency, which in
2015 completed an exhaustive study of how mandatory arbitration
clauses -- which require complaints to be decided privately and
individually by an arbitrator of the business' choosing -- have
crept their way into consumer contracts.  Those clauses now cover
nearly 99 percent of payday loan storefronts in Texas, the study
found, along with 53 percent of the credit card market, 92 percent
of prepaid card agreements and 86 percent of private student
lenders nationwide.

Brett Merfish is an attorney with Texas Appleseed, an Austin
non-profit that helped bring the case against payday lenders
before the State Supreme Court.  She says banning class action
waivers will make it much more attractive for trial attorneys to
pursue group litigation when potential violations surface over and
over.

"This will open the door for practices to be challenged in a way
that they haven't been before," says Mr. Merfish, who wrote a
comment supporting the new rule.  "There are harms that we don't
know about that would come to the forefront."

But the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect in 60 days, is
still in considerable danger.

Major financial services providers have registered their strong
opposition to any limitations on their ability to squelch class
action lawsuits.  The Texas Bankers Association filed a comment on
the proposed rule arguing that it exceeded the Consumer Financial
Protection Board's authority and class actions don't help
plaintiffs much anyway, since large chunks of the judgment end up
in trial lawyers' pockets.

The Republican-dominated Congress has already repealed several
Obama-era rules using the Congressional Review Act, and could very
well do the same with this one.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Dallas
Republican and chair of the House Financial Services Committee,
threatened the CFPB's director with contempt proceedings if he
even issued it before supplying all of the Bureau's internal
communications about the rule.

Meanwhile, the CFPB is still working on a final rule governing
payday lenders specifically.  The preliminary measure, issued last
year also drew strong criticism from Republicans, who have the
power to repeal it, too.

That means that Democrats and consumer advocates will have to make
a case to the public that repealing the CFPB's new rules is bad
for the little guy -- and voters will have to understand it well
enough to care. [GN]


* Financial Industry Disappointed with CFPB's Arbitration Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Zulovich, writing for SubPrime Auto Finance News, reports
that clearly the industry is "disappointed" that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau issued a final rule prohibiting the
use of class action waivers in arbitration clauses.  The American
Financial Services Association, the National Independent
Automobile Dealers Association and the American Bankers
Association all used that specific adjective when relaying their
reaction to the CFPB's actions.

And the Consumer Bankers Association also didn't cheer the
decision made by the bureau, which announced a new rule to ban
dealerships and auto finance companies from using mandatory
arbitration clauses "to deny groups of people their day in court."

AFSA asserted the CFPB has finalized a rule on arbitration that
ignores its own research and harms consumers, while enriching
plaintiff's attorneys.

"We are disappointed that the bureau has decided to move forward
with a final rule," said Bill Himpler, executive vice president
with AFSA.  "The bureau has ignored its mandate under the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to limit
arbitration only if such a prohibition is in the public interest
and for the protection of consumers."

AFSA, along with many other trade associations, has submitted a
comment letter on the CFPB's proposed arbitration rule, advocating
for alterations in the best interest of both consumers and the
industry.

"Numerous reports, including the CFPB's own study, show the value
that consumers derive from arbitration, especially when compared
to class-action lawsuits.  The CFPB's study clearly demonstrates
that the winner in class-action litigation is almost always the
plaintiff's attorneys, who pocket millions of dollars and leave
the consumer with little to no financial compensation,"
Mr. Himpler said.

NIADA pointed out that the CFPB's study on arbitration found
consumers receive on average more than $5,000 in arbitration
hearings compared to roughly $32 in class-action litigation -- if
they receive anything at all.

"We are disappointed that the bureau has decided to adopt this
ill-conceived rule," NIADA chief executive officer Steve Jordan
said.  "The action shows the CFPB has decided to put the interests
of class-action lawyers above those of the very consumers the
bureau is mandated to protect.

"Arbitration has proven to be a faster, less expensive and more
effective means of resolving consumer disputes than class-action
lawsuits. And consumers who receive an award in arbitration almost
always receive more than they would in a class-action lawsuit, a
point proven by the CFPB's own research," Mr. Jordan continued.

"This rule will force small businesses to bear additional costs in
defending class-action litigation, particularly meritless suits,"
Mr. Jordan went on to say.  "Those costs will ultimately be borne
by consumers, and in the case of those who are credit-challenged,
it could prove to be too much."

ABA president and CEO Rob Nichols also cited the disparity in
monies consumers often receive via arbitration versus litigation.
Nichols also agreed with the premise that attorneys are likely to
receive the greatest windfall via the bureau's decision.

"We're disappointed that the CFPB has chosen to put class action
lawyers -- rather than consumers -- first with the final rule,"
Mr. Nichols said.  "Banks resolve the overwhelming majority of
disputes quickly and amicably, long before they get to court or
arbitration.  The Bureau's own study found that arbitration has
significant benefits over litigation in general and class actions
in particular.  Arbitration is a convenient, efficient and fair
method of resolving disputes at a fraction of the cost of
expensive litigation, which helps keep costs down for all
consumers.

"Despite acknowledging these benefits in its own study, the Bureau
has chosen to write a rule that would essentially eliminate
arbitration -- and force consumers into court -- by requiring
companies to face a flood of attorney-driven class action lawsuits
from which consumers receive virtually nothing. Under this final
rule, consumers lose," he continued.

"As Congress considers changes to the CFPB's structure and
accountability, we also urge lawmakers to overturn this
rulemaking," Mr. Nichols went on to say.

NIADA senior vice president of legal and government affairs
Shaun Petersen said the association will work with congressional
leaders to address the arbitration issue legislatively.

"From the outset of this rulemaking process, NIADA has voiced
concern about the poor policy reflected in this proposal to both
the CFPB and to members of Congress," Mr. Petersen said.  "As
Congress considers CFPB reform, we will be urging lawmakers to
overturn this anti-consumer rule."

No matter the organization, CBA president and CEO Richard Hunt
spelled out the argument representatives are likely to make before
federal lawmakers.

"Arbitration has long provided a faster, better and more cost-
effective means of addressing consumer disputes than litigation or
class action lawsuits.  The CFPB's own study shows the average
consumer receives $5,400 in cash relief when using arbitration and
just $32 through a class action suit," Mr. Hunt said.

"The real benefactors of the CFPB's arbitration rule are not
consumers but trial lawyers, who pocket over $1 million on average
per class action lawsuit.  By only using fuzzy math is the CFPB
able to interpret these figures as favorable to consumers.  Given
the longstanding benefits of arbitration, we encourage Congress to
move swiftly and overturn this anti-consumer rule," Mr. Hunt went
on to say. [GN]


* Senator Tom Cotton to Challenge CFPB's Class-Action Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stewart, writing for TheStreet, reports that the financial
industry was dealt a potentially damaging blow when a federal
consumer regulator moved on a rule to allow class-action lawsuits
against firms.  But there are no guarantees the rule will ever go
into effect.  In fact, one senator is reportedly already moving to
roll it back.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on July 11 said he has started the
process to rescind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new
rule, announced on July 11, that would ban companies from using
mandatory arbitration clauses that force consumers into
arbitration and block them joining together to file a class-action
suit.  The rule, which has been applauded by Democrats and met
with opposition in the business community, could cost financial
firms billions of dollars.

"This morning I've started the process of rescinding this rule
using the Congressional Review Act," Sen. Cotton said in a
statement. "The last thing Americans need is more anti-business
regulation that will prompt frivolous lawsuits while hurting
consumers."

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) gives Congress the ability to
nullify agency regulations with a simple majority to scrap
recently-made rules. Republicans have already used the CRA to roll
back about a dozen Obama-era rules this year.

Proponents of the CFPB rule say arbitration clauses in contracts
for products such as bank accounts and credit cards make it too
difficult for consumers to take companies to court.  The CFPB rule
still allows the use of mandatory arbitration clauses but
prohibits covered entities from including agreements that block
class-action litigation altogether. It also imposes data
collection requirements for the continued use of mandatory
arbitration clauses.

"Our new rule will stop companies from sidestepping the courts and
ensure that people who are harmed together can take action
together," CFPB Director Richard Cordray, an Obama appointee, said
in a statement.

Those who oppose the rule say if enacted it would come at a
significant cost to the financial industry and do little to
benefit consumers, instead lining the pockets of the attorneys who
represent them.

"There's a huge cost involved, and consumers hardly get any
benefit out of class actions," said Alan Kaplinsky, partner at
Ballard Spahr LLP who advises financial institutions on bank
regulation.  "The only people who benefit really are the
plaintiff's class-action lawyers."

He said the financial services companies affected will now have to
spend between $2.7 billion and $5.2 billion over the next five
years to defend class actions.

A 2015 study by the CFPB on arbitration agreements found that most
consumers are unaware of or confused about whether they are
subject to arbitration clauses in agreements with financial
service providers.  The study found no evidence that arbitration
clauses lead to lower prices for consumers.  Of $2.7 billion in
settlements in cash from class-action suits across a five-year
period, 18% went to expenses and attorney's fees.

The rule is set to become effective 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register and will be applied to covered agreements
entered into 181 days after that date.  But that it will ever go
into effect at all remains in question -- Congress could block it,
and so could the courts.

"[W]e remain dubious that Congress will permit the rule to take
effect," said Cowen analyst Jaret Seiberg in a note on July 10
after the rule was announced, adding that he expects Congress to
use the CRA to void the arbitration rule.

If that indeed happens, the CFPB would be barred from reinstating
any similar rule in the future without the consent of Congress.
That, Mr. Seiberg said, would be a positive for the banking
industry.

Congress in May failed to roll back a separate rule by the CFPB
intended to make prepaid payment cards more affordable and
transparent.  Compass Point analyst Isaac Boltansky said in a note
the effort to reverse the arbitration rule is "far better
positioned politically" than the prepaid rule, but the fate of the
rule will "be determined by public perception" in the weeks to
come.

"If the rule is tagged as an eleventh-hour policy aimed at padding
the pockets of trial attorneys and setting the stage for an end to
arbitration all together, then the odds will be modestly in favor
of reversal," he said. If the rule is successfully framed as a
valiant defense of consumer rights against Wall Street greed, then
the odds will be against reversal."

Mr. Boltansky gives the CFPB's arbitration rule slightly less than
a 50% chance of being reversed via the CRA.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) in a
statement on July 10 said the rule would "harm American consumers
but thrill class action trial attorneys" and called on Congress to
reject the rule using the CRA.

Mr. Kaplinsky said litigation challenges are possible to halt the
rule.  Politico reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is
considering filing a lawsuit, and numerous trade groups condemned
the rule.

"We're disappointed that the CFPB has chosen to put class action
lawyers -- rather than consumers -- first with the final rule,"
said American Bankers Association president and CEO Rob Nichols in
a statement.  "Banks resolve the overwhelming majority of disputes
quickly and amicably, long before they get to court or
arbitration."

Originally, arbitration was primarily used for disagreements
between two businesses, Mr. Cordray said in prepared remarks on a
call with reporters on July 10.  But companies about 25 years ago
started adding such clauses to their consumer contracts to block
group lawsuits and avoid legal accountability.

"The breadth and application of these clauses can be unexpected
and severe," Mr. Cordray said.  He pointed to Wells Fargo & Co.'s
(WFC) account fraud scandal, where the bank opened millions of
deposit and credit card accounts without consumers' consent.
"Arbitration clauses in existing account contracts blocked their
customers from bringing group lawsuits for the unauthorized
account openings," he said.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal opponent of the big
banks, applauded the CFPB rule as one that "will allow working
families to hold big banks accountable when they're cheated and
help discourage the kinds of surprise fees that consumers hate."
She noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups are
likely to "go all out" to get Republicans in Congress to reduce
the rule.  "Republicans will have to decide whether to defend the
interests of their constituents or shield a handful of wealthy
donors from accountability," she said. [GN]


* Tony Merchant Launches Class Actions Against PPI Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawyer Tony Merchant, Q.C. on July 12 disclosed that
on behalf of Merchant Law Group LLP: "Our law offices have
launched class actions against the manufacturers of certain Proton
Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) regarding the risks being caused to
patients from using these drugs."

"Millions of Canadians take PPIs drugs each year to reduce
heartburn and other conditions, but the undisclosed risks are far
too high." said Mr. Merchant.

US medical research has found (including a study
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/6/e015735#T2by medical
researchers at Washington University School of Medicine) that
long-term use of these drugs can be linked to a patient's
shortened lifespan.

The Canada-wide PPIs class action litigation has been filed with
the Superior Court of Ontario, the Superior Court of Quebec, and
the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.

Copies of the PPIs Statements of Claim are available to the media,
upon request.

The PPIs class of drugs includes Omeprazole (Prilosec or Losec),
Esomeprazole (Nexium), and Lansoprazole (Prevacid), which are some
of the most widely prescribed drugs in Canada [see page 11
http://www.merchantlaw.com/stats].

Any Canadian residents wanting more information concerning the
Proton Pump Inhibitors class action litigation may provide their
contact information at http://www.merchantlaw.com/class-
actions/current-class-actions/nexium-losec-prevacid or contact our
law offices.  Merchant Law Group LLP operates ten law offices
across Canada and is well known for pursuing class action lawsuits
in Canada. [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  * * *