CAR_Public/170727.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, July 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 147



                            Headlines

AECOM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Amends Class Cert. Bid Under FDCPA
ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICA TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Suit by Former Akers Employees Pending

ATHENE HOLDING: Wins Dismissal of "Hudson" Suit
ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit in Discovery Process
ATOSSA GENETICS: Class Action Appeal Underway
AUDIOEYE INC: Settlement of Sec. Litigation Has Final Approval
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Mohanty Amended Complaint

BAHAMAS UPHOLSTERY: "Diaz" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Wins OK of "Pastor" Suit Deal; Hearing Jan. 11
BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
BURGER KING: Sued by Gesten Over FCRA Violations
CAPNIA INC: "Garfield" Class Action Settled and Dismissed

CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Merger w/ Sabra Health Care
CARNIVAL CORP: Wins OK of "Charvat" Suit Deal; Hearing April 4
CARRINGTON'S CARING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Providence Class Action Underway
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Expects Settlement to Conclude in Q3 2017

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Aug. 25 Case Conference in "French" Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Not Yet Scheduled in Merger Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Peter Piper Litigation Still Pending
CEMTREX INC: Defending Against 3 Securities Suits
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Final Approval of "Brown" Case Deal

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Guglielmo" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit Underway
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Muransky, Tibbits & Zhang Suits Related
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Suit
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Motions for Summary Disposition Still Pending

CLECO CORPORATE: Appeal in Merger Class Action Pending
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Long" Suit Approved
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Subsidiary Still Faces "Bass" Suit
CVB FINANCIAL: Approval of Wage-Hour Accord Expected in Q3 2017
CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Pending
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Center City Periodontists Case Underway
DRUG DEPOT: Fauley Moves to Certify Two Classes Over Sent Faxes
EBIX INC: Discovery Underway in Stockholder Suit
EXPRESS RECOVERY: Accused by "Alonso" Suit of Violating FDCPA

FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in "Letizia"
FARMER BROS: Still Faces Hernandez and Zuno Cases
FASHION NOVA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure Properly Pay Employees
FEMALE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger Class Action
FIDELITY INFORMATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss "Raul" Suit Pending
FIRST TRINITY: Class Suit over Insurance Product Pending
GAS NATURAL: Settlement in "Masters" Case Approved
GC SERVICES: "Frand" Consumer Lawsuit Alleges FDCPA Violation
GENVEC INC: MOU Reached in Stockholder Actions

GOSMITH INC: "Rojas" Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid for Conditional Cert in "Clinton" OK'd
GPS HOLDINGS: Cancel Seeks to Certify Class of Massage Therapists
HALLIBURTON CO: Faces "Leblanc" Suit Alleging Misclassification
HD SUPPLY: Retirement System Alleges Securities Act Violation

HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING: Salais' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied
HYATT EQUITIES: Class Certification Sought in "Guarisma" Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Suit Underway
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Consolidated Stockholder Action Underway
INC RESEARCH: Faces "Fink" Suit Over Proposed Merger w/ inVentiv

INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidate Class Action
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Rubin" Class Suit Underway
INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Westmoreland Suit Underway
INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss "Blair" Suit Underway
INVENTURE FOODS: Defending Against "Schoenfeld" Class Suit

INVENTURE FOODS: Still Defends "Robinson" Suit
INWELL INC: "Culley" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Operators
ISORAY INC: Lawsuit Related to Equity Plans Resolved
J JAIME: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
JEMA CONSTRUCTION: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

JONES FINANCIAL: Retirement Plan Litigation Remains Pending
JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Accused by "Diaz" Suit of Violating FLSA, NYLL
KATE SPADE: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Sale to Coach Inc.
KELLY SERVICES: Aug. 2 Final Settlement Hearing
KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Co. Moves to Certify Class in Drywall Suit

LAUREATE EDUCATION: MDL Panel Denied Bid to Transfer Suit
LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION: Opposed Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit
MABRY MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Suit
MDL 2311: September 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Madar" Action Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Amzallag" Consumer Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
MILDON BUS: Community Vocational Moves for Class Certification
MY SIZE: Defending Against Class Action in Tel Aviv

NATIONAL GAS: Faces Suit Over Intrusive Making Telemarketing Calls
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Violates Securities Laws, Gallagher Claims
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Duncan" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
PANDA III: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sun" Action Claims
PCM INC: Aug. 7 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff

PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiffs File Appeal
PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss "Halvorsen" Denied
PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor End-Payers' Claims Pending
PFIZER INC: Appeal in Lipitor Litigation Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Action in Ontario Discontinued

PFIZER INC: Celebrex End-Payers' Appeal Underway
PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Suits over Eliquis Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Defending Against EpiPen Purchasers' Suits
POPULAR INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Perez" Suit

POPULAR INC: "Torres" Class Suit Underway
POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Mortgage-Related Litigation Underway
POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Case in Discovery Phase
POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Suit Underway
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Suit over CIBC Merger Dismissed

PTC INC: Settlement in "Crandall" Suit Pending
RELIANT CAPITAL: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Etienne" Suit
RENTECH INC: Shareholder Lawsuits at Preliminary Stage
RESONANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 20
RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Faces "Paskowitz" Suit Over Sale to Donuts

ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Junks TRO Bid in Search & Seizure Suit
SANTEK WASTE: "Smith" Suit in Ala. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SEAVIEW RESTAURANTS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners
SHAKE SHACK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

SM ENERGY: "Lirette" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Roxberry" Class Suit Pending
SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Scheurer" Class Suit Pending
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement in "Sparks" Case Pending
SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Bensman" Class Suit Pending

SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
SPORT CARWASH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Minimum Wages, Arinah Says
STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Action Lawsuits Ongoing
STERICYCLE INC: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Underway
STERICYCLE INC: TCPA Lawsuit Underway

SUNOPTA INC: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Underway
SUNPOWER CORP: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Securities Violations
TECOGEN INC: Bid for Expedited Discovery in "May" Action Denied
TECOGEN INC: "Vardakas" Action in Earliest Phase

TELIGENT INC: 10 Putative Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits Filed
TITANIUM CONSTRUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Samaniego"
TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Marketed Aloe Vera Products, Action Claims
TRANSENTERIX INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bankley" Underway
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Toll Suit Granted
TRG CUSTOMER: Cronk Seeks Compensation for Off-the-Clock Work
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Duffy Challenges Proposed Merger With Sinclair
TRICO BANCSHARES: Settlement of Bankers' Suit Pending
TRINITY COURIERS: Faces "Green" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

U-HAUL CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Reservation Policy
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Over Breach of Contract
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Claims vs. FHFA, Treasury Affirmed
USANA HEALTH: Defending Against Class Action in Utah
VITA-MIX CORP: $1.6MM Class Deal in "Gooding" Has Prelim OK

VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Suit Underway
WARNER NELSON: 9th Cir. Vacates Atty Fees Award in ERISA Suit
WEIBO CORP: Goldsmith Sues Over Non-disclosure, Share Price Drop
WENDY'S COMPANY: Torres and FI Cases Pending in Florida
XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Faces "Trejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT



                            *********


AECOM: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017,
that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
remains pending.

On September 1, 2016, an AECOM stockholder filed a securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that the Company and its
senior executives made materially false and misleading statements
in violation of the federal securities laws.

On March 6, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and on April 3, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
multiple grounds including the failure to adequately allege any
material misrepresentations by the Company.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it. While no assurance can be given as
to the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that
the final resolution of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or ability to conduct business.

AECOM is a fully integrated firm positioned to design, build,
finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments,
businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Amends Class Cert. Bid Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORDON SIEVERT,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-01309-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
files with the Court an amended motion for class certification.

Mr. Sievert defines the class as (a) all natural persons in the
State of Wisconsin (b) who were sent a collection letter by
Alltran, (c) stating that Alltran is licensed by the Division of
Banking in Wisconsin, (d) seeking to collect a debt for personal,
family or household purposes, (e) on or after September 29, 2015
and up to and including September 29, 2016, (f) that was not
returned by the postal service.

The case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters
used by Alltran to collect consumer debts owed to third parties.
The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Mr. Sievert also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dijr6OtI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darrenton Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Aloha Pools and Spas, LLC, Aloha Pools and Spas of
Jackson, LLC and Dennis and Michelle Cook, Case No. 1:17-cv-01129
(W.D. Tenn., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a family business building custom
in-ground swimming pools and spas in Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White,
      GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN  37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


AMERICA TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cacucciolo, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. America Trading Service and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC667025 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide duty free
meal and rest periods and failure to provide accurate wage
statements in violation of the California Labor Code.

America Trading Service is engaged in the business of providing
trucking and transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Struss, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
      Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq.
      STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
      121 North Fir Street, Suite F
      Ventura, CA 93001
      Telephone: (805) 641-6600
      Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
      E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
              andrew@strausslawyers.com


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Suit by Former Akers Employees Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh 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
a class action lawsuit by retired former employees of Akers
National Roll Company.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The
complaint seeks class certification.

The Corporation believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend it.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, the Corporation believes that the final resolution of
this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources," the Company said.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its subsidiaries (the
"Corporation") manufacture and sell highly engineered, high
performance specialty metal products and customized equipment
utilized by industry throughout the world.


ATHENE HOLDING: Wins Dismissal of "Hudson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, Hudson v. Athene Annuity and Life Company et al.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00089 (S.D. Iowa), Judge Stephanie M Rose on May
11, 2017, entered an order granting a Motion to Dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim.  On May 16, the Court entered
Judgment in favor of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Athene Annuity
and Life Company, Athene Asset Management, L.P., Athene Holding
Ltd., Athene Life Re Ltd., Athene USA Corporation against Don
Hudson.  The Court terminated the case.

Athene Holding Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that, "On June 12, 2015, Don
Hudson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California against us. The complaint,
which is similar to complaints recently filed against other large
insurance companies, primarily alleges that captive reinsurance
and other transactions had the effect of misrepresenting the
financial condition of Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA). The
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of annuity products issued by AAIA between 2007 and the
present and asserts claims against AHL, ALRe, AUSA and AAIA in
addition to Apollo and AAM. There are also various allegations
related to the purchase of Aviva USA and concerning entry into a
modco transaction with ALRe in October 2013. The suit asserts
claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and seeks compensatory damages, trebled, in an
amount to be determined, costs and attorneys' fees."

"On March 25, 2016, the matter was transferred to the United
States District Court, Southern District of Iowa (S.D. IA Court).
On May 25, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to file an
amended complaint dropping plaintiff Silva and defendant Aviva
plc. We moved to dismiss that complaint on June 30, 2016, and the
motion was fully briefed as of September 8, 2016.

"On November 14, 2016, the court stayed consideration of the
motion to dismiss pending a ruling from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a similar case which will likely
affect the disposition of our motion. See Ludwick v. Harbinger
Grp., Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Mo. 2016), appeal docketed,
No. 16-1561 (8th Cir.).  On April 13, 2017, the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims in Ludwick,
and Athene has advised the S.D. IA Court.

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

Athene conducts its business primarily through the following
consolidated subsidiaries: Athene Life Re Ltd., a Bermuda exempted
company to which AHL's other insurance subsidiaries and third
party ceding companies directly and indirectly reinsure a portion
of their liabilities (ALRe); Athene USA Corporation, an Iowa
corporation and its subsidiaries (Athene USA); and Athene
Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, a German partnership and its
subsidiaries (ADKG).


ATHENE HOLDING: "Griffiths" Suit in Discovery Process
-----------------------------------------------------
Athene Holding Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties in the class
action lawsuit by John Griffiths are engaged in the discovery
process.

On July 27, 2015, John Griffiths, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against
us. An amended complaint was filed on December 18, 2015. The
complaint asserts claims against AHL, AAIA and Athene London
Assignment Corporation (Athene London), in addition to an Aviva
defendant. AHL is a named defendant due to its purchase of Aviva
USA, and AAIA and Athene London are named as successors to Aviva
Life Insurance Company and Aviva London Assignment Corporation,
respectively. The complaint alleges a putative class action on
behalf of all persons who are the beneficial owners of assets
which were used to purchase structured settlement annuities that
Aviva Life Insurance Company, Aviva London Assignment Corporation,
and Aviva International Insurance Limited (Aviva Entities) or
their predecessors, as applicable, delivered to purchasers on or
after April 1, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Aviva Entities sold structured
settlement annuities to the public on the basis that such products
were backed by a capital maintenance agreement by Aviva
International Insurance Limited or its predecessor, which was
alleged as a source of great financial strength. The complaint
further alleges that the Aviva Entities used this capital
maintenance agreement to enhance the sales volume and raise the
price of the annuities. The complaint claims that, as a result of
Aviva USA's sale to AHL, the capital maintenance agreement
terminated. According to the complaint, no notice was provided to
the owners of the structured settlement annuities and the
termination of the capital maintenance agreement constituted a
breach of contract, and the plaintiff further asserts other causes
of action.

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

Athene conducts its business primarily through the following
consolidated subsidiaries: Athene Life Re Ltd., a Bermuda exempted
company to which AHL's other insurance subsidiaries and third
party ceding companies directly and indirectly reinsure a portion
of their liabilities (ALRe); Athene USA Corporation, an Iowa
corporation and its subsidiaries (Athene USA); and Athene
Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, a German partnership and its
subsidiaries (ADKG).


ATOSSA GENETICS: Class Action Appeal Underway
---------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the appeal related to a class action
complaint remains pending.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our
November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that
all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and
certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the
Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements
and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that
we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent
press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen
collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT
device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our
common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013,
inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount."

"On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6,
2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims
against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the
Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is fully-briefed and oral
argument was scheduled for May 18, 2017.

"We believe this complaint is without merit and plan to defend
ourselves vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition.  Currently, the amount of such material
adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or
liability has been recorded for these claims as of March 31, 2017.
The costs associated with defending and resolving the complaint
and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are
subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as
the distraction from the conduct of our business, will depend upon
many unknown factors and management's view of these may change in
the future."

Atossa Genetics Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated on April 30,
2009 in the State of Delaware. The Company was formed to develop
and market medical devices, laboratory tests and therapeutics to
address breast health conditions.


AUDIOEYE INC: Settlement of Sec. Litigation Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Court has issued a
final order approving the settlement in the case, AudioEye, Inc.
Sec. Litigation.

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://www.audioeyesecuritieslitigation.com/

In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against AudioEye, Inc. and former officers Nathaniel Bradley and
Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. A consolidated amended complaint was filed under the
caption In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litigation. On July 25, 2016, in
connection with a voluntary mediation, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated actions subject
to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court
approval. A written Stipulation of Settlement was executed and
filed with the Court in December 2016.

On January 23, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement, provisionally certified a settlement class of
shareholders, and directed plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice
to that class. On May 8, 2017, the Court held a Final Settlement
Hearing subsequent to which the Court issued a final order
approving the settlement in all respects, certifying a settlement
class, and dismissing the case with prejudice.

As previously reported, on July 26, 2016, a shareholder derivative
complaint entitled Denese M. Hebert, derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant AudioEye, Inc., v. Bradley, et al., was filed in
the State of Arizona Superior Court for Pima County. The complaint
generally asserted causes of action related to the Company's
restatement of its financial statements for the first three fiscal
quarters of 2014. As a derivative complaint, the plaintiff-
shareholder purported to act on behalf of the Company against the
Named Individuals. The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
The named individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its
entirety, and denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the
complaint.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Mohanty Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-12336 (D. Mass.), an amended complaint was fled against
Louis Hernandez, Jr., Avid Technology, Inc., and Ilan Sidi on
April 19.

Defendants on June 14 filed a Motion and Memorandum in Support of
their Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.

The Hon. Indira Talwani oversees the case.

Avid Technology, 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 November 2016, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et
al., No. 16-cv-12336) against the Company and certain of its
executive officers seeking unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive. The
complaint purported to state a claim for violation of federal
securities laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate generally to the
Company's disclosure surrounding the level of implementation of
the Company's Avid NEXIS solution product offerings. On February
7, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the
matter. The matter is not yet scheduled for trial.

Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware
for digital media content production, management and distribution.


BAHAMAS UPHOLSTERY: "Diaz" Labor Case Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Javier Soache Diaz and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Bahamas Upholstery & Marine Canvas, Inc., Bahamas
Auto Repairs, Inc., William Lanzas, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22397 (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2017), requests double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act along with court costs,
interest and any other relief.

Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiff as a car upholsterer
from on or about October 22, 2011, through December 9, 2016. [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


BANK OF AMERICA: Wins OK of "Pastor" Suit Deal; Hearing Jan. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria grants preliminary approval to the Class
Action Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in the
lawsuit titled Robert A. Pastor; Scott M. Van Horn; Regina M.
Florence; and William E. Florence III, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
3:15-cv-03831-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Class is certified and defined as:

     All persons with an address within the United States whose
     consumer credit report was obtained by BANA and/or FIA Card
     Services (FIA) for an Account Review Inquiry during the
     period August 21, 2010, through the Date of Preliminary
     Approval where the subject account relationship had
     terminated because any of the following criteria were met:
     (i) the debt on the account had been discharged in
     bankruptcy; (ii) the account was closed with a zero balance;
     or (iii) the account had been sold or transferred to a third
     party. Excluded from the Class are all current Bank of
     America employees, officers and directors, and the judge and
     magistrate presiding over this Action and their respective
     staff.

The Court appoints Abbas Kazerounian, Esq., and Ryan McBride,
Esq., of the Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Joshua B. Swigart,
Esq., and David J. McGlothlin, Esq., of Hyde & Swigart as Class
Counsel for purposes of settlement.

The Court also approves the form and substance of the proposed
notice procedure set forth in the Agreement.  The Court
preliminarily approves the process set forth in the Agreement for
submitting, reviewing, approving and paying all claims from the
$1,645,000 Settlement Fund.  Each Class Member that timely submits
a claim will receive a pro-rata portion of the Settlement Fund.

A hearing will be held on January 11, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of the Agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L2wXZsAU


BROTHERS MOTHERS: "Buckler" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN A. BUCKLER and LONDON MORTON, Individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. BROTHERS, MOTHERS & OTHERS
CORPORATION d/b/a CYPRESS GRILLE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603 (W.D.
Tex., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, as
well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs arising from
the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Brothers, Mothers & Others Corporation, doing business as Cypress
Grille, is a Texas corporation that conducts business in the state
of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher McKinney, Esq.
          THE MCKINNEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          110 Broadway Street, Suite 420
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 832-0932
          Facsimile: (210) 568-4101
          E-mail: chris@themckinneylawfirm.com


BURGER KING: Sued by Gesten Over FCRA Violations
------------------------------------------------
RYAN D. GESTEN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a
BURGER KING, Case No. 1:17-cv-22541-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2017),
arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which requires it to truncate certain credit card
information on receipts.

Despite the clear language of the statute, and having been sued
for the identical FACTA violation in the past, the Defendant once
again willfully, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the
statute, failed to comply with the FCRA, Mr. Gesten contends.

Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation that does
business under the fictitious name "Burger King(R)."  The
Defendant's principal address is in Miami, Florida.  As of
December 31, 2016, Burger King owns or franchises a total of
15,738 restaurants in more than 100 countries and the U.S.
territories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312)726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com


CAPNIA INC: "Garfield" Class Action Settled and Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Capnia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the case, Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al.,
has been settled and dismissed.

The Company said, "On February 16, 2017, a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit captioned Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. C17-00284, or the Lawsuit, was filed in Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Contra Costa against us and
certain of our officers and directors. The Lawsuit alleged,
generally, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to
our stockholders by seeking to sell control of the company through
an allegedly defective process, and on unfair terms. The Lawsuit
also alleged that defendants failed to disclose all material facts
concerning the merger with Essentialis to stockholders. The
Lawsuit sought, among other things, equitable relief that would
have enjoined the consummation of the merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On February 28, 2017, we settled the Lawsuit by making certain
supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on February 28, 2017 in connection with the
plaintiff's agreement to voluntarily dismiss plaintiff's claims in
the Lawsuit. We also agreed to pay $175,000 in attorney's fees.
This amount was accrued as a current liability on the balance
sheet as of December 31, 2016 and recorded as a general and
administrative expense on the statement of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2016. The stipulation of dismissal was approved
by the court on April 14, 2017."


CARE CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Merger w/ Sabra Health Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELVYN KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CARE CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., RAYMOND J.
LEWIS, DOUGLAS CROCKER II, JEFFREY A. MALEHORN, JOHN L. WORKMAN,
JOHN S. GATES, JR., DALE A. REISS, RONALD G. GEARY, CARE CAPITAL
PROPERTIES, LP, SABRA HEALTH CARE REIT, INC., PR SUB, LLC, and
SABRA HEALTH CARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00920-UNA (D. Del., July 10,2017), alleges that Defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement that does not provide
material information regarding a proposed agreement and plan of
merger with Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., PR Sub, LLC, and Sabra
Health Care Limited Partnership. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Care Capital shareholders will receive 1.123
shares of Parent common stock for each share of Care Capital
common stock.

The Registration Statement allegedly fails to provide Plaintiff
and the putative Class with (a) the Company's financial
projections; (b) Sabra's financial projections, and (c) the
financial analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisors
in support of the fairness opinions.  The Registration Statement
also fails to provide material information regarding the potential
conflicts of interest of the Company's financial advisors.

Care Capital's business focuses on owning, acquiring, and leasing
skilled nursing facilities and other healthcare assets operated by
private regional and local care providers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
     901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 778-4000
     Fax: (302) 295-2873
     Email: rernst@oelegal.com
     Email: dmurray@oelegal.com

        - and -

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


CARNIVAL CORP: Wins OK of "Charvat" Suit Deal; Hearing April 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 6, 2017, in the case entitled
Philip Charvat v. Carnival Corporation & PLC, et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-05746 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that Preliminary Approval hearing was
held.  After consideration of the parties' submissions and
argument, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the parties class action settlement is granted.  Order
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, Conditionally
Certifying Settlement Class, Approving Notice Plan and Setting
Final Approving Hearing is entered.

The motions at Docket Nos. [533], [526], [521], [519], and [492]
are all denied without prejudice and may be reinstated if the
Court ultimately fails to approve the class action settlement,
says the ruling.

Final approval hearing is set for April 4, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., in
front of Judge Andrea R. Wood in Courtroom 1925 of the Everett
McKinley Dirksen Building, in the United States Courthouse located
at 219 Dearborn Street, in Chicago, Illinois.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Alp7HW44


CARRINGTON'S CARING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agatha Thomas, Marie Edward, and Angel Dancil, individually and
all others similarly situated v. Carrington's Caring Angels, LLC
Stephanie Carrington, Ronshai Davis, Aaja Love Care, Inc., Case
No. 8:17-cv-01586-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a home health care services company located
at 9401 N 20th St, Tampa, FL 33612. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
      Peter A. Sartes, Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Telephone: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727 441-9254
      E-mail: petertragos@greeklaw.com
              peter@greeklaw.com


CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Providence Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the appeal related to the class action
lawsuit by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, remains pending.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14
other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on
behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of
stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered
public stock exchange ("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based
alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the
alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a
variety of business practices associated with, among other things,
what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants
which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence,
Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing
the complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016.  Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged.  The SEC filed its amicus brief
with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and
the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental
response briefs on December 12, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intend to litigate the matter vigorously.

CBOE Holdings, Inc. (CBOE Holdings or the Company) is the owner of
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Bats exchanges, CBOE
Futures Exchange (CFE) and other subsidiaries, is one of the
world's largest exchange holding companies and a leader in
providing global investors cutting-edge trading and investment
solutions.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Expects Settlement to Conclude in Q3 2017
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2017, that the parties expect that the
comprehensive settlement of employee-related lawsuits will be
concluded and each of these cases dismissed by the end of the
third quarter of 2017.

On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment
in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the
"Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-
situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment
in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify
a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully
classified current and former California General Managers as
exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay,
paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC
Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in
violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also
alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General
Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal
cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor
Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued
an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied
Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class
on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but
certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC
Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell
phone expenses and/or mileage.

On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The
parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable
to reach an agreement on settlement at that time, and trial was
scheduled for June 6, 2017.

After settlement discussions recommenced at a second mediation
session beginning on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle
all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant to the
basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a complete
release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he asserted or
could have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that
gave rise to the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for the Company's
settlement payment. The parties will present their proposed class
settlement to the Court for review and approval during the second
quarter of 2017, and expect that the settlement will be concluded
and the case dismissed by the end of 2017.

The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources.

Since the Court in the Sinohui Litigation issued its order denying
certification of a class of California-based general managers on
misclassification and wage statement claims, six lawsuits have
been filed against the Company in California state court (the
"California General Manager Litigation"). The plaintiffs in these
actions include nine current and 12 former California General
Managers asserting individual misclassification, wage statement,
and expense reimbursement claims.

On December 20, 2016, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit
styled Heather Smith v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Smith
Lawsuit"), and on December 21, 2016, CEC removed the Smith Lawsuit
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, where it was assigned cause number 2:16-cv-009452.

On January 17, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit
styled Audrae Escobar, Christine Ortiz, and Debora Templeton v.
CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Escobar Lawsuit"), and on January
18, 2017, CEC removed the Escobar Lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, where it
was assigned cause number 2:17-cv-00428.

On February 2, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit
styled James Funk, Salvador Hernandez, Jr., Heather Larsen, Erika
Lopez, and Angela Sisson v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Funk
Lawsuit"), and on the same date, CEC removed the Funk Lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-00214.

On March 16, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit
styled Imelda Esqueda, Kelly Gutierrez, Doreen Montoya, and Dennis
Lewis v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Esqueda Lawsuit"), and on
the same date, CEC removed the Esqueda Lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
where it was assigned cause number 5:17-cv-00492-JLS. On March 24,
2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled
Elizabeth Ann Galassi, Desiree Johnson, Jack Lee, Nathan Reed, and
Paul Reed v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Galassi Lawsuit"), and
on the same date, CEC removed the Galassi Lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
where it was assigned cause number 3:17-cv-01608-SK. And on April
20, 2017, CEC filed its original answer to the lawsuit styled
Curtis Harmon, Luis Luna, Derek Maguin, and Mindy Miller-Tyrell v.
CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the "Harmon Lawsuit"); on April 21, 2017,
CEC removed the Harmon Lawsuit to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned
cause number 3:17-cv-02232-SK.

As part of the settlement reached by the parties in the Sinohui
Litigation, the parties also agreed to settle the California
General Manager Litigation. Pursuant to the basic terms of their
comprehensive settlement, each of the Plaintiffs will grant a
complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he or she
asserted or could have asserted against the Company based on the
facts that gave rise to the California General Manager Litigation
in exchange for the Company's settlement payments to each of them.

The parties expect that the comprehensive settlement of these
lawsuits will be concluded and each of these cases dismissed by
the end of the third quarter of 2017. The settlement of these
actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Aug. 25 Case Conference in "French" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the case by former Technical Manager Kevin French.

The Hon. Jon S. Tigar signed on July 3 a scheduling order
providing that:

     -- Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings July 14,
        2017;

     -- Case Management Statement due by Aug. 23, 2017;

     -- Telephonic Case Management Conference set for Aug. 25,
        2017 at 2:00 p.m.;

     -- Class certification motion due Jan. 31, 2018;

     -- Class certification opposition March 30, 2018;

     -- Class certification reply May 15, 2018;

     -- Class Certification Hearing set for May 31, 2018 at
        2:00 p.m.

On March 2, 2017, Mr. French filed an amended complaint.  An
Initial Case Management Conference was continued to May 17.

On April 26, the case was reassigned to the Hon. Jon S. Tigar for
all further proceedings.  Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu was
removed from the case.

The Company filed its answer to the Amended Complaint.  An Initial
Case Management Conference was set for June 28.

On June 21, an ADR Certification related to the discussion of ADR
options by Defendant CEC was filed.  On June 27, a Stipulation and
Proposed Order selecting Private ADR was filed by CEC and Mr.
French.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages,
failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay
wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse
for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal
cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and
federal law.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in
its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient
information to reach a good faith determination on the Company's
potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is
unsuccessful," the Company said.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Not Yet Scheduled in Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2017, that the Company is awaiting the District
Court's decision whether to accept the Special Master's
recommendation in the merger-related litigation.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and
its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger
Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These
actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their
consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other
things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the
Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements.

On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by the
Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the
Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and
separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the
complaint as to Goldman Sachs.

"We currently await the District Court's decision whether to
accept the Special Master's recommendation. The Court has not yet
set this case for trial," the Company said.

"The Company continues to believe the Consolidated Class Action
Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.
While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources."

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Peter Piper Litigation Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2017, that the motion to dismiss the Peter Piper,
Inc. Litigation remains pending.

On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class
action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division
(the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent
other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior
to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed
receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last
five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the
Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support
thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on
December 22, 2016.

On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the Jacobson Litigation
pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that presents an issue for
decision that is relevant to the Peter Piper's motion to dismiss.

"We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and, should the Court overrule the motion to dismiss, we intend to
vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest
stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to
reach a good faith determination on Peter Piper's potential
liability or exposure in the event that its defense is
unsuccessful," the Company said.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEMTREX INC: Defending Against 3 Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, 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 aware of three alleged
securities class action complaints filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as any
further related actions, will be consolidated into a single
lawsuit following decisions on motions to consolidate filed with
the Court on April 25, 2017.

The allegations in the three complaints are based on the
assertions contained in a blog post published on an internet
website that challenged various aspects of the Company's stock
trading and relationships.  The Company denies these assertions,
and filed a lawsuit seeking damages of $170 million against the
blogger on March 4, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The Company believes the alleged class action litigation is
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company
has retained Lane Powell PC, a national securities class action
defense law firm with no previous relationship to the Company, to
defend the litigation, and intends to seek dismissal of the
litigation at the earliest possible stage.

Cemtrex provides manufacturing services of advanced electronic
system assemblies, provides broad-based industrial services
instruments and emission monitors for industrial processes, and
provides industrial air filtration and environmental control
systems.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Final Approval of "Brown" Case Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 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 is awaiting
final court approval of the settlement agreement of the "Brown"
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant
hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego
County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks
and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims
(Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case
No 37-2014-00040278).

"By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.  On March 2, 2015,
Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned
a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior
Court.

"On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos.
CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported
class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not
reserved for any potential future payments.

On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court, alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code.  On January
26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary
payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case
No. CIV1504091).

The Company said, "On April 18, 2016, the court granted our motion
to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's wage statement
claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual
arbitration. On June 28, 2016, we gave notice to the court that
Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related.

"On September 6, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement
discussion and reached agreement on the terms of a final
settlement agreement. On February 21, 2017, the court granted the
parties' motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement, and preliminarily enjoined the plaintiffs in Case Nos.
30-2015-00775529 and 37-2014-00040278 from prosecuting any claims
released in Case No. CIV1504091.  The final settlement agreement
will be subject to final court approval and is intended to be a
full and final resolution of Case No. CIV150491 and a partial
resolution of cases Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620.  Based on
the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial
amount in anticipation of settlement.

"On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee
filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its
managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to
provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620).  On March 23, 2016, the
parties issued their joint status conference statement at which
time we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529
and CIV1504091 may be related.  On April 29, 2016, the Company
filed its response to the complaint.  We intend to vigorously
defend this action.  However, it is not possible at this time to
reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from
this matter and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments."

Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment
of the restaurant industry.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Guglielmo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The case, Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.,
et al., remains pending, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2017.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that
the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work
and violated the State of New York's minimum wage and overtime
provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.,
et al; Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-
in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements.

On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the
agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with
prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action
at a limited number of the Company's restaurants in the State of
New York.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of
penalties and other monetary payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not
reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said.

Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment
of the restaurant industry.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2017, that the parties in the
case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., are
awaiting the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss.

On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business
practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities
on split payment checks (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JFB-AKT).  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary
payments.

On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint.  On October 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed
an amended complaint to limit the scope of the complaint to the
State of New York only.  The parties are waiting for a ruling on
the Company's motion to dismiss.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not
reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said.

Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment
of the restaurant industry.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Muransky, Tibbits & Zhang Suits Related
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 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 to seek
consolidation of the Muransky, Tibbits and Zhang lawsuits.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or
debit card information.  (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM).

On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional
lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively,
alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM. (Tibbits v.
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 (
E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No
8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)).  The lawsuits seek unspecified
penalties in addition to other monetary payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend these actions.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from these matters and, accordingly, we have
not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by
failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to
provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. (Abdelaziz
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-
2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL).   The lawsuit seeks unspecified
penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments.

The Company will notify the courts that Case Nos. 0:17-cv-60229-
JEM, 1:17-cv-00968, and 8:17-cv-00357 are related and will seek to
consolidate all related cases in a single venue.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not
reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said.

Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment
of the restaurant industry.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 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 continues
to defend against the case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al.

On February 22, 2017, a group of present and former restaurant
hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego
County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code, by failing to pay overtime, furnish proper wage statements,
and maintain accurate payroll records, among other claims.
(Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The lawsuit seeks unspecified
penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments on
behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  However, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from this matter and, accordingly, we have not
reserved for any potential future payments.

Cheesecake Factory operates in the upscale casual dining segment
of the restaurant industry.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Motions for Summary Disposition Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, In re Talmer
Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, the Defendants' motions for
summary disposition seeking dismissal of all claims with
prejudice, remain pending.

On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer.
The actions are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et.
al., Case No. 2016 151641-CB. These complaints purport to be
brought derivatively on behalf of Talmer against the individual
defendants, and individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against Talmer and Chemical. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the directors of Talmer breached their
fiduciary duties to Talmer's shareholders in connection with the
merger by approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process that undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive
deal protection provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and
abetted the Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's
shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual
defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Both complaints seek various remedies on behalf of the putative
class (consisting of all shareholders of Talmer who are not
related to or affiliated with any defendant). They request, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the merger from being
consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, direct the
Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary duties, rescind the
merger agreement to the extent that it is already implemented,
award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective
action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and
grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW")
served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an
alleged conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under
actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants
omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the
proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to
the proposed merger.

These two cases were consolidated as In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB, per an order
entered on May 12, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs in
this consolidated action again amended their complaint, adding
additional factual allegations, adding KBW as a defendant, and
asserting that KBW acted in concert with Chemical to aid and abet
breaches of fiduciary duty by Talmer's directors.

The Defendants have all filed motions for summary disposition
seeking dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and those motions
remain pending.  Talmer, Chemical, KBW and the individual
defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of
them in the consolidated action are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against these consolidated lawsuits.

           Livonia Suit in E.D. Michigan Remains Stayed

Chemical Financial also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the case, City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al.,
remains stayed until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues
rulings on motions for summary disposition that are now pending in
In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation.

On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed the
City of Livonia state court action filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff
purports to bring this action "individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated," and requests certification as a class
action. The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among
other things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests
for relief that include, among other things, that the Court enjoin
the proposed transaction unless and until additional information
is provided to Talmer's shareholders, declare that the Defendants
violated the securities laws in connection with the proposed
merger, award compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and
experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other relief as it
deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical, and the individual
defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of
them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.

On October 18, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order staying
this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings
on motions for summary disposition that are now pending in In re
Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB.
The stay order requires the parties to submit a proposed
scheduling order or closing documents, as appropriate, within
thirty days after the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings
on the pending motions for summary disposition.


CLECO CORPORATE: Appeal in Merger Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC 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' appeal in a
merger-related class action remains pending.

In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and
Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions
were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the
Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to
disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also
alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in
some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The
consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco
Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders
and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John
Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action
names Cleco Corporation, its  directors, Cleco Partners, Merger
Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as
defendants.

On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it
allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a
process through which shareholder value would be maximized and
engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The
Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
material information about the Merger. Each petition further
alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the
investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger
Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion.

On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish.

Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition
on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the
petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent
injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a
defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
Petition.

A hearing was held on September 15, 2016. On September 26, 2016,
the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and
dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal on November 9, 2016. The
Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued a schedule requiring
plaintiffs to file their brief on April 18, 2017, with Cleco's
brief due on May 4, 2017.

The plaintiffs have requested an extension of the briefing
schedule. Cleco anticipates the plaintiffs' brief would be due on
May 18, 2017, with Cleco's brief being due on June 7, 2017,
pending any requests for extension.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Long" Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tami Long v. Covenant Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00278 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Travis R Mcdonough on April 28,
2017, entered an order granting a Motion for Settlement.
Following settlement approval, the case was terminated.

Covenant Transportation 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 Covenant Transport,
Inc. ("Covenant Transport") is a defendant in a lawsuit that was
filed on August 17, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County.  This lawsuit arises out of the
work performed by the plaintiff as a company driver for Covenant
Transport during the period of August, 2013 through October, 2014.
The plaintiff is seeking class action certification under the
complaint.

The case was removed from state court in September, 2015 to the
U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and
subsequently, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court
in the Eastern District of Tennessee on October 5, 2015 where the
case is now pending.  The complaint asserts that the time period
covered by the lawsuit is "the four (4) years prior to the filing
of this action through the trial date" and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay for rest breaks, inspection time, waiting
time, fueling and paperwork time, meal periods and other related
wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code.

The parties engaged in mediation of the dispute which resulted in
a comprehensive settlement of all class member claims upon payment
of $500,000 by Covenant Transport, which includes any claims
relating to payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The
settlement received preliminary court approval in December, 2016.

Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as
freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party
logistics providers that require a high level of service to
support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload
customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage
shippers.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Subsidiary Still Faces "Bass" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s SRT subsidiary continues to
defend a class action lawsuit by David Bass, the Company 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, "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit
filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass
(a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have
the lawsuit certified as a class action case wherein he alleges
violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes over a
four year period of time, including failure to pay wages for all
hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and paid rest
breaks, failure to pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to
reimburse certain business expenses, failure to pay vested
vacation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to timely pay final
wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
unfair and unlawful competition."

Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as
freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party
logistics providers that require a high level of service to
support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload
customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage
shippers.


CVB FINANCIAL: Approval of Wage-Hour Accord Expected in Q3 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial 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 settlement of a wage-hour suit is subject
to court approval.

The Company said, "A purported shareholder class action complaint
alleging securities law violations captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al. was filed on August 23, 2010, Case No. CV
10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, naming the Company, Christopher D. Myers
(our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J.
Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer).

On March 13, 2017, the previously-announced settlement of the
Lloyd action and other consolidated cases based on the same set of
facts, received final court approval and the matters are no longer
pending against the Company. The settlement costs were funded
solely with insurance proceeds."

Additional information on the case is available at:

              http://www.cvbsecuritiessettlement.com/

"The Company is also involved in several related actions entitled
Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, and
Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County,
alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company's "exempt"
and "non-exempt" hourly employees. These cases, which were
consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2015,
are styled as putative class action lawsuits and allege, among
other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees
and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the Company violated
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive
proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain
accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged
in unfair business practices.

Subsequently, related cases were filed by the same law firm
representing Morgan and Osuna in the Superior Court for San
Bernardino County, alleging (1) violations of the Labor Code and
seeking penalties under the California Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 and (2) seeking a declaratory judgment that certain
releases signed by CBB employees were invalid.

"On November 28, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in
principal to settle all of the related wage and hour class action
lawsuits ("Wage-Hour Settlement"). Plaintiffs will dismiss all
their lawsuits with prejudice in exchange for the payment of
$1,500,000 to the putative class members, after attorneys' fees
and costs.

As of March 31, 2017, the Company maintained a litigation accrual
of $1.5 million for the Wage-Hour Settlement.

The Wage-Hour Settlement is subject to court approval. The parties
are preparing the Wage-Hour Settlement documents and will seek
preliminary approval from the court during the second quarter of
2017. We anticipate that the Wage-Hour Settlement will be
concluded sometime in the third quarter of 2017."

The Company's primary operations are related to traditional
banking activities.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation
remains pending.

The company said, "On July 25 and 29, 2016, nearly identical class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx Corp.,
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519 and Dorce v. CytRx Corp., Case No.
2:16-cv-05666 alleging that we and certain of our officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making
materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failing to
disclose material adverse facts to the effect that the clinical
hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would
prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study,
thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the trial's
results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely affected or
delayed."

"The plaintiffs allege that such wrongful acts and omissions
caused significant losses and damages to a class of persons and
entities that acquired our securities between November 18, 2014
and July 11, 2016, and seek an award of compensatory damages,
costs and expenses including counsel and expert fees, and such
other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper."

On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an Order consolidating the
actions titled In re: CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 16-cv-05519-SJO and appointing a Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel. Following the filing of a first amended
complaint on January 13, 2017, on March 14, 2017 the Company and
the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff
filed an Opposition thereto on April 28, 2017.

The Company and the individual defendants will file a Reply on May
30, 2017 and the matter was set to be heard by the Court on June
12, 2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing
complaints. CytRx has directors' and officers' liability
insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters.
The liability insurance may not cover all of the future
liabilities the Company may incur in connection with the foregoing
matters. These claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and
management's view of these matters may change in the future.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 still defends the appeal in the
case filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint sought a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims. The certified class is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September
2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court
issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is
defending against this appeal.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Center City Periodontists Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 awaiting a ruling on the class
certification motion in the case filed by Center City
Periodontists.

On December 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin,
DDS, filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The same law firm that filed the Weinstat
case in California filed this case.

The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint
asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was
negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty
arising from alleged misrepresentations about the potential uses
of the product because the Company cannot assure the delivery of
potable or sterile water through the device.

The Court granted the Company's Motion for Dismissal of the case
for lack of jurisdiction. Following that dismissal, the plaintiffs
filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's
corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same
allegations.

The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action
and the Company objected. The Court granted the Company's Motion
to Dismiss plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent
design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim.
The Court subsequently denied the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the express warranty claim.

The Court held hearings during 2016 on plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  The Court has not scheduled further
hearings in the matter and the Company is awaiting a ruling on the
class certification motion by the Court.


DRUG DEPOT: Fauley Moves to Certify Two Classes Over Sent Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAUN FAULEY, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons v. DRUG DEPOT,
INC. a/k/a APS PHARMACY and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-10735
(N.D. Ill.), seeks an order certifying these classes:

     Class A

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax
     stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the phrase "Fax
     Order To: (727) 785-2502," on July 22, 2013, and on
     September 30, 2013.


     Class B

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax
     stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the phrase "Fax
     Order To: (727) 785-2502," on February 27, 2012, March 7,
     2012, March 30, 2012, June 4, 2012, August 20, 2012,
     January 25, 2013, February 11, 2013, February 18, 2013,
     February 28, 2013, March 25, 2013, March 26, 2013, March 27,
     2013, March 28, 2013, March 29, 2013, May 14, 2013, June 24,
     2013, July 1, 2013, July 22, 2013, August 5, 2013,
     September 30, 2013, March 18, 2014, August 8, 2014,
     April 27, 2015.

The case arises out the Defendant's fax broadcast allegedly
advertising the availability and quality of APS's pharmaceutical
products and services.  The broadcasts, conducted between February
2012 and April 2015, successfully sent 78,536 facsimile
advertisements in 23 separate broadcasts, using "fax broadcaster"
ProFax Inc., the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing the Plaintiff as
class representative and appointing the law firm of Anderson +
Wanca as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j9kINlqM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


EBIX INC: Discovery Underway in Stockholder Suit
------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 on-going in a stockholder litigation.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities.

On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS. On June 19, 2013, the
Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated
pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement dated June 19,
2013.

After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding,
Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to drop their
claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on
an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and
Robin Raina.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims. On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum
Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order
permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented
Complaint.

On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in
part and denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion
and Order.

On October 25, 2016, the Court entered an Order permitting Lead
Plaintiffs to file a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class
Action and Derivative Complaint, which made additional claims and
added two directors as defendants. The Verified Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint was then filed
on October 26, 2016.

The claims are as follows: (i) a purported class and derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty for improperly maintaining the
ABA as an unreasonable anti-takeover device; (ii) a purported
class claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to the
stockholders with respect to the Company's 2010 Proxy Statement
and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iii) a purported derivative claim
for breach of fiduciary duty to the Company in causing incentive
compensation to be awarded under the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan;
(iv) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty in adopting certain bylaw amendments on December
19, 2014; (v) a purported class and derivative claim seeking
invalidation of the December 19, 2014 bylaw amendments under
Delaware law; (vi) a purported claim for breach of fiduciary duty
for not duly adopting the ABA at the July 15, 2009 Board meeting,
and seeking declaratory relief invalidating the ABA; (vii) a
purported claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to
the stockholders with respect to the ABA, and seeking declaratory
relief invalidating the ABA; (viii) a purported claim seeking
invalidation of the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, 2008 Certificate
Amendment, 2008 Stock Split and subsequent corporate actions; and,
(ix) a purported class claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and
seeking declaratory relief invalidating the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan
because of incomplete disclosures with respect to the ABA.

Lead Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the ABA,
the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, the bylaw
amendments, the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, the 2008 Certificate
Amendment, the 2008 Stock Split, and the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan. Lead
Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 31. 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. On November 1, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment on Claims (ii), (iii), and (vi) as
described above.

The directors added as defendants in the Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint moved to
dismiss all Claims against them. The remaining Defendants moved to
dismiss Claims (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), and (ix) as described
above, and have filed answers to the other claims in the Verified
Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint.

Briefing schedules for the pending motions have not been yet set
and discovery is on-going. The Company denies any liability and
intends to defend the action vigorously.

Ebix, Inc. and subsidiaries is an international supplier of on-
demand software and e-commerce solutions to the insurance,
healthcare and financial industries, as well as e-governance
solutions to governmental agencies in the health and education
sectors.


EXPRESS RECOVERY: Accused by "Alonso" Suit of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALONSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. EXPRESS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00116-PMW (D. Utah, July 7, 2017), is brought for damages,
injunctive relief and other remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant with regard to its attempts to unlawfully
and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Express Recovery Services, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in
Utah.  The Defendant, in the ordinary course of business,
regularly, on behalf of themselves or others, engages in debt
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON + MURFF
          290 25th Street, Suite #102
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Telephone: (801) 392-9324
          Facsimile: (801) 337-2087
          E-mail: theron@morrisonmurff.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Court Narrows Claims in "Letizia"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THOMAS LETIZIA,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
06232-THE (N.D. Calif.).

Plaintiffs allege Facebook's misrepresentations induced them to
purchase the video advertisement because they wanted accurate
video advertising metrics regarding [ADVV] and [APVV] so that they
could monitor their video advertisements' performance.

Plaintiffs also allege Facebook's misrepresentations induced them
to continue purchasing video advertisements, to "purchase
additional video advertisements" and to pay more for Facebook
video advertising than they would otherwise have been willing to
pay."

Lastly, Plaintiffs allege Facebook's misrepresentations:
artificially increased the price of Facebook video advertising,
provided Facebook with an unfair competitive advantage over other
online video advertising platforms, and interfered with
Plaintiffs' attempts to utilize Facebook's video advertising
analytics and to run effective video advertising campaigns.

Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (1) a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, (2) a breach of an implied
duty to perform with reasonable care, and (3)a quasi-contract
claim for restitution.

The Court:

   1. grants Facebook's request for judicial notice of Facebook's
contractual documents;

   2. denies Facebook's request for judicial notice of the
Facebook post of David Fischer, Facebook's Vice President of
Business and Marketing Partnerships;

   3. grants Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim
without prejudice. As Facebook correctly points out, Plaintiffs
never state in their complaint that they ever saw the
miscalculated metrics.  To adequately allege reliance, a plaintiff
must still at a minimum allege that he saw the representation at
issue.

   4. grants Facebook's request for injunctive relief without
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the Plaintiffs
are currently purchasing video advertisements from Facebook or
that any of them intend to do so in the future.  Thus, Plaintiffs
have failed to show a "real or immediate" threat of future injury.
Where a plaintiff has no intention of purchasing the product in
the future, a majority of district courts have held that the
plaintiff has no standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.
The Court grants Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim
for injunctive relief.

   5. denies Facebook's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of implied duty to perform with reasonable care.  Here,
Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleges that Facebook regularly
provided the Plaintiffs with advertising metrics, including the
ADVV and APVV metrics.  And Facebook concedes that it did in fact
provide purchasers of video advertisement with advertising
metrics.  Facebook began providing its video advertisers with
video metrics.  During oral arguments, Facebook contended these
metrics were provided for free, as a complementary service.
Plaintiffs' implied-duty claim survives Facebook's motion to
dismiss. California case law recognizes that course of performance
evidence is allowed to explain or supplement integrated contracts
even when the contract is unambiguous. Here, there is no doubt
that Facebook had been providing advertising metrics to Plaintiffs
as part of its advertising services. This course of performance
sufficiently supports Plaintiffs' implied duty claim. And under
California law, implied duties may be required to be performed
with reasonable care.

   6. grants Facebook's motion to dismiss quasi-contract claim
with prejudice.  Facebook argues Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claim
should be dismissed because there is an enforceable contract in
the record that covers the subject matter of Plaintiffs' unjust-
enrichment claim.  Facebook is correct on this issue.  The mere
fact that Facebook's contracts do not expressly mention the two
advertising metrics at issue here does not mean the contract does
not govern the subject matter at issue here, Facebook's
advertising services. In addition, Plaintiffs conceded during oral
arguments that they "do believe that the advertising services that
are part of [the parties'] contract include performance metrics.

Plaintiffs may amend all claims dismissed without prejudice no
later than August 14, 2017.  Failure to file timely amendment will
lead to dismissal of these claims with prejudice.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/G8ywZ4 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Letizia, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb
& Motta, 1401 Willow Pass Rd., Ste. 880, Concord, CA 94520
Thomas Letizia, Plaintiff, represented by Artemus W. Ham, Eglet
Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac
vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet
Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince. 400 S. 7th
St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone (702) 450-5400

Mark Fierro, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb &
Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D.
Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb
& Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T.
Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Greg Agustin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb,
Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D.
Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb
& Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T.
Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Tyler Barnett PR, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David
Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice,
Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony
Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice &
Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Randy Sutton, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb, Rueb &
Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D.
Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb
& Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T.
Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Tony Felice PR, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb,
Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D.
Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb
& Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T.
Eglet, Eglet Prince.

The Abbi Agency, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory David Rueb,
Rueb & Motta, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Erica D.
Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice, Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb
& Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice & Robert T.
Eglet, Eglet Prince.

LLE One, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Gregory David Rueb, Rueb & Motta, Aaron Blumenthal,
Gibbs Law Group LLP, Artemus W. Ham, Eglet Prince, pro hac vice,
Charles Philip Reichmann, Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, Dylan
Hughes, Girard Law Group LLP, Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Erica D. Entsminger, Eglet Prince, pro hac
vice, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Joseph Anthony Motta, Rueb & Motta, Robert M. Adams, Eglet Prince,
pro hac vice & Robert T. Eglet, Eglet Prince.

Quirky, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs,
Gibbs Law Group LLP, Aaron Blumenthal, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Andrew
N. Friedman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice,
Charles Philip Reichmann, Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, David
K. Stein, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Law Group LLP,
Eric Alfred Kafka, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Geoffrey
Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael B.
Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Wink, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Aaron Blumenthal --
ab@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Andrew N. Friedman --
afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Charles Philip Reichmann -- cpreichmann@yahoo.com --
Law Offices of Charles Reichmann, David K. Stein, --
dstein@bricker.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Dylan Hughes
dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Law Group LLP, Eric Alfred
Kafka -- ekafka@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Geoffrey Aaron Graber -- ggraber@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael B. Eisenkraft --
meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashok Ramani --
aramani@keker.com --  Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Briggs James
Matheson -- bmatheson@keker.com --- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey -- emccloskey@keker.com --  Keker
Van Nest & Peters LLP, Ian Asher Kanig, -- ikanig@keker.com --
Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Michelle Sabrina Ybarra --
mybarra@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Paven
Malhotra-- pmalhotra@keker.com --- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP


FARMER BROS: Still Faces Hernandez and Zuno Cases
-------------------------------------------------
Farmer Bros. Co. 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, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co., Superior Court of
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a
putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single
cause of action for unfair competition under the California
Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek
disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to
pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and
upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage
statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses.
Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and
expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all
"current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the
four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final
judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to
establish sub-classes as appropriate.

On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative,
Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court
has related this case to the Hernandez case.

On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge,
and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact
until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action. The
plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on
January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to
the Demurrer.

On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer and
found in the Company's favor, sustaining the demurrer in its
entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and
so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class.
Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at this time. The
Company provided responses to discovery following a lift by the
Court of the stay on discovery. Responses to plaintiff's first set
of written and document discovery were filed on October 31, 2016.

Following an October 31, 2016 hearing on a motion to compel and
for sanctions against plaintiff and counsel for failing to appear
for deposition, the Court granted the Company's motion, ruling
that all of plaintiff's objections to the deposition notice were
waived and ordered payment to the Company of $2,828 in sanctions.
Depositions and written discovery proceeded from December 2016
through the first calendar quarter of 2017.

A case management conference occurred on January 26, 2017, and a
further case management conference was scheduled for June 7, 2017
to determine whether Zuno intends to move forward as a purported
class action or on an individual basis only.

At this time, the Company is not able to predict the probability
of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this
matter.

Farmer Bros is a national coffee roaster, wholesaler and
distributor of coffee, tea and culinary products manufactured
under supply agreements, under the Company's owned brands, as well
as under private labels on behalf of certain customers.


FASHION NOVA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fashion Nova, Inc., Richard Saghian, and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. BC667265 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide mandated timely meal
periods and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages due and
owing, and failure to issue accurate wage statements to employees
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate an online fashion store for women.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
      Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
      Alfredo Nava, Esq.
      CROSNER LEGAL, PC
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 650
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 496-4818
      Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
      E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
              zach@crosnerlegal.com
              alfredo@crosnerlegal.com


FEMALE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Female Health Company 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 merger-related class action.

On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to
diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single
product company, the Company completed the Merger with Aspen Park
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  APP is a company focused on the development
and commercialization of pharmaceutical and consumer health
products for men's and women's health and oncology. For men,
product and product candidates are in the areas of benign
prostatic hyperplasia, male infertility, amelioration of side
effects of hormonal prostate cancer therapies, gout, sexual
dysfunction, and prostate cancer.  For women, product candidates
are for advanced breast and ovarian cancers and for female sexual
health.

The APP Merger was pursuant to an Amended and Restated Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 31, 2016, (the Amended
Merger Agreement), among the Company, APP, and the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary Blue Hen Acquisition, Inc. (APP Merger
Sub). Pursuant to the Amended Merger Agreement, on October 31,
2016, APP became a wholly-owned subsidiary of FHC through the
merger of APP Merger Sub with and into APP with APP continuing as
the surviving corporation. Consummation of the APP Merger did not
require the current approval of FHC's shareholders.

In connection with the APP Merger, two purported derivative and
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which were captioned
Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-
13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488.  On
January 9, 2017 these two lawsuits were consolidated.

On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors prior to the closing
of the APP Merger and the members of the Company's board of
directors after the closing of the APP Merger.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
such breaches, by consummating the APP Merger in violation of the
Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting requirements
and by causing the Company to issue the shares of its common stock
and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former stockholders of APP
pursuant to the APP Merger in order to evade the voting
requirements of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law. The
consolidated complaint also alleges that Mitchell S. Steiner, a
director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and a co-founder of APP, and Harry Fisch, a director of
the Company and a  co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in
receiving shares of Common Stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock in
the APP Merger.

Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Merger, money
damages, disgorgement of the shares of the Company's common stock
and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner and Dr. Fisch,
and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys'
fees.  The Company believes that this action is without merit and
is vigorously defending itself.

The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical device
company, with an initial focus on the development and
commercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health
and oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval
pathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway.  The Company also has a
Consumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global Public
Health Sector Division.  The Company does business as both "Veru
Healthcare" and "The Female Health Company."


FIDELITY INFORMATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Richards, Jr., on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Fidelity Information Services, LLC, and FIS Management
Services, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01577-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 30,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a business that provides banking and
payment technologies in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com

FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss "Raul" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, 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 motion
to dismiss the case, Raul v. Highlander, et al, remains pending.

The Company as successor to First Clover Leaf, certain former
executive officers of First Clover Leaf, and certain former
members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors, and the Company
are named as defendants in one purported class action lawsuit
brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf stockholder
challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the Company (the
"Lawsuit").  The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al ,
Case No. 16- L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District.

The Lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
officers and directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the
process leading to the merger of First Clover Leaf and the
Company. The Lawsuit alleges that the merger consideration was
inadequate and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus did not
contain sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also
alleges that First Clover Leaf and the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants. The relief sought includes class certification,
rescission of the merger and damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the factual
allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit and legally
unfounded. They have moved to dismiss the complaint and intend to
vigorously defend against these allegations.


FIRST TRINITY: Class Suit over Insurance Product Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against a class action lawsuit related to "Decreasing
Term to 95" insurance products.

First Trinity Financial Corporation (the "Company" or "FTFC") is
the parent holding company of Trinity Life Insurance Company
("TLIC"), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") and
First Trinity Capital Corporation ("FTCC"). The Company was
incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary
purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary.

Prior to its acquisition by TLIC, FBLIC developed, marketed, and
sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95"
policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted
that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore
was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95
policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned
Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit
Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC
relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are
void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies. In addition, as part of the MMPA
claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook a
fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a
level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never intended
to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that part of
this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend option
which is not allowed under Missouri law. FBLIC denies the
allegations in the amended Petition and will continue to defend
against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification. On July
21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain the claims
for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, violation
of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the Decreasing Term to 95
policies.

On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with
the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification.

The Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied. FBLIC intends to
defend vigorously against the class and individual allegations.
The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the
claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs
prevailing on this substantive action.

On May 13, 2015, FBLIC filed a Counterclaim against Doyle Nimmo
seeking indemnity and seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty
in the event FBLIC is liable under Plaintiffs' underlying claims.
In addition, on April 29, 2015, TLIC filed a lawsuit against Doyle
Nimmo and Michael Teel alleging that they were liable for
violations of federal and state securities laws for failing to
disclose information relating to the Decreasing Term to 95
policies. This lawsuit is currently pending in the District Court
for the Western District of Missouri (hereinafter the "Federal
Lawsuit"). No claims have been made against TLIC in the Federal
Lawsuit. The Federal Lawsuit has been stayed pending resolution of
the lawsuit against FBLIC in the Circuit Court of Greene County,
Missouri.

On September 28, 2015, Doyle Nimmo filed a Third-Party Petition
for Declaratory Judgment (and Other Relief) against FBLIC. In this
Third-Party Petition, Doyle Nimmo, a former director for FBLIC,
seeks a declaratory judgment that the corporate by-laws of FBLIC
require FBLIC to indemnify him for attorney's fees, judgments,
costs, fines, and amounts paid in defense of both the Counterclaim
and the Federal Lawsuit and seeks a monetary judgment for the
amounts expended by Doyle Nimmo in such defense. Prior to Doyle
Nimmo's filing of the Third-Party Petition, FBLIC's Board of
Directors executed a Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of a
Special Meeting in which it denied Doyle Nimmo's tender of defense
and request for indemnification finding Mr. Nimmo did not meet the
applicable standard of conduct for indemnification under Missouri
law. FBLIC intends to vigorously defend the Third-Party Petition
on these grounds. The Company is unable to determine the potential
magnitude of the claims in the event Doyle Nimmo prevails on his
Third-Party Petition.

As stated above, FBLIC filed a Counterclaim and TLIC filed the
Federal Lawsuit against Doyle Nimmo. Doyle Nimmo submitted a claim
and tendered the defense of these claims to Utica Mutual Insurance
Company under a policy providing Insurance Agents and Brokers
Errors and Omissions Liability coverage. On November 4, 2015,
Utica Mutual Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against Doyle Nimmo
and other interested parties, including FBLIC and TLIC. The
lawsuit is pending in the District Court for the Western District
of Missouri and asks the Court to determine whether the Errors and
Omissions policy provides coverage for the lawsuits filed against
Doyle Nimmo. Utica Mutual Insurance Company does not seek a
monetary judgment against FBLIC or TLIC. All parties to the
lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri
agreed to waive their right to a trial by jury and have all claims
submitted to the Judge for decision. The trial in that case is
scheduled to begin on November 27, 2017.

Guaranty fund assessments, brought about by the insolvency of life
and health insurers, are levied at the discretion of the various
state guaranty fund associations to cover association obligations.
In most states, guaranty fund assessments may be taken as a credit
against premium taxes, typically over a five-year period.


GAS NATURAL: Settlement in "Masters" Case Approved
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, Masters v. Bender et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02880
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Patricia A Gaughan entered a final order and
judgment approving the Unopposed Motion Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement filed by Plaintiff Alison D Masters.

Accordingly, the case was terminated effective July 5.

Gas Natural Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that, "On November 3, 2016, a putative derivative
and class action lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, Case Number CV16871400, captioned Alison D. "Sunny"
Masters vs. Michael B. Bender et. al., naming our board of
directors, James E. Sprague (our chief financial officer), Kevin
J. Degenstein (our chief operating officer), Jennifer Haberman
(our corporate controller), Jed D. Henthorne (our former corporate
controller and currently president of our Energy West Montana
subsidiary), Vincent A. Parisi (our former general counsel),
Parent, Merger Sub, First Reserve, Anita G. Zucker, individually,
the Article 6 Marital Trust, Under the First Amended and Restated
Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust dated April 2, 2007, InterTech, NIL
Funding, as defendants, and us, as a nominal defendant. NIL
Funding is an affiliate of InterTech. The chairperson and chief
executive officer of InterTech, Anita G. Zucker, beneficially owns
nearly 10% of our outstanding stock through the Zucker Trust. Two
members of our board of directors, Mr. Bender and Mr. Johnston,
currently serve as officers of InterTech."

"The complaint (as amended) alleges, among other things, that (i)
our board breached its fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith by
failing to undertake an adequate sales process during the time
leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, (ii) our
officers violated their fiduciary duty of loyalty, (iii) the
Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices, (iv)
our board failed to act with due care, loyalty, good faith, and
independence owed to our shareholders, (v) that our executive
officers, board members, InterTech, NIL Funding, and First Reserve
conspired and aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties,
and (vi) that our board breached their fiduciary duties and
violated related federal securities laws by omitting and
misrepresenting material information in our preliminary proxy
statement filed on November 9, 2016. The complaint further alleges
various claims against the Zucker Trust and First Reserve
including, as applicable, claims for breach of fiduciary duties,
violations of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rule 13d-2(a).

"On November 28, 2016, all defendants removed the Masters Case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Case Number 1:16-CV-02880. We agreed to provide expedited
discovery to the plaintiff. On December 23, 2016, we entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiff providing for the
settlement of the Masters case. In the Memorandum of
Understanding, we agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
to the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on November 23, 2016,
solely for the purpose of minimizing the time, burden, and expense
of litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that, in
exchange for making these disclosures, defendants will receive,
after notice to potential class members and upon court approval, a
customary release of claims relating to the Merger. On December
23, 2016, we filed with the SEC a Form 8-K making supplemental
disclosures to our definitive proxy statement. On March 7, 2017,
the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, as contemplated
by the Memorandum of Understanding. On March 13, 2017, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
setting a fairness hearing on July 5, 2017.

"On October 8, 2016, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among us, FR Bison
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and FR Bison
Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio corporation ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which Merger Sub will merge with and into us (the "Merger"), on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement. We will continue as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and Parent will pay to our
shareholders $13.10 per common share in cash, without interest
(the "Merger Consideration"), in accordance with and subject to
the terms of the Merger Agreement. Parent and Merger Sub are
affiliates of First Reserve and were formed by First Reserve in
order to facilitate the Merger."

Gas Natural is a natural gas company, primarily operating local
distribution companies in four states and serving approximately
69,700 customers as of March 31, 2017.


GC SERVICES: "Frand" Consumer Lawsuit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME FRAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, against GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04095-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., July 10,
2017), was filed on behalf of a class of New York consumers
seeking redress for Defendant's illegal practices, in connection
with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The case
alleges, among others, that Defendant's communication to Plaintiff
to collect debt fails to disclose information required by law.

Defendant is a collection agency with its principal office located
in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
     337 Avenue W, Suite 2F
     Brooklyn, NY 11223
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (347) 665-1545
     Email: Jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


GENVEC INC: MOU Reached in Stockholder Actions
----------------------------------------------
GenVec, 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 to the stockholder litigation
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.

On March 28, 2017 and April 6, 2017, putative stockholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware styled, respectively, Parshall v. GenVec,
Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00338 (D.Del.) and Mussman v.
GenVec, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-mc-09999 (D.Del.).
Additionally, on April 10, 2017 and April 25, 2017, actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland styled, respectively Hoose v. GenVec, Inc. et al., Case
No. 8:17-cv-00987, and Pillai v. GenVec, Inc. et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-01143 (together with the Parshall and Mussman actions, the
"Stockholder Actions"). The Stockholder Actions assert claims
against GenVec and members of GenVec's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants"). The Parshall action also named, and the
Hoose action purports to name, Intrexon and Merger Sub as
defendants.

The complaints in the Stockholder Actions allege that GenVec and
the Individual Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
in the draft proxy statement included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed by Intrexon on March 17, 2017 in
connection with the Merger certain information regarding alleged
potential conflicts of interest, events leading up to the signing
of the merger agreement with Intrexon and Merger Sub, certain
financial data regarding GenVec, and certain inputs regarding Roth
Capital Partners' fairness opinion. The complaints in the
Stockholder Actions also allege the Individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
as control persons who had the ability to prevent the Registration
Statement from being false and misleading.

The Parshall and Hoose actions also allege that Intrexon and
Merger Sub violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The actions
seek, among other things, an injunction preventing consummation of
the merger with Merger Sub, an award of damages, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On April 19, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Parshall and Mussman
actions voluntarily dismissed their claims. On April 25, 2017, the
plaintiff in the Hoose action filed a pre-motion letter advising
the court of his intention to file a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief (the "April 25 Letter"). On May 4, 2017, the
Hoose and Pillai actions were consolidated for all purposes.

On May 2, 2017, the parties to the Stockholder Actions entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that calls for, among
other things: (1) certain additional disclosures to be included in
the proxy statement mailed to GenVec stockholders; (2) the
withdrawal of the April 25 Letter in the Hoose action; and (3)
dismissal of the Hoose and Pillai actions immediately following
the vote by GenVec stockholders on the Merger. On May 4, 2017, in
accordance with the MOU, the plaintiffs in the Hoose and Pillai
actions advised the Court of the MOU, filed stipulations seeking
to stay those actions and withdrew the April 25 Letter. GenVec and
the Individual Defendants believe the Hoose and Pillai actions are
without merit and, if those actions are not voluntarily dismissed
pursuant to the MOU, intend to vigorously defend them. GenVec and
the Individual Defendants agreed to make the additional
disclosures that are the subject of the MOU to avoid the expense
and inconvenience of further litigation.

GenVec is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with an
entrepreneurial focus on leveraging its proprietary AdenoVerse(TM)
gene delivery platform to develop a pipeline of cutting-edge
therapeutics and vaccines.


GOSMITH INC: "Rojas" Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------
William Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gosmith, Inc. and Does 1-20, Case No. 2:17-cv-00281
(N.D. Ind., June 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of sending, through its agents, sales, solicitation and other
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call and internal
do-no-call provisions of 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c) and, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Gosmith, Inc. is engaged in the marketing and sale of a service
that connects individual homeowners with businesses that provide
home improvement, home repair, landscaping, cleaning, and other
related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 212-4355
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid for Conditional Cert in "Clinton" OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Norfolk Division, issued an Order sustaining Plaintiff's
objection to a magistrate's report and recommendation in the case
captioned BRANDY CLINTON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:16cv430
(E.D. Va.).

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
bring this action against Defendant Government Employees Insurance
Company (GEICO) to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Certification
and for Equitable Tolling, seeking conditional certification of a
collective class action, and they request judicial notice of the
lawsuit to all collective action members.  Plaintiffs also move
the Court to equitably toll the statute of limitations applicable
to the claims of putative opt-in plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and
for Equitable Tolling was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for disposition. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion be
denied.

Plaintiffs filed objections, arguing primarily that the R&R did
not apply the proper lenient standard of review applicable at this
stage in the litigation.

Plaintiffs are/were paid on a salary basis, and they allege that
they regularly worked more than forty hours per week. Plaintiffs
claim that GEICO classified them improperly as exempt under the
FLSA for having the ability to exercise judgment, and as a result,
they were wrongly denied overtime compensation.

Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides for collective action
proceedings, whereby a party may proceed for and in behalf of
himself and other employees similarly situated.

This action is at the first stage, the conditional certification
stage. The Court applies the fairly lenient standard at this
stage. The primary focus in this inquiry is whether the potential
plaintiffs are 'similarly situated with respect to the legal and,
to a lesser extent, the factual issues to be determined.

Plaintiffs also sufficiently allege that they have similar job
requirements and are subject to similar pay provisions to
establish that they are similarly situated for the purpose of step
one analysis.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden.
Plaintiffs have raised similar legal issues regarding the
exemption of overtime arising from GEICO's policy that TCRs fall
under the administrative exemption to the FLSA.

The Court, likewise, concludes that Plaintiffs are similarly
situated for the limited purpose of conditional certification
because they were subject to the same policy of being denied
overtime compensation, and because they have alleged that TCR Is
and Us share similar job requirements and pay provisions.

Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R are
sustained.  Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Certification and for Equitable Tolling is Granted in Part and
Denied in Part.  The R&R is Adopted as it pertains to equitable
tolling.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/7JX88A from Leagle.com.

Brandy Clinton, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
--bwrigley@reidervin.com -- Ervin Jewett, P.C.

Brandy Clinton, Plaintiff, represented by Harris Dewey Butler, III
-- harris.butler@butlerroyals.com -- Butler Royals PLC, Joshua Lee
Jewett -- jjewett@ervinjewett.com -- Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart
Ervin, --rhervin@reidervin.com --  Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel
Antell --: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com  -- Butler Royals PLC.

Helen Kaplan, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC,
Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin
Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Marilyn Harvey, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC,
Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin
Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Ranysha L. Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie
Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler
Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart
Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Nicole Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC,
Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin
Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Kristina Vinson, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC,
Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin
Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Lasheena Weatherly, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie
Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler
Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart
Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Rachael Foglesong, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie
Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler
Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart
Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Veronica Rueda, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley,
Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC,
Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin
Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Tara Tate, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin
Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua
Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett,
P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Khia Moon, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie Wrigley, Ervin
Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler Royals PLC, Joshua
Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart Ervin, Ervin Jewett,
P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Doreen B. Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Marie
Wrigley, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Harris Dewey Butler, III, Butler
Royals PLC, Joshua Lee Jewett, Ervin Jewett, P.C., Reid Hart
Ervin, Ervin Jewett, P.C. & Zev Hillel Antell, Butler Royals PLC.

Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Sharon Smith Goodwyn -- sgoodwyn@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams,
Eric Hemmendinger -- eh@shawie.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, pro
hac vice, Lindsey A. White -- white@shawie.com -- Shawe &
Rosenthal LLP, pro hac vice & Teresa D. Teare --
teare@shawie.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, pro hac vice.


GPS HOLDINGS: Cancel Seeks to Certify Class of Massage Therapists
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JUSTINE MARIE CANCEL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GPS
HOLDINGS 1, LLC d/b/a MASSAGE ENVY, JOHN DOES 1-10, AND XYZ CORP.
1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-09599-KM-JBC (D.N.J.), asks the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Act and order notice sent to members of a class of:

     all current and former Massage Therapists employed by GPS
     Holdings 1, LLC d/b/a Massage Envy on or after December 30,
     2013, who have not been paid for all hours worked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5p6lIxCq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty Hyderally, Esq.
          HYDERALLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          33 Plymouth Street, Suite 202
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 509-8500
          Facsimile: (973) 509-8501
          E-mail: tyh@employmentlit.com


HALLIBURTON CO: Faces "Leblanc" Suit Alleging Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00718-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., July 10, 2017), alleges that
instead of paying Plaintiff overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, Halliburton
paid oilfield personnel a daily rate with no overtime pay and
improperly classified them as independent contractors.

Halliburton is an oil and natural gas exploration and production
company operating worldwide and throughout the United States,
including in New Mexico.  LeBlanc worked exclusively for
Halliburton as a directional driller.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
     Email: mparmet@brucknerburch.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com


HD SUPPLY: Retirement System Alleges Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HD
SUPPLY HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH J. DEANGELO, AND EVAN J. LEVITT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02587-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2017),
alleges a fraudulent and illegal scheme by HD Supply's senior
executives to artificially inflate the Company's stock price by
issuing false and misleading guidance and hiding critical
information from investors.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HD Supply's full year 2017
growth and operational leverage targets were unattainable; (2) the
operational recovery of its Facilities Maintenance supply chain
was not going according to plan; (3) the Company was exploring the
sale of its Waterworks segment; and (4) Defendant Joseph DeAngelo,
HD Supply's President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of
the Board of Directors, with full knowledge of the undisclosed
materially adverse facts alleged herein, embarked on a selling
spree of personal holdings of HD Supply stock that netted him over
$54 million in proceeds.

The case was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired HD Supply securities between
November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017.

HD Supply is one of the largest industrial distributors in North
America. The Company provides a broad range of products and
services to approximately 500,000 professional customers in the
maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and
specialty construction sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Thomas Lacy, Esq.
     LINDSEY & LACY, PC
     2002 Commerce Dr. N., Suite 300
     Peachtree City, GA 30269
     Phone: (770) 486-8445
     Fax: (770) 486-8889
     Email: tlacy@llptc.com

- and -

     Maya Saxena, Esq.
     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399
     Fax: (561) 394-3382
     Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
     Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
     Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     Steven B. Singer, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Phone: (914) 437-8551
     Fax: (888) 631-3611
     Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
     KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
     7080 Northwest 4th Street
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 916-1202
     Fax: (954) 916-1232
     Email: stu@robertdklausner.com


HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING: Salais' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Melinda Harmon denies the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and notice filed in the lawsuit
titled JACOB R SALAIS v. HOUSTON DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 4:16-cv-02715 (S.D. Tex.).

Jacob Salais is a former employee of the Defendant.  There is some
disagreement regarding the Plaintiff's actual job titles, but his
duties primarily consisted of manually feeding cases of beer into
an automated distribution and loading system, according to the
Court's order and opinion.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from each day's work
for meal periods even though the workers were required to work
during the lunch periods, were often interrupted with work tasks
during their lunch period, or were not able to take a lunch break
at all.

Mr. Salais seeks to certify a conditional class under the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

     All plant workers employed by Houston Distributing Company,
     Inc. during the past three years who were required to work
     through their meal period or were not permitted to take an
     uninterrupted meal break, and who were subject to the
     automatic meal break deduction.

Judge Harmon opines that Mr. Salais has not included any
affidavits from other potential class members, nor does he allege
that he is aware of any specific individuals who are interested in
joining the lawsuit.  "Salais only makes a bare statement that he
"know[s] that other current and former employees . . . would be
interested to learn about this lawsuit," Judge Harmon notes.

A copy of the Order and Opinion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pzlqO9jM


HYATT EQUITIES: Class Certification Sought in "Guarisma" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Guarisma asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
case captioned CARLOS GUARISMA, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HYATT EQUITIES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.),
to proceed as a class action.

Mr. Guarisma seeks an order from the Court certifying the proposed
Class of individuals for whom, like him, Hyatt printed a
credit/debit card receipt that revealed the expiration date and
the first six digits of the proposed class member's credit or
debit card.  He also asks the Court to appoint him and his counsel
class representative and class counsel, respectively.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c65TR3q0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
          Sean M. Holas, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  patrick@scottdowens.com
                  sean@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand 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's motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint remains pending.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former
officers and one current officer (the "Class Action"). The
plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to
November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's
business operations and prospects.

The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend
against the claims.  At this time, the Company is unable to
estimate the ultimate outcome of these legal matters.

                           *     *     *

In a March 14, 2016 Order, the motion of the City of Atlanta
Police Officers' Pension Fund and the City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund (1) for consolidation; (2) to be
appointed lead plaintiffs; and (3) for approval of their choice of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. as co-lead
counsel, was granted.  Motions by other movants were granted as to
consolidation but were otherwise denied.

In a June 30, 2017 Notice, Marc. G. Farris, Esq., at Friedman
Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, withdrew as counsel for Defendant
David Blumberg.  Eric Corngold, Esq., and John N. Orsini, Esq., at
Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, who remain members in good
standing of the bar of this Court, remain as counsel for Mr.
Blumberg.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe presides over the case.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Consolidated Stockholder Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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
consolidated stockholder action.

Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely,
Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed
June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-
cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same
alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016
and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between
April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker
matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press
releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in
April 2016 that the Company would present updated information
regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American
Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago,
Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false
and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had
cancelled the presentation because it contained previously
reported information. The complaints further allege that these
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common
stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus
liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice
was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order
granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and
approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017
in the Fergus matter. As of the date hereof, service of the
initiating papers in the Fergus matter has not been made on the
Company.

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

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune and other serious diseases.


INC RESEARCH: Faces "Fink" Suit Over Proposed Merger w/ inVentiv
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INC RESEARCH HOLDINGS, INC., ALISTAIR
MACDONALD, ROBERT W. BRECKON, DAVID Y. NORTON, DAVID F.
BURGSTAHLER, LINDA S. HARTY, RICHARD N. KENDER, WILLIAM KLITGAARD,
KENNETH F. MEYERS, MATTHEW E. MONAGHAN and ERIC P. PAQUES,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00927-UNA (D. Del., July 10, 2017),
alleges that the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement in connection
with the proposed merger between INC and inVentiv Health, Inc.

In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections
for the Company and inVentiv; and (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Centerview Partners
LLC, in support of their fairness opinion.

The special meeting of INC stockholders to vote on the Proposed
Merger is scheduled for July 31, 2017. The Plaintiff says it is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to
the forthcoming stockholders vote, so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
     Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidate Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Lesley
Russel, Anthony P. Zook filed on July 17 a motion to dismiss the
class action complaints filed by Anthony Pepicelli and by Jianmin
Huang.  Both cases have been consolidated.

Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "We and certain of
our executive officers have been named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit initially filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
January 24, 2017, captioned Anthony Pepicelli v. Innocoll Holdings
Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jose Carmona and Lesley
Russel, civil action no. 2:17-cv-00341-GEKP."

"We and certain of our executive officers also have been named as
defendants in a securities class action lawsuit initially filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 16, 2017, captioned Jianmin Huang v.
Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jose
Carmona and Lesley Russel, civil action no. 2:17-cv-00740-GEKP.

"The plaintiffs in Pepicelli requested that defendants waive
service of process pursuant to federal Rule 4, and defendants have
done so.  No attempt has been made to serve in Huang and no
request for waiver of service has been mailed.

"All plaintiffs have joined in an unopposed motion to consolidate
the two actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs.

"The allegations in both complaints are substantively identical.
The complaints in both actions allege that we and certain of our
executive officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false or
misleading statements and omissions relating to the development of
Xaracoll and/or related requests for regulatory approval. The
complaints also allege that the defendant officers violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While we believe that we have
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims in the class
actions and intend to vigorously defend the case, these lawsuits
could divert our management's and board's attention from other
business matters, the outcome of the pending litigation is
difficult to predict and quantify, and the defense against the
underlying claims will likely be costly. The ultimate resolution
of this matter could result in payments of monetary damages or
other costs, materially and adversely affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, or
adversely affect our reputation, and consequently, could
negatively impact the price of our ordinary shares."

In an April 25 order, the Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Russel Bleiler, Ashok Chainani, Jianmin Huang and Carl
Bayney as lead plaintiffs.  The Rosen Law Firm was appointed as
lead counsel.

The Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter oversees the case.

Innocoll Holdings is a global, commercial stage, specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company, with late-stage
development programs targeting areas of significant unmet medical
need.


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Rubin" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Michael Rubin remains pending, Innocoll
Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

On July 21, 2017, a Notice was entered in the case docket
requiring plaintiff to effectuate service of the summons and
complaint by Aug. 5.

On May 5, 2017, a purported Innocoll shareholder filed a putative
class action against Innocoll and the members of the Innocoll
Board that challenges the disclosures made in connection with the
Acquisition. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is styled
Michael Rubin v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony
P. Zook, Jonathan Symonds, Shumeet Banerji, David R. Brennan, A.
James Culverwell, Rolf D. Schmidt and Joseph Wiley., civil action
no. 2:17-cv-02066-NIQA.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed by Innocoll
on April 21, 2017 fails to disclose certain allegedly material
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Based on
these allegations, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the forthcoming
shareholder votes on the Acquisition and the consummation of the
Acquisition or, in the alternative, for rescission of the
Acquisition or rescissory damages. The plaintiff also seeks
certain costs and fees, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
Innocoll and the members of the Innocoll Board believe that the
claims asserted in the action are without merit and intend to
defend against the lawsuit vigorously. Similar cases may also be
filed in connection with the Acquisition.

The company said, "On April 4, 2017, we and Gurnet Point L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership acting through its general partner
Waypoint International GP LLC ("Gurnet Point"), issued an
announcement (the "Rule 2.5 Announcement") in accordance with Rule
2.5 of the Irish Takeover Panel Act 1997, Takeover Rules 2013 (the
"Irish Takeover Rules"), setting forth the terms of the
recommended acquisition of our entire issued and to be issued
share capital (the "Acquisition") by Lough Ree Technologies
Limited, an Irish private limited company and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Gurnet Point ("Gurnet Bidco"), by means of a scheme
of arrangement (the "Scheme") under Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the
Irish Companies Act of 2014 (the "Companies Act"). "

Innocoll Holdings is a global, commercial stage, specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company, with late-stage
development programs targeting areas of significant unmet medical
need.


INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Westmoreland Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in the case, Westmoreland County Employee
Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods, Inc. et al.,
remains pending.

On April 4, 2016, a purported class action captioned Westmoreland
County Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure
Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed in the
Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Additional defendants
are the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, and the underwriters of the secondary securities offering
that closed September 14, 2014 (the "September 2014 Offering").
The class action complaint, which was amended a second time on
March 27, 2017, alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act and focuses on the conditions at the
Company's former frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia.
Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief deemed
appropriate by the court.

The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial
Officer and the September 2014 Offering underwriters have moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company is vigorously
defending against the claims.

Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and
manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food
brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for
fiscal 2016.


INVENTURE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss "Blair" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint
in the class action lawsuit by Michelle Blair and Shannah Burton
remains pending.

On November 14, 2016, Michelle Blair (represented by Matthew
Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC and Stuart Cochran of Cochran
Law PLLC) filed a putative class action against the Company in St.
Louis City Circuit Court.  Ms. Blair purports to represent a class
of consumers who purchased one of nine Boulder Canyon(R) brand
products listing "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient.  Ms.
Blair contends that the use of "evaporated cane juice" was
misleading because evaporated cane juice is sugar.  In the
complaint, Ms. Blair advances claims for violation of Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 407.020, et seq.
and 15 C.S.R. 60-8.020, et seq., and unjust enrichment.

On February 3, 2017, the Company removed the action to the Eastern
District of Missouri. Plaintiff dismissed the removed action
without prejudice and refiled a substantially similar complaint in
the Southern District of Illinois. The new complaint is brought by
Ms. Blair and a new plaintiff, Shannah Burton, and asserts a
nationwide putative class, as well as a putative class of Illinois
and Missouri purchasers. Ms. Burton alleges claims under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/2, et seq. Both plaintiffs also assert
claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty.

On April 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and
manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food
brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for
fiscal 2016.


INVENTURE FOODS: Defending Against "Schoenfeld" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company will defend itself against the
case, Glenn Schoenfeld v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al.

On March 27, 2017, a purported class action captioned Glenn
Schoenfeld v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
00910, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities that
acquired Inventure Foods securities between March 3, 2016 and
March 16, 2017.  The Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer are also named as defendants.  The complaint
asserts claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
focuses on the Company's internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting, its statements of operations for fiscal year
2015, and public statements in press releases and SEC filings
between March 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017.  Mr. Schoenfeld seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the action, and
other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company intends
to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and
manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food
brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for
fiscal 2016.


INVENTURE FOODS: Still Defends "Robinson" Suit
----------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company is defending itself against the
case, John Robinson v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al.

On April 27, 2017, a purported class action captioned John
Robinson v. Inventure Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01258,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
Inventure Foods securities between March 3, 2016 and March 16,
2017.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer.  The allegations focus on the Company's
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, its
statements of operations for fiscal year 2015, and public
statements in press releases and SEC filings between March 3, 2016
and March 16, 2017. Mr. Robinson seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs,
and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Inventure Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a marketer and
manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food
brands with more than $269 million in annual net revenues for
fiscal 2016.


INWELL INC: "Culley" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHADDEN CULLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INWELL, INC. and MWD SERVICES (MGMT),
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02097 (S.D. Tex., July 10,
2017), alleges that Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members as independent contractors.

Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those persons who are
current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants
as Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Operators and were paid a day
rate but no overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty
(40) in each workweek.

INWELL, INC. and MWD SERVICES (MGMT), INC. are together an
oilfield service company with significant operations in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 North Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
            austin@a2xlaw.com
            lauren@a2xlaw.com
            cgordon@a2xlaw.com


ISORAY INC: Lawsuit Related to Equity Plans Resolved
----------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, 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 settled the class action
lawsuit related to equity plans.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint captioned
Griffith, et al. v. LaVoy, et al., No. 17-2-00194-2, was filed in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for Benton and Franklin
Counties against the Company, its Board of Directors, and a former
director and officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Section 302A.437 of the Minnesota Business
Corporation Act because, due to a significant number of broker
non-votes at the respective meetings, the Company did not receive
at least a majority of the voting power of the minimum number of
shares entitled to vote that would constitute a quorum in favor of
proposals to approve the Company's 2014 Employee Stock Option Plan
(2014 Plan) and 2016 Equity Incentive Plan (2016 Plan)
(collectively, the "Plans"). The complaint alleges that since the
Plans were not properly approved by shareholders under Minnesota
law, the Plans and the Company's equity awards under the Plans are
invalid. The complaint also alleges that members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties by deeming these Plans approved by
shareholders when they were not under Minnesota law and by
authorizing equity awards to be made under these Plans. Unless the
Company obtains the requisite shareholder approvals under
Minnesota law, the complaint seeks cancellation of the Plans and
rescission of all awards made under the Plans, an injunction
prohibiting the Company from making further awards under the
Plans, and an award of fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel. The
Company and the other defendants have not yet answered or
otherwise responded to the complaint.

The Company, members of the Board, and the former director and
officer of the Company vigorously deny that they violated
Minnesota law and, as to the non-company defendants, that they
breached any fiduciary duty. No awards were issued to then-outside
directors under the 2014 Plan. No awards made to anyone under the
2014 Plan have been exercised. No awards were issued under the
2016 Plan. In order to correct mistakes, if any, in connection
with the approvals of these Plans or the issuance of these equity
awards under the 2014 Plan, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit in order to
remedy the claims alleged in the complaint and to eliminate the
burden and expense of further litigation. This settlement in
principle includes an agreement to seek approval of the 2014 Plan
and approval of prior grants under the 2014 Plan, each from
shareholders pursuant to the higher voting threshold imposed by
Minnesota corporate laws, and cancel the 2016 Plan altogether.

The Company called a Special Meeting of the Shareholders, to be
held on June 15, 2017, primarily to seek these approvals. As part
of the settlement in principle, the parties have agreed to either
(a) negotiate an attorneys' fee award for plaintiffs' counsel or
(b) if an agreement cannot be reached, accept the court's decision
as to an appropriate attorneys' fee award.

"We cannot at this time estimate the attorneys' fee award," the
Company said.

IsoRay is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA clearance
and CE marking for a single medical device that can be delivered
to the physician in multiple configurations as prescribed for the
treatment of cancers in multiple body sites. The Company
manufactures and sells this product as the Cesium-131
brachytherapy seed.


J JAIME: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Torres, individually and on behalf of all current and
former home health providers v. J Jaime Home Health Services, LLC
d/b/a Mi Esperanza Provider Care; Maria G. Jaime; and/or Jose
Jaime, Case No. 2:17-cv-00229 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide home health, elderly care, and other
specialized services in the home health industry throughout South
Texas and the Coastal Bend. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              austin@a2xlwaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com


JEMA CONSTRUCTION: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selvin Yovany Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jema Construction, Inc., Hsuch Hui Liu, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC667156 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Jema Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction company
located at 5040 Heintz St, Baldwin Park, CA 91706. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Risemberg, Esq.
      RGLAWYERS, LLP
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 815-2727
      Facsimile: (818) 815-2737
      E-mail: jr@rglawyers.com


JONES FINANCIAL: Retirement Plan Litigation Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Retirement Plan
Litigation remains pending.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under ERISA, by a
participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan
participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and
monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 12, 2016, which
was denied in part and granted in part on January 26, 2017. The
claim against JFC was dismissed. All other claims remained in the
case.

On November 11, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other
defendants were named in another putative class action lawsuit
(Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
brought under ERISA, by two participants in the Retirement Plan.
The lawsuit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and sought declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.

On February 10, 2017, plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by
adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case. On February
13, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of the Schultz
action. On April 28, 2017, plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated complaint.  The defendants' time to respond has not
yet run.

The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones
& Co., L.P. ("Edward Jones"), is a registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser in the United States ("U.S."), and one of
Edward Jones' subsidiaries is a registered broker-dealer in
Canada. Through these entities, the Partnership primarily serves
individual investors in the U.S. and Canada. Edward Jones
primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business
through the distribution of mutual fund shares to, fees related to
assets held by and account services provided to its clients,
including investment advisory services, the purchase or sale of
securities and insurance products, and principal transactions. The
Partnership conducts business throughout the U.S. and Canada with
its clients, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations,
depositories and banks. Trust services are offered to Edward
Jones' U.S. clients through Edward Jones Trust Company ("Trust
Co."), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership. Olive Street
Investment Advisers, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Partnership, provides investment advisory services to the sub-
advised mutual funds in the Bridge Builder(R) Trust.


JOYERIA ELIZABETH: Accused by "Diaz" Suit of Violating FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FIORDALIZA DIAZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. JOYERIA ELIZABETH I, CORP.,
JOYERIA ELIZABETH II, CORP., JOYERIA ELIZABETH III, CORP., and
TOMASA IZAQUIRRE, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05136 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 7, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Joyeria Elizabeth is an entity consisting of three separate New
York corporations that together operate as a single business
enterprise that engage in related activities, with a common
business purpose, and with each of their principal places of
business located in New York City.  Tomasa Izaquirre is the chief
executive officer of Joyeria Elizabeth.  The Defendants sell
jewelry and other items that the Company acquires from patrons
through sale, or as collateral for loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


KATE SPADE: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Sale to Coach Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS P. BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KATE SPADE & COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2017-0499 (Del. Ch., July 10, 2017), is an
action under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
by a stockholder of Kate Spade & Company, seeking to enforce his
right to inspection of books and records in order to determine
whether wrongdoing or mismanagement has taken place such that it
would be appropriate to file claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
and to investigate the independence and disinterestedness of the
Company's directors generally and with respect to the Company's
proposed acquisition by Coach, Inc. and Chelsea Merger Sub Inc.

The Company operates principally under two global, multichannel
lifestyle brands: Kate Spade New York and Jack Spade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mark S. Reich, Esq.
     Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 367-7100

        - and -

     David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 231-1058

        - and -

     W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 230-0063

        - and -

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957


KELLY SERVICES: Aug. 2 Final Settlement Hearing
-----------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that a court hearing is scheduled for August 2,
2017 to consider final approval for settlement in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company is a party to a pending nationwide class action
lawsuit entitled Hillson et al. v Kelly Services. The suit alleges
that current and former temporary employees of Kelly Services are
entitled to monetary damages for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act requirement that the notice and disclosure form
provided to employees for purposes of conducting a background
screening be a standalone document.

On April 20, 2016 the parties entered into a formal settlement
agreement. A court hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2017 to
consider final approval for settlement.

In light of amounts previously expensed and anticipated recoveries
from third parties, Kelly recorded an accrual in the fourth
quarter of 2015 of $4.1 million to reflect the expected cost of
the tentative settlement.

Kelly Services is a global workforce solutions company, serving
customers of all sizes in a variety of industries.


KNAUF GIPS: Mitchell Co. Moves to Certify Class in Drywall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Mitchell Co. Inc. v. Knauf
Gips KG, et al., Case No. 09-cv-4115 (E.D. La.), moves the Court
for certification of this Class:

     All persons and entities in the States of Alabama,
     Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, and Florida that
     used drywall manufactured by Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., for
     the construction, repair, or remodeling of any improvement
     to real property and who incurred any expenses associated
     with (1) repair or replacement of all or part of the
     defective drywall, and/or (2) repair or replacement of other
     property damaged by the defective drywall, and/or (3)
     attorneys' fees and costs in defense of claims by affected
     homeowners, and/or (4) other expenses that were or incurred
     as part of the remediation of the defective drywall,
     including, without limitation, the cost of investigation and
     expert analysis of the defect, and cost of relocating
     customers displaced by the presence of defective drywall.

Excluded from the proposed Class are any owners, landlords, or
residents of real properties located in the United States
containing defective Chinese drywall manufactured, sold,
distributed, supplied, marketed, inspected, imported, or delivered
by Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.; Defendant Taishan, its legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or
any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; the
judge to whom this action is assigned and members of the judge's
immediate family; claims for personal injury, wrongful death,
and/or emotional distress; and all persons or entities who
properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion from the
class.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation known as IN
RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 23, 2017, to consider
the Motion.

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

Plaintiff The Mitchell Company, Inc., and other Builder Plaintiffs
are represented by:

          Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
          Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
          E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 566-8646
          Facsimile: (504) 585-6946
          E-mail: kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com


LAUREATE EDUCATION: MDL Panel Denied Bid to Transfer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Laureate Education, 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 MDL panel has denied the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer.

The Company said, "On October 5, 2016, a student filed suit
against us and Walden University in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the matter of Latonya
Thornhill v. Walden University, et. al., claiming that her
progress in her program was delayed by Walden University and
seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of
purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims
include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer
fraud under the laws of Maryland and Ohio, and unjust enrichment.
We and Walden University were served on October 17, 2016. On
December 16, 2016, we and Walden University filed a motion to
dismiss the claims and a motion to strike the class action
certification request. On January 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, making modifications to supplement some of the
factual allegations and seeking to change the governing law of the
case to the law of Minnesota. A substantive response to the
amended complaint was filed on February 9, 2017. The Thornhill
court temporarily stayed this case in its entirety until May 1,
2017, pending the outcome of the Multi-District Litigation
("MDL") proceeding discussed below. Following denial of the MDL
transfer motion, the Thornhill court is proceeding to establish a
schedule in this matter. The motion to dismiss remains pending.
Walden University and we intend to defend against this case
vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class."

"On October 18, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and
Walden University pro se in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland in the matter of Eric D. Streeter v.
Walden University, et. al. (Case No. 1CCB6-CV-3460), claiming that
his progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and
Laureate. The claims include unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,
violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment,
libel, and violation of the False Claims Act. We filed a motion to
dismiss on April 12, 2017, which remains pending. Walden
University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously.

"On December 1, 2016, five students filed suit against us and
Walden University in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota in the matter of Jennifer Wright, et al v.
Walden University, et. al., claiming that their progress in their
programs was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action
status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly
situated doctoral students. The claims include fraud in the
inducement, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and breach of
implied covenant of fair dealing under the laws of Minnesota,
California, Georgia, Washington and Michigan, and unjust
enrichment. Walden University and we were served in this matter on
December 8, 2016, Walden University and we intend to defend
against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a
nationwide class. On January 13, 2017, we filed a motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to
the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case
was filed first in Ohio. The Wright court issued an order on April
21, 2017 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (without
prejudice). The plaintiffs may seek leave to join the Thornhill
case or may file individual cases without class allegations.

"On December 20, 2016, a former student filed suit against Walden
University, in the Bexar County District Court in Texas in the
matter of Dianna Medellin v. Walden University, LLC (Case No.
2016C121637), claiming that Walden University intentionally
deceived her by praising her and allowing her to successfully
complete her coursework in her doctoral program, only to then
prolong the dissertation writing process as much as possible. The
case alleges causes of action for violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud and includes certain
factual allegations that are identical to the other purported
class action lawsuits. Laureate has not been sued in this matter
and Walden University was served on January 26, 2017. Walden
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on February 21, 2017. This matter has
been resolved and the case was dismissed on March 15, 2017.

"On December 29, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and
Walden University in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota in the matter of Aaron Bleess, et al v.
Walden University, et. al (Case No. 16-CV-4402), claiming that his
progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and
seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of
purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims
include, under the laws of Minnesota, breach of contract, consumer
fraud, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, fraudulent
inducement, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Fraud Act. Laureate
and Walden University were served on January 5 and January 6,
2017, respectively. On January 17, 2017, we filed a motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to
the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case
was filed first in Ohio. The Bleess court stayed the proceedings
pending a ruling on this motion to dismiss. Walden University and
we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the
request to certify a nationwide class. This case appears to be
nearly identical in allegations, including the same alleged class,
as Thornhill and Wright. The court issued an order on April 21,
2017 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (without
prejudice). The plaintiffs may seek leave to join the Thornhill
case or may file individual cases without class allegations.

"On December 23, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs in Thornhill and
Wright filed a motion to consolidate pretrial proceedings in these
matters, as well as the Streeter and Medellin matters, to the
United States Judicial Panel on MDL. Bleess's counsel filed a
notice of intent to participate as an interested party of the
consolation motion. Laureate and Walden University filed a motion
in opposition to transfer to MDL on January 17, 2017, which was
opposed on January 24, 2017. A hearing was held on March 30, 2017
and the MDL panel issued an order on April 5, 2017 denying the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer."

Laureate Education, Inc. and subsidiaries provide higher education
programs and services to students through an international network
of licensed universities and higher education institutions
(institutions).


LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION: Opposed Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Zhang v. Lifevantage et al., 2:16-cv-00965 (D. Utah),
Defendants on July 20 filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that on September 15, 2016, a purported
securities class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage
Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016).
In this action (now recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp.
Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleges that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and now-former Chief Financial Officer
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by making false or
misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's
internal controls and financial results for the first, second and
third quarters of fiscal year 2016.  The initial complaint sought
unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between November 4, 2015 and
September 13, 2016.

By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that
defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action
until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), at which time
the parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the
filing of an amended complaint and responses thereto.  On November
14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were
filed.

On December 13, 2016, the Court appointed Dale Blanch and Yvonne
Cohen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  On January 27, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.

On March 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and a
motion to strike certain irrelevant matters from the amended
complaint.  Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants'
motions on April 19, 2017.

Defendants filed their reply on May 10, 2017.  The Court has not
set a hearing date for the motion.

By operation of the PSLRA, all discovery and other proceedings are
stayed in this action pending a ruling on defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Company has not established a loss contingency
accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable
or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations or financial condition.

LifeVantage is a company focused on nutrigenomics, the study of
how nutrition and naturally occurring compounds affect human
genes.


MABRY MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Carillo and Jenny Carrillo Alas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Mabry Management Co., Inc. and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC667019 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay all minimum wages earned and all overtime hours worked on
excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.

Mabry Management Co., Inc. is a privately owned for-profit
corporation that provides property management services throughout
Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
      Dean S. Ho, Esq.
      Julia M. Damron, Esq.
      PETRONELLI & HO LLP
      295 Redonbo Avenue, Suite 201
      Long Beach, CA 90803
      Telephone: (888) 855-3670
      Facsimile: (888) 449-9675
      E-mail: christian@employees-lawyer.com
              dean@employees-lawyer.com
              julia@employees-lawyer.com


MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
MannKind 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 related to the Sanofi license agreement.

Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to
terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline
in our stock price, two motions were submitted to the district
court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a
class action against MannKind and certain of our officers and
directors. In general, the complaints alleged that MannKind and
certain of our officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S.
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court
will be asked to determine whether Israeli or U.S. law is
applicable before the case can be certified as a class action. The
deadline for plaintiff's motion regarding the applicable law was
due on May 14, 2017.

"We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced," the
Company said.

MannKind is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapeutic products for
diseases such as diabetes. The Company's only approved product,
Afrezza (insulin human [rDNA origin]) inhalation powder, is a
rapid-acting inhaled insulin that was approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (the "FDA") on June 27, 2014 to improve
glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes.


MDL 2311: September 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership that Bought a Truck
and/or Equipment for Resale or Lease, or Bought Certain
Replacement Parts for Trucks and/or Equipment in the U.S. Since
2000

You Could Get Money from Settlements Totaling Approximately
$4,745,000 A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer

1. Why is there a Notice?
This Notice is to inform you about Settlements reached in a
pending case that is included in this litigation, before the Court
decides whether to finally approve the Settlements.  This Notice
explains the lawsuits, the Settlements, and your legal rights.

The Court in charge is the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  This litigation is known as In re
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311, and this
Notice applies to Cases No. 2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM and No. 2:14-cv-
00507-MOB-MKM.  The people who sued are called the "Plaintiffs."
The companies they sued are called the "Defendants."

2. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to unlawfully raise
the price of certain motor vehicle Bearings.

As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who purchased for
resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing those parts or
who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement parts, which
were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary,
affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant, are alleged
to have paid more than they should have. Although the Settling
Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants do not
agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any
money or benefits to Plaintiffs.  The Court has not yet decided
who is right.

3. Who are the Settling Defendants?
The Settling Defendants are: SKF USA Inc. ("SKF USA"), Nachi-
Fujikoshi Corporation and Nachi America Inc. ("Nachi"), and NSK
Ltd. and NSK Americas, Inc. (("NSK") and collectively with SKF USA
and Nachi, "Settling Defendants").

4. Who are the Non-Settling Defendants?
A list of all of the Defendants and the parts they manufactured
and sold is available at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

5. What Vehicle Parts are included?
The Settlements involve the following vehicle component parts:
Bearings refers to bearings used in heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks,
medium duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses, commercial
vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural
equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles as set
forth in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Class Action Complaint,
Case No. 2:14-cv-13356 (July 24, 2015) [Doc. 23] ("Bearings
Complaint"), whether sold separately, in combination, or as part
of a module, assembly, or system.

6. Why is this a class action?
In class actions, one or more people or entities called the "class
representatives" sue on behalf of themselves
and other people with similar claims in the specific class action.
All of these people together are the "Class"
or "Class members."  In this class action, there is a total of
nineteen class representatives.  In a class action, one
court may resolve the issues for all Class members, except for
those who exclude themselves from the class.

7. How do I know if I may be included in the Classes?
Generally, you are included if, at any time from January 1, 2000
through May 25, 2017, inclusive, you were a dealer of heavy-duty
(Class 8) or medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses,
commercial vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks, vans,
sports utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or similar
vehicles sold by automobile dealers), all-terrain vehicles,
construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural
equipment, railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and
other similar vehicles ("Trucks and/ or Equipment") that: (a)
purchased Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Bearing, which was
manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate,
or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant, or (b) indirectly
purchased such a Bearing as a replacement part.  "Indirectly"
means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other
than the manufacturer of the part.

The specific definitions of who is included in the Settlement
Classes are set forth in the Settlement Agreements
between the Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants.  Those
Settlement Agreements, and the related Complaints are accessible
on the website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. Set forth below at
page 13 is a chart, referred to as Addendum A, identifying the
pages and paragraph numbers of the relevant Settlement Class
definitions for the Settlement Agreements that will permit you to
determine whether you are a member of the Settlement Classes.

Payments to members of the Settlement Classes will only be made:
(1) if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are
resolved, and (2) in accordance with a Plan of Allocation to
distribute the Settlement Funds minus expenses, court-approved
attorneys' fees, and incentive awards ("Net Settlement Funds")
to members of the Settlement Classes who do not opt out of the
Settlements.  A Plan of Allocation will be proposed to the Court
for approval at the conclusion of the cases against Non-Settling
Defendants or as ordered by the Court.  The Plan, as approved by
the Court, will determine the amount, if any, that each member
of the Settlement Class(es) will receive.  The Plan will be
described in a future Notice, to be given at a later
date, providing members of the Settlement Class with an
opportunity to state their views regarding the Plan.

This case is proceeding as a class action seeking monetary
recovery for dealers and businesses in 29 states and the District
of Columbia, and for nationwide injunctive relief to stop the
Defendants' alleged illegal behavior and prevent this behavior
from happening in the future (see Question 13).

Dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment that are indirect purchasers of
any of the Bearings manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any
subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant
may be members of the Settlement Classes entitled to monetary
recovery if the purchase transaction occurred in the District of
Columbia or one or more of the following states during the
relevant time periods listed below: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The time period covered by the Settlements for each of the Classes
is provided below.

Defendants     Time Period Starts  Time Period Ends  Auto Part(s)

Nachi-Fujikoshi January 1, 2000     May 11, 2017    Bearings
Corporation
Nachi America
Inc.


NSK Ltd.        January 1, 2000     May 25 ,2017    Bearings
NSK Americas,
Inc.

SKF USA Inc.    January 1, 2000     April 6, 2017  Bearings

The specific definition of each Settlement Class is available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com or can be obtained by calling 1-866-
742-4955.

8. Who is not included in the Classes?
The Settlement Classes do not include:

   -- Any of the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates;

   -- Any alleged co-conspirators;

   -- Federal government entities and instrumentalities;

   -- States and their political subdivisions, agencies, and
instrumentalities; and

   -- All persons who purchased Bearings directly from a
Defendant; and

   -- All purchasers or lessors of new vehicles who are not
dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment.

The Settlements' Benefits

9. What do the settlements provide?
The Settlement Funds amount to $4,745,000.  After deduction of
attorneys' fees, notice and claims administration costs, and
litigation expenses, as approved by the Court, the remaining
Settlement Funds will be available for distribution to members of
the Settlement Classes who timely file valid claims.
Certain Settlements also include non-monetary relief (see Question
13) as more fully described in the proposed Final Judgments
located on the Settlement website www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

The Settlement Funds are allocated to the motor vehicle cases in
question, as follows:

         Auto Parts Settlements and Settlement Funds

Automotive Parts Case: Bearings
Settling Defendants: Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation
Nachi America Inc.
Settlement Amount: $475,000
Settlement Fund: $475,000


Automotive Parts Case: Bearings
Settling Defendants: NSK Ltd.
NSK Americas, Inc.
Settlement Amount: $3,260,000
Settlement Fund: $3,170,0001
Automotive Parts Case: Bearings
Settling Defendants: SKF USA Inc.
Settlement Amount: $1,100,000
Settlement Fund: $1,100,000

Total: $4,745,000

Any interest earned will be added to each of the Settlement Funds.
More details about the Settlements are set forth in the Settlement
Agreements, available at ww.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

How To Get Benefits

10. How much money can I get?
At this time, it is unknown how much each member of each
Settlement Class who submits a valid claim will receive. Payments
will be based on a number of factors, including at least the
number of valid claims filed by all members of each Settlement
Class and the number of (1) new Trucks and/or Equipment each
purchased containing a Bearing and (2) Bearings each purchased
indirectly as replacement parts.  It's possible that any money
remaining after claims are paid will be distributed to charities,
governmental entities, or other beneficiaries approved by the
Court.  No matter how many claims are filed, no money will be
returned to the Settling Defendants once the Court finally
approves the Settlements.

In order to receive a payment, you will need to file a valid claim
form before the claims period ends.  The claims period has not yet
begun.  A Notice about the claims process will be provided at a
later date as ordered by the Court.  If you want to be kept
updated about the claims process or any future settlements, you
should register at www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.


11. When will I get a payment?
No money will be distributed yet.  All Settlement Funds that
remain after payment of the court ordered attorneys'
fees, incentive awards, costs, and expenses (see Question 10) will
be distributed as ordered by the Court.

12. What is the non-monetary relief?
Certain Settling Defendants will cooperate with the Plaintiffs in
their ongoing litigation against the NonSettling Defendants.

Remaining In The Class(es)

13. What happens if I remain in the Class(es)?
You will give up your right to sue the Settling Defendants on your
own for the claims described in the Settlement Agreements unless
you exclude yourself from the Class.  You also will be bound by
any decisions by the Court relating to the Settlements.
In return for paying the Settlement amounts and/or providing the
non-monetary benefits, the Settling Defendants (and certain
related entities defined in the Settlement Agreements) will be
released from claims relating to the alleged conduct involving
Bearings identified in the Settlement Agreements.  The Settlement
Agreements describe the released claims in detail, so read them
carefully since those releases will be binding on you if the Court
approves the Settlements.  If you have any questions, you can talk
to Class Counsel listed in Question 18 for free, or you can, of
course, talk to your own lawyer (at your own expense) if you have
questions about what this means.  The Settlement Agreements and
the specific releases are available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

Excluding Yourself From The Class(es)
14. How do I get out of the Class(es)?
To exclude your dealership from a Settlement, your dealership must
send a letter by mail stating that it wants to be excluded from
the relevant Settlement Class(es) (including the

Settlement(s) from which your dealership wishes to be excluded).
The letter must also include:

   -- The case name: In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2311;
   -- The name, address, telephone number, and signature of a
person with the authority to bind the
dealership in its decision to exclude itself from the
Settlement(s);
   -- All trade names or business names and addresses the
dealership has used as a Truck and/or Equipment
Dealership, as well as any subsidiaries or affiliates who are
requesting to be excluded from the Settlement(s); and
   -- Your dealership's dealer number(s) / dealer identification
number(s) (for each original equipment manufacturer for which you
are or were an authorized dealer).

You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than
August 23, 2017, to:

Clerk's Office
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 564
Detroit, MI 48226

and to:

RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479

15. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue for the same thing later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue the
Settling Defendants for the claims being released in this
litigation.

16. If I exclude myself, can I still get money benefits?
No. If you exclude yourself from a Settlement Class, you will not
get any money as a result of that Settlement.

However, you may exclude yourself from one Settlement but remain
in the other Settlement(s).  In that case, you may receive money
from the Settlement(s) in which you remain.
The Lawyers Representing You
17. Do I have a lawyer representing me?
The Court has appointed the following law firm as Class Counsel to
represent you and all other members of the Settlement Classes:

J. Manly Parks
Andrew R. Sperl
Duane Morris, LLP
30 S. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

You will not be charged for contacting these lawyers. If you want
to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense.

18. How will the lawyers be paid?
At the final approval hearing, Class Counsel will ask the Court to
reimburse them for certain costs and expenses.  At the final
approval hearing, or at a later date, Class Counsel will ask the
Court for attorneys' fees based on their services in this
litigation.  Class Counsel may also request a payment to the class
representatives who helped the lawyers on behalf of the Classes.
Any payment to the attorneys and class representatives will be
subject to Court approval, and the Court may award less than the
requested amount.  The attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and awards
that the Court orders, plus the costs to administer the
Settlements, will come out of the Settlement Funds.  Class Counsel
may seek additional attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses from any
other settlements or recoveries obtained in the future.
When Class Counsel's motion for fees, costs and expenses, and
class representative payments is filed, it will be available at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.  The motion will be posted on the
website at least 30 days before the Court holds a hearing to
consider the request, and you will have an opportunity to comment
on the motion. (See Question 20.)

Register at the website or call 1-866-742-4955 to receive notice
when the motion is filed.

Objecting To The Settlements
19. How do I object to or comment on the Settlements?
If you have objections to or comments about any aspect of the
Settlements, you may express your views to the Court.  You can
object to or comment on a Settlement only if you do not exclude
yourself from that Settlement Class.  To object to or comment on a
Settlement, you must specify which Settlement (including
the Settling Defendant(s)) you are objecting to in a letter that
also contains the following:

   -- The case name: In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2311;
   -- The name, address, telephone number, and signature of a
person with the authority to bind your dealership in its decision
not to exclude itself from the Settlement(s);
   -- All trade names or business names and addresses the
dealership has used as a Truck and/or
Equipment Dealership, as well as any subsidiaries or affiliates
who are not requesting to be excluded from the Settlement(s);
   -- Your dealership's dealer number(s) / dealer identification
number(s) (for each original equipment manufacturer for which you
are or were an authorized dealer);
   -- The name of each Settling Defendant whose Settlement you are
objecting to or commenting on;
   -- The automotive part case, Bearings, that is the subject of
your objection(s) or comments; and
   -- The reasons you object to the Settlement, along with any
supporting materials.

Any comment or objection must be postmarked by August 23, 2017,
and mailed to:

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Clerk's
Office
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 564
Detroit, MI 48226

and to:
Notice Administrator
RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479

20. What is the difference between excluding myself from the
Class(es) and objecting to the Settlement(s)?
If you exclude yourself from one or more of the Classes, you are
telling the Court that you do not want to participate in the
Settlement(s) from which you exclude yourself.  Therefore, you
will not be eligible to receive any benefits from those
Settlements, and you will not be able to object to those
Settlements.  Objecting to a Settlement simply means telling the
Court that you do not like something about it.  Objecting does not
make you ineligible to receive a payment.

The Final Fairness Hearing
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlements and any requests by Class Counsel for fees, costs,
expenses, and class representative awards.  You may attend and you
may ask to speak, but you do not have to do so.

21. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlements?
The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at time TBD on
September 13, 2017, at the United States Courthouse, 231 W.
Lafayette Blvd, Detroit, MI 48226, Room 272.  The hearing may be
moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so
check www.TruckDealerSettlement.com or call 1-866-742-4955
for current information. At this hearing, the Court will consider
whether the Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If
there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them at
that time and may listen to people who have asked to speak at the
hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class
Counsel. At or after the hearing, the Court will decide whether to
approve the Settlements.

22. Do I have to attend the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have.
But you are welcome to attend at your expense.  If you send an
objection or comment, you do not have to come to Court to talk
about it.  As long as you mailed your written objection on time,
the Court will consider it.  You may also hire your own lawyer
at your own expense to attend on your behalf, but you are not
required to do so.

23. May I speak at the hearing?
If you send an objection or comment on the Settlements as
described in Question 20, you may have the right to speak at the
Final Approval Hearing as determined by the Court.  You cannot
speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Class.

Get More Information
24. How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the Settlements.  More details are in the
Settlement Agreements.  You can get copies of the Settlement
Agreements and more information about the Settlements at
www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.  You also may write with questions
to RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia,
PA 19102-9479 or call the toll-free number, 1-866-742-4955. You
should also register at the website to be directly notified of any
future settlements, the terms of the Plan of Allocation of the
Settlement Funds, how to file a claim form, and other information
concerning this case.


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valencia Peterson and Lakesha Hooper, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v.
Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., Medtronic Logistics LLC,
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02457 (W.D. Tenn., June 30, 2017), arises
from the policies and practices that result in a systemic
disparate treatment of female employees at Medtronic and have a
disparate impact on female employees, specifically, by placing or
keeping female employees in job titles or classifications lower
than similarly situated male employees; failing to develop or
provide career advancement opportunities to female employees in a
manner commensurate to similarly situated male employees; denying
the promotions of qualified female employees into higher-level
jobs and instead promoted less qualified male employees to those
higher-level jobs; failing to promote female employees at the same
rate as similarly situated male employees; disparately
evaluating and classifying female and male employees' job
performance; compensating female employees less than similarly
situated men for equal work; and failing to prevent, adequately
investigate or correct instances of gender discrimination in the
workplace.

As a result, employees are developed, evaluated, compensated, and
promoted within a system that is inadequately designed or
implemented to equitably compensate or promote female employees
without regard to their gender, says the complaint.

The Defendants operate a global healthcare solutions company that
develops, manufactures and sells medical products, technologies
and therapies to diagnose and treat a wide variety of chronic
diseases and health conditions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
      Michelle L. Kornblit, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55427
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: schlesinger@nka.com
              bailey@nka.com
              mkornblit@nka.com

         - and -

      Anne Hunter, Esq.
      Heather Moore Collins, Esq.
      COLLINS & HUNTER, PLLC
      7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320
      Brentwood, TN  37027
      Telephone: (615) 724-1996
      Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
      E-mail: anne@collinshunter.com
              heather@collinshunter.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Madar" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yardema Madar, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
03940 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Amzallag" Consumer Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
AREK AMZALLAG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, against MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04098 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2017), was
filed on behalf of a class of New York consumers seeking redress
for Defendant's illegal practices, in connection with the
collection of a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The case alleges, among
others, that Defendant's communication to Plaintiff to collect
debt fails to disclose information required by law.

Defendant is a collection agency with its principal office located
in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
     337 Avenue W, Suite 2F
     Brooklyn, NY 11223
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (347) 665-1545
     Email: Jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


MILDON BUS: Community Vocational Moves for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
OF PITTSBURGH, INC., a corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. MILDON
BUS LINES INC., a Pennsylvania corporation v. CAROLINE ABRAHAM and
JOEL ABRAHAM, Case No. 2:09-cv-01572-JFC (W.D. Pa.), asks the
Court to issue an order certifying the action as a class action.

The proposed class is defined as:

     All persons who were successfully sent one or more faxes on
     January 11, 2006, from Mildon Bus Lines, Inc. P.O. Box 306,
     65 Church St., W. Alexander, PA 15376 to "Tours & Charters"
     to "Schools" "Seniors" "Churches" and "Clubs" offering "MCI
     Coaches - 47 Passengers," "Good Service," and "Courteous
     Professional Drivers."

Community Vocational also asks the Court to appoint it as the
class representative, and to appoint all of its counsel as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TuAIb4SM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          David J. Manogue, Esq.
          SPECTER SPECTER EVANS & MANOGUE, P.C.
          436 7th Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          Facsimile: (412) 642-2309
          E-mail: Jce@ssem.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LL
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Max Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          14236 Cedar Springs Drive
          Chesterfield, MO 63107
          Telephone: (314) 434-8502
          Facsimile: (314) 434-8451
          E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com


MY SIZE: Defending Against Class Action in Tel Aviv
---------------------------------------------------
My Size, Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission that on May 7, the Company was served with
an application to approve a shareholders' class action (which was
filed with the Tel Aviv District Court on May 3rd, 2017) against
the Company, its board members and its CFO (the "Application").

The Application alleges, inter alia, that the Company's report of
April 19th, 2017 regarding its engagement with the Israeli Post
was false and misleading, and that as a result thereof financial
damages have been incurred by two purported classes of
shareholders: (i) any shareholder who sold Company's shares as of
April 20th, 2017 and until April 27th, 2017, with respect to
damage directly caused by such sale and (ii) any shareholder which
held shares on April 20th, 2017 and subsequent to April 27th, 2017
with respect to damage caused by permanent adverse effect to the
shares' value. The alleged financial damage caused to members of
both classes is estimated at NIS 18.8 million.

The Company reviewed the Application initially with its legal
counsel. At this preliminary stage, the Company believes that
there is no direct causal connection between the Company's report
which is the subject matter of the Application and the alleged
damages caused to either class of purported plaintiffs and that in
any case there appears to be no correlation between the alleged
scope of damages and the merits of the alleged case.

The Company's is reviewing its rights to file a third party claim
(notice) against third parties the unlawful acts or omissions of
which may have had an adverse effect on the Company's share price
and may have contributed to any alleged damage which may have been
caused to any of the classes of alleged plaintiffs. The Company
will respond to the Application in the time frame ordered by the
Court.


NATIONAL GAS: Faces Suit Over Intrusive Making Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEN JOHANSEN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00587-
JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2017), is brought to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

In violation of the TCPA, National Gas & Electric placed
telemarketing calls to a telephone number Mr. Johansen had
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, for the purposes
of advertising its goods and services, according to the complaint.
Mr. Johansen asserts that he never consented to receive these
calls, and they were placed to him for telemarketing purposes.

National Gas & Electric, LLC, is a Texas corporation that has its
principal office in Houston, Texas.  The Company supplies
electricity and natural gas for homes and businesses in Illinois,
Ohio, Maryland, and New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Violates Securities Laws, Gallagher Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS GALLAGHER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC., AMARPREET SAWHNEY,
GEORGE MIGAUSKY, ANDREW HURLEY, and ERIC ANKERUD, Case No. 2:17-
cv-05011 (D.N.J., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The purported securities class action is brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Ocular Therapeutix from May 5, 2017, through July 6, 2017, both
dates inclusive.

Ocular Therapeutix is incorporated in Delaware and its principal
executive offices are located in Bedford, Massachusetts.  Ocular
Therapeutix focuses on the development and commercialization of
therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using its
proprietary hydrogel platform technology in the United States.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Duncan" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Optio Solutions, LLC (d/b/a Qualia
Collection Services), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02202 (S.D.
Ind., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Optio Solutions, doing business as Qualia Collection Services
(QCS), operates a nationwide debt collection business. Defendant
sent a collection letter to the plaintiff that does not give a
clear indication of who the actual creditor is. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


PANDA III: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sun" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Meng Sun, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Panda III Greenwich, Inc. d/b/a Panda Pavilion; Mei Gao, Baodi
Liu a/k/a Boadi Liu, and Simon Koh, Case No. 5:17-cv-01096 (D.
Conn., June 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over forty 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 420 West
Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, CT 06830. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
      CONOVER LAW OFFICES
      345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 588-9080
      E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com

         - and -

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

PCM INC: Aug. 7 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pamela Miller v. PCM, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
03364 (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Virginia A Phillips will hold a
hearing on Aug. 7 to consider the Motions for Appointment of
Counsel and Lead Plaintiff filed by:

     -- Richard Jacobson; and

     -- Radovan Rasa, Kenneth Rubenfeld, and Stephen Wise.

Mr. Jacobson is represented by Lesley Portnoy, Esq.

Rasa et al. are represented by Laurence Rosen, Esq.

PCM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that on May 3, 2017, a purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, entitled Miller v. PCM Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03364
(C.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2017). In this action, plaintiff,
purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of PCM
securities from June 17, 2015 through May 2, 2017, alleges that
the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections  78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec.  240.10b-
5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making
false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that
the financial statements of En Pointe, a company PCM acquired in
2015, materially overstated the profitability of En Pointe's
business.

The complaint has not yet been served. The Company believes that
the allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this
action vigorously.

PCM, Inc. is a multi-vendor provider of technology solutions,
including hardware products, software and services, offered
through its dedicated sales force and field service teams and
direct marketing channels.


PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiffs File Appeal
---------------------------------------------
Peabody 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 plaintiffs in the Lori J. Lynn
Class Action have filed a notice of appeal regarding the March
30th order granting the motion to dismiss.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement
plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against Peabody Energy Corporation
(PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the
Company's and PIC's current and former executives and employees,
alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an
investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of
the then current members and two former members of the relevant
boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012
to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that
included new allegations against the Company related to the
Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate
change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended
complaint also added the three committees responsible for
administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and
dropped several individual defendants, including the then current
directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the
Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three
Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed
against the individual defendants and the three named committees
with the second amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the
parties presented arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 30, 2017, the United States District Court granted the
motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal regarding the March 30th order granting the motion to
dismiss.

Peabody is the world's largest private-sector coal company by
volume.


PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss "Halvorsen" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned COURTNEY HALVORSEN, Plaintiff, v. PETERSON
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington corporation, dba VALLEY EMPIRE
COLLECTION, Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-00287-RMP (E.D. Wash.).

Defendant filed a writ of garnishment and an affidavit for
garnishment in support of the writ to collect a judgment.  This
writ of garnishment instructed Plaintiff's employer to withhold
funds owed to Plaintiff in the amount of the judgment, interest,
and costs.

Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court requesting class
action status and asserting that Defendant's writ of garnishment
was invalid because the affidavit for garnishment that accompanied
the writ omitted essential requirements and attempted to collect
fees and costs on the void writ of garnishment.

Plaintiff alleges that this omission and the actions by Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Washington Collection
Agency Act. Plaintiff's prayer for relief includes a request for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, money damages, and attorney
fees.

Defendant's challenge to Plaintiff's complaint is focused on Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b(1), a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate
if the complaint on its face, considered in its entirety, fails to
allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

The facts alleged by Plaintiff on all causes of action orbit
around the omission of necessary language in the affidavit for
garnishment prepared by Defendant, and Defendant's actions in
attempting to execute an invalid writ.

Plaintiff is asserting a legal wrong resulting from the act or
omission of an adverse party, even with the request for relief
from the state court judgment the complaint does not constitute a
de facto appeal. Therefore, this Court maintains subject matter
jurisdiction in this case under the statutes alleged by Plaintiff.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Denied.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/yZmUSQ from Leagle.com.

Cortney Halvorsen, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller, --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS.

Peterson Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I.
Hasson, Hasson Law LLC. 320 Cedar Ln, Teaneck, NJ 07666, USA


PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss Effexor End-Payers' Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to the
Effexor end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-
payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Appeal in Lipitor Litigation Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal related to the Lipitor
litigation remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

The Company said, "A number of individual and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state
courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as a
result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages."

"In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina. In 2016,
certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were remanded to
federal courts in California and certain state courts. In January
2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment,
dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases pending in the
Multi-District Litigation. In January 2017, the plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit."

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


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Action in Ontario Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, 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 Ontario Superior Court has issued an
order granting plaintiffs' motion for voluntary discontinuance of
the Ontario action related to Chantix/Champix.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary,
and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on
behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who
have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under
Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the
safety and efficacy of Champix and, on behalf of the putative
class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June
2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario
proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of
the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix
during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who
experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric
adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims
in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the
result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all
health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of
Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc.
only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed
until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class
members.

The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been
stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which was proceeding on a
national basis.

In April 2017, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for voluntary discontinuance of the Ontario
action, with the discontinuance to come into effect in 60 days
from the date the order was issued.


PFIZER INC: Celebrex End-Payers' Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, 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 Celebrex end-payers' appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remains pending.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex.
The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed
patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or
generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege
delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal
antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining
and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham
litigation and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through
settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of
the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class
for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014.

In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases,
and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015.

In October 2014 and March 2015, the Company filed motions to
dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints,
respectively.

In November 2015, the District Court denied in part and granted in
part our motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' amended
complaint.

In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted in
part our motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint, and
in August 2016, the District Court dismissed substantially all of
the end-payer's remaining claims.

In February 2017, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
of the end-payers' claims. In March 2017, the end-payers appealed
the District Court's order dismissing their claims with prejudice
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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


PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, 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 certified consumer class action is pending
against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its
hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in
December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who
purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement products between January
1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages
therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
including a full refund of the purchase price.


PFIZER INC: Suits over Eliquis Ongoing
--------------------------------------
Pfizer, 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 multi-
plaintiff lawsuits related to Eliquis.

The Company said, "A number of individual and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits have been filed against us and Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company in various federal and state courts pursuant to which
plaintiffs seek to recover for personal injuries, including
wrongful death, due to bleeding as a result of the alleged
ingestion of Eliquis. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages."

"In February 2017, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In Re: Eliquis (Apixaban) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2754)
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."

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


PFIZER INC: Defending Against EpiPen Purchasers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, 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 class action
lawsuits related to EpiPen.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of EpiPen
against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or
various entities affiliated with Mylan N.V., and Mylan N.V. Chief
Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions
seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or
entities who directly purchased or paid for any portion of the
end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.

Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege
that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent
litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen
in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust
or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges
that Pfizer and/or Mylan N.V. violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable
solely to, Mylan Pharmaceuticals regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek
treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009 on
behalf of the putative indirect purchaser class and since 2013 on
behalf of the putative direct purchaser class.


POPULAR INC: Class Certification Hearing Held in "Perez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 certification hearing was scheduled
for June 23, 2017, in the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related
Litigation.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Insurance,
LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have recently been named defendants
in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez Diaz v.
Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance,
Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class
against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance
Company, Real Legacy Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance
Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies"). Plaintiffs
essentially allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the
purported "class" of an estimated $400,000,000, plus legal
interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by
the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period,
as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant
Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance
agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to
the insured.

A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other
matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which
plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive
relief.

A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by all defendants,
which was unopposed as of the date of the hearing, was denied with
a right to replead following limited targeted discovery.

On March 24, 2017, the Popular defendants filed a certiorari
petition with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of
the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss. Popular and
MAPFRE recently asked the Court of Appeals to stay lower-court
proceedings pending resolution of certiorari petitions, which the
Court denied. Popular has asked the Court to reconsider such
denial. A class certification hearing was scheduled for June 23,
2017.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.


POPULAR INC: "Torres" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------
Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al,
remains pending, Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a
putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al.
v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto
Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks
damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf
of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well
other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers
to obtain a reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their legal and contractual duty to disclose the
existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or
treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that
defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to
offer this product).

Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to
dismiss and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief.
A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles
Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class
certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6th was re-
scheduled at the request of plaintiffs' counsel for May 17, 2017.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.


POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Mortgage-Related Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al., remains pending, Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al.
v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers. Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel. Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate HAMP,
HARP and other loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto
Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and TILA.

For the alleged violations stated above, Plaintiffs request that
all Defendants (over 20 separate defendants have been named,
including all local banks), jointly and severally, respond in an
amount of no less than $400,000,000.00. BPPR has not yet been
served.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.


POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Case in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the parties in the case, Nora Fernandez, et
al. v. UBS, et al., are in the discovery phase of the case.

Popular Securities has been named a defendant in a putative class
action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors
in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies.

UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named
defendant, is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while
BPPR, who was originally named in the complaint as well, was co-
sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds.

Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract
against Popular Securities, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS
entities. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.

The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined the opposition and motion filed by UBS.

By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court
granted defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the SDNY containing virtually
identical allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June
18, 2015. Oral arguments were held on the motions to dismiss in
front of Judge Stein of the SDNY on October 14, 2016.

On December 7, 2016, Judge Stein largely granted the motion to
dismiss of BPPR and Popular Securities. Judge Stein's order
("Order") dismissed all claims against BPPR and all but two breach
of contract claims against Popular Securities brought by one named
plaintiff.

Specifically, the Order dismissed claims stemming from purchases
of the funds in 2005, 2007 and 2011 as time-barred by the Puerto
Rico Uniform Securities Act. The Order also dismissed the claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting of a breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing stemming from a 2012 purchase for failure to state a
claim. The Court granted Plaintiffs 21 days to amend the complaint
for the 2012 claims only, but plaintiffs chose not to replead. The
Order stated that the final two contract claims, which allege that
Popular Securities failed to conduct a suitability analysis for
the named plaintiff as required by the parties' contract would be
allowed to proceed, because the Court was not prepared at the
motion to dismiss stage, to conclude that the plaintiff was
responsible for all investments enough to eliminate Popular
Securities' obligations regarding suitability. The parties are
currently in the discovery phase of the case.

On March 24, 2017, the sole named plaintiff filed a Notice of
Death, as a result of which plaintiff has 90 days to either find a
substitute plaintiff or dismiss the complaint against Popular
Securities. This term was slated to expire on June 22, 2017.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.


POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------
Popular, 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, Josefina Valle v. Popular Community Bank.

PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other
things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed
by PCB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25,
2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the
putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed in February 2014.

In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's
motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item
processing policy.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration.

In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on
July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel
arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing
reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to
notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did
not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the
alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs'
unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent
it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September
2011.

On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an answer to second amended complaint
and on April 7, 2016, it filed a notice of appeal on the partial
denial of PCB's motion to dismiss.

A mediation session held on September 21, 2016 proved
unsuccessful. Discovery is ongoing.

On January 3, 2017, PCB filed a brief with the Appellate Division
in support of its appeal of the lower Court's prior order that
granted in part and denied in part PCB's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Oral argument was held on
April 4, 2017. On April 25, 2017, the Court issued an order
denying PCB's appeal from the partial denial of the motion to
dismiss.

Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Suit over CIBC Merger Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Privatebancorp, 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 dismissed a class action
lawsuit related to the proposed merger with CIBC.

The Company said, "Following the original announcement of the
Company's proposed merger with CIBC in June 2016, three putative
class actions were filed on behalf of our public stockholders in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The three actions
were consolidated and styled In re PrivateBancorp, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 2016-CH-08949.  All of the actions named
as defendants the Company and each of its directors individually,
and asserted that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction. Two of the complaints
were also brought against CIBC and asserted that the Company and
CIBC aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches. The
actions broadly alleged that the transaction was the result of a
flawed process, that the price is unfair, and that certain
provisions of the merger agreement might dissuade a potential
suitor from making a competing offer, among other things.  The
plaintiffs later filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint adding the allegation that the Company's directors had
failed to disclose material information regarding the merger in
the proxy statement/prospectus."

"The plaintiffs in the action agreed in principle not to pursue
the action as a result of the inclusion of certain additional
disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") in the proxy
statement/prospectus contained in the registration statement filed
by CIBC on October 31, 2016. On March 6, 2017, the parties
executed a stipulation of settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"),
and on March 7, 2017 the plaintiffs dismissed the action. Pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement, the three plaintiffs agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the Action, without affecting the claims of
the putative class, with leave to reinstate the action if the
merger is not consummated on or before June 29, 2017.

"Defendants in turn agreed to settle plaintiffs' demand for a
mootness fee for $185,000, but only upon consummation of the
merger. If the merger is not consummated on or before June 29,
2017 and the action is reinstated, the Settlement Agreement will
be null and void, and plaintiffs may apply to the court for a
mootness fee award, which defendants may oppose, in whole or in
part. The Company continues to believe the complaints are without
merit, there are substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims asserted, and that proxy statement/prospectus contained in
the registration statement first filed by CIBC on August 15, 2016
disclosed all material information prior to the inclusion of the
Supplemental Disclosures."


PTC INC: Settlement in "Crandall" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1,
2017, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16-
cv-10471, was filed against us and certain of our current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, ostensibly on behalf of purchasers of
our stock during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29,
2015. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that,
during that period, PTC's public disclosures concerning
investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the U.S. Department of Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act matters in China (the "China Investigation") were false and/or
misleading.  The parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit for an
amount that is not material to our results of operations and the
associated liability was accrued in our fiscal 2016 results. A
joint stipulation of settlement received preliminary court
approval on March 23, 2017 and a hearing to consider final
approval was scheduled for July 13, 2017.

"We cannot predict the outcome of that hearing," the Company said.

The settlement provides for a settlement amount of $2,100,000.

The Settlement Class means all Persons (except Defendants, members
of the immediate family of any individual defendant, any entity in
which any Defendant has more than a 50% ownership interest, or
which any Defendant controls, and the legal representatives,
heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party) who
purchased or otherwise acquired PTC common stock during the period
from November 24, 2011 through July 29, 2015 inclusive, including
any Persons who sold PTC shares short and then purchased shares to
cover that short position during the Settlement Class Period, and
excluding those Persons who timely and validly request exclusion
from the Settlement Class in accordance with the instructions
contained in and requirements of the "Notice of Pendency and
Settlement of Class Action" to be sent to the Settlement Class.

Strategic Claims Services has been appointed as claims
administrator.

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     Jonathan Horne, Esq.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212-686-1060

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

     Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: 617.398.5600
     Fax: 617.507.6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             jason@blockesq.com
             joel@blockesq.com

Counsel for Defendants PTC Inc., James Heppelmann, Jeffrey
Glidden, Andrew Miller, Robert P. Schechter, Paul A. Lacy, Thomas
Bogan, and Donald K. Grierson:

     Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
     GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
     The New York Times Building
     620 Eighth Avenue
     New York, NY 10018
     Tel: 212.813.8800
     Fax: 212.355.3333
     E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com

          - and -

     Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Esq.
     GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
     100 Northern Avenue
     Boston, MA 02210
     Tel: 617.570.1000
     Fax: 617.523.1231
     E-mail: ifriedmanboyce@goodwinlaw.com

PTC is a global computer software and services company.


RELIANT CAPITAL: Wins Prelim. OK of Settlement in "Etienne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, grants preliminary approval to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit
entitled ESTHER ETIENNE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-02359-WFK-JO (E.D.N.Y.).

The "Settlement Class" is defined as:

     All consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters
     and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect an
     obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Touro College which
     state an amount due on which interest or other charges were
     accruing, but which failed to state that interest or other
     charges may be accruing on that amount.

The "Class Claims" is defined as those claims arising from RCS's
collection letters, wherein RCS sent consumers written collection
communications, which included language that allegedly falsely
represented the amount of the debt.

Judge Kuntz appoints Esther Etienne as the Class Representative
and appoints Ari Marcus, Esq., and Yitzchak Zelman, Esq., as Class
Counsel.  The Court also approves the Parties' proposed Class
Notice and directs that it be mailed to the last known address of
the Settlement Class Members.

The Class Administrator will cause the Class Notice to be mailed
to Settlement Class members on or before August 4, 2017.
Settlement Class members will have until September 18, 2017, to
exclude themselves from or object to the proposed settlement.

A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WXlB95lx


RENTECH INC: Shareholder Lawsuits at Preliminary Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that shareholder lawsuits are each at a
preliminary stage.

On February 22, 2017, Juan Las Heras, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a federal securities class action complaint on
behalf of other shareholders of Rentech similarly situated to Mr.
Heras, against Rentech, Inc., Jeffrey R. Spain, and Keith Forman
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(the "Heras Lawsuit").

On February 23, 2017, Cheng Jiangchen , a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a federal securities class action complaint on
behalf of other shareholders of Rentech, Inc. similarly situated
to Mr. Jiangchen, against Rentech, Inc. and Keith Forman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Jiangchen Lawsuit").

On March 7, 2017, Carlos Raul Cuadra, a purported shareholder of
Rentech, filed a federal securities class action complaint on
behalf of other shareholders of Rentech similarly situated to Mr.
Cuadra, against Rentech, Inc., Jeffrey R. Spain, and Keith Forman
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(the "Cuadra Lawsuit", and together with the Heras Lawsuit and the
Jiangchen Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits allege, among other things, that in the Company's
disclosure related to third quarter earnings and financial results
in November 2016, the Company made false and misleading statements
because they failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
Canadian operations which facts were later disclosed in a press
release issued by Rentech on February 21, 2017 (the "Press
Release").

The Lawsuits also allege that Company officers named in the
respective Lawsuits knowingly and substantially participated or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of materially false
and misleading statements. The Lawsuits seek compensation for
losses resulting from fluctuations in stock price of the Company
in the period from November 2016 through February 2017, as well as
attorney fees, expert fees and costs.

The Lawsuits are each at a preliminary stage. The Company believes
the Lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against these
claims vigorously.

Rentech is a pure play wood fibre processing company with three
core businesses: contract wood handling and chipping services, the
manufacture and sale of wood pellets for the U.S. heating market
and the manufacture, aggregation and sale of wood pellets for the
utility and industrial power generation market.


RESONANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 20
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc. et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02054 (C.D. Cal.), Judge S. James Otero entered an order
on July 13 granting preliminary approval of settlement and
directing dissemination of notice to class members.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
for purposes of the Settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs William E.
Haskins and Brent Kaneshiro are appointed as Class Representatives
and Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Kirby McInerney, LLP are appointed
Class Counsel, and Westerman Law Corp. and Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP are appointed as Co-Liaison Counsel.

A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on
November 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

The Court appoints the firm of JND Class Action Administration LLC
as Claims Administrator.

Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx). On
February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended complaint, purporting to assert claims under the federal
securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the
underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. In the consolidated second
amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf
of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common
stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a
class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares
in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a
result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations,
prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015."

"On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated second
amended complaint. The court granted our motion to dismiss with
respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised
on alleged misstatements made on February 26, 2015. The court
denied our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and with respect
to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those
claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in November and
December of 2014 and January of 2015.

"On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its
July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that
the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with
respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The court has set a trial date of September 19, 2017.

"The parties in the putative class action have reached a
settlement that, if approved by the court, will fully resolve
plaintiffs' claims and provide for the release of all claims
asserted in the litigation. The settlement amount will be paid by
our insurance carrier.

"On March 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement."

Resonant Inc. is creating an innovative software, intellectual
property, or IP, and a services platform that it believes has the
ability to increase designer efficiency, reduce the time to market
and lower unit costs in the design of filters for radio frequency,
or RF, front-ends for the mobile device industry.


RIGHTSIDE GROUP: Faces "Paskowitz" Suit Over Sale to Donuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rightside Group, Ltd., David E. Panos, Taryn
Naidu, Diane M. Irvine, Robert J. Majteles, James R. Quandt,
Richard C. Spalding, Donuts Inc., and DTS Sub Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-00992 (W.D. Wash., June 30, 2017), stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 1, pursuant to which Rightside
Group, Ltd. will be acquired by Donuts Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, DTS Sub Inc., where stockholders of Rightside will
receive $10.60 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, Rightside filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that Rightside stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the
Solicitation fails to disclose Rightside's financial projections:
(i) net income; (ii) interest; (iii) income taxes; (iv)
depreciation and amortization; (v) stock-based compensation; (vi)
gains, losses, and expenses; and (vii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act
as stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The
Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Rightside's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy
defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
problems are remedied.

Rightside Group, Ltd. provides domain name registration and
related value-added services to resellers and domain name
registrants in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Townsend, Esq.
      BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
      1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 652-8660
      E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

         - and -

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


ROYAL OAK, MI: Court Junks TRO Bid in Search & Seizure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
application for Temporary Restraining Order in the case captioned
Joseph Gale, Plaintiff, v. Corrigan O'Donohue, et. al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-12172 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Joseph Gale filed a Verified Class Action Complaint
against City of Royal Oak Police Chief Corrigan O'Donohue and
Royal Oak Police Officers Phillip Klinge, Mike Parmo, and Nathan
Heppner.  Plaintiff's complaint alleges that, Defendants
unconstitutionally searched and seized Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims and state law
claims against Defendants as a result of the allegedly
unconstitutional search and seizure.

Federal Rule of Civil procedure 65(b)(1) allows for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order, without written or oral notice
to the adverse party, only if: (1) specific facts in a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss
or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can
be heard; and (2) If the movant's attorney certifies in writing
any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should
not be required.

Here, neither of the requirements are met, the District Court
held.  First, Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer
immediate and irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard. In
fact, Plaintiff's complaint establishes that he has already been
harmed the unconstitutional search and seizure is alleged to have
already taken place.

Temporary restraining orders are extraordinary remedies designed
to protect the status quo pending final resolution of a lawsuit.

Here, the relief Plaintiff seeks would essentially disrupt the
status quo rather than preserve it, the District Court further
held.

Second, Plaintiff's attorney has failed to certify, in writing,
whether any efforts have been made to give notice to Defendants
and the reasons why notice should not be required.

The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/RJ2t63 from Leagle.com

Joseph Gale, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Benjamin Gale,
MICHIGAN LITIGATION LAW, 2020 Hazel St., Birmingham, MI, 48009
Office (248) 850-5824 Fax (248) 856-0573


SANTEK WASTE: "Smith" Suit in Ala. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Smith, individually and on behalf of all current and
former Waste Disposal Drivers v. Santek Waste Services, LLC,
Santek Environmental, Inc., Santek Environmental of Alabama, LLC
and Waste Services of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01113-SGC
(N.D. Ala., June 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a full-service waste disposal company,
managing publicly owned landfills and a fleet of trash collection
vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick D. McMurtray, Esq.
      T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
      Dan Beasley, Esq.
      FRAZER PLC
      1 Burton Hills Blvd.
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 647-0990
      Facsimile: (866) 274-5384
      E-mail: patrick@frazer.law
              roe@frazer.law
              dan@frazer.law

         - and -

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


SEAVIEW RESTAURANTS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Seaview Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Gladstones
for Fish, California Beach Restaurants, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC667160 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley C. Gage, Esq.
      Terry M. Goldberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GOLDBERG & GAGE
      23001 Victory Boulevard
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 340-9252
      Facsimile: (818) 340-9088
      E-mail: Bgage@goldbergandgage.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
      SPENCER LAW FIRM
      903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
      San Clemente, CA 92673
      Telephone: (949) 240-8595
      Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
      E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


SERVIS ONE: "Kolenko" Says Policies Undermine Duty to Homeowners
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KOLENKO and JACKIE BARHAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVIS ONE, INC. d/b/a
BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00183-
AJS (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant has fallen
far short of meeting its obligation to accurately communicate and
fairly interact with homeowners, and has instituted policies and
practices that actively undermine Defendant's duty to homeowners.
Among other alleged violations, Defendant requires its employees
to call a certain number of borrowers with delinquent or
distressed loans per shift, and penalizes its employees in the
event they do not meet this quota.

Defendant Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services, Inc. is a
mortgage servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
            bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
            kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     Two Penn Center Plaza
     1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 792-6676
     Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


SHAKE SHACK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Shake Shack Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04961 (S.D.N.Y., June 30,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, thereby denying them the full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations.

Shake Shack Inc. operates Shake Shack restaurants as well as the
Shake Shack website and advertises, markets, distributes, and
sells food in the State of New York and throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com

         - and -


      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


SM ENERGY: "Lirette" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LIRETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SM ENERGY COMPANY, Case No. 4:17-cv-02093
(S.D. Tex., July 7, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from SM under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, SM paid the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers a daily rate with
no overtime pay and improperly classified them as independent
contractors, Mr. Lirette alleges.

SM is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company
operating throughout the United States, including in Texas.  To do
so, SM employs oilfield personnel, like the Plaintiff, to carry
out its work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  jbresler@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Roxberry" Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Roxberry, et. al, v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC.

The Company said, "On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs
filed a putative class action against us and our distribution
subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc. ("SLD") in the Eastern
District Court of Tennessee.  In late 2016, we converted SLD from
a corporation into a limited liability company, or LLC. The case
was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The
lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of a class
comprised of IBOs in Tennessee, and nationwide certification for
the Federal law collective action. The plaintiffs allege that they
were misclassified as independent contractors and should be
considered employees.  We believe we have strong defenses to all
the claims that have been asserted against us.  We cannot
reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, from this lawsuit."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Scheurer" Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Scheurer v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC.

The Company said, "On December 8, 2016, plaintiff served a
putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated IBOs in
New Jersey against our distribution subsidiary, SLD. Plaintiff is
a former IBO whose distribution agreement was terminated pursuant
to the re-engineering and buyback of routes in New Jersey in 2011,
resulting from the merger of Snyder's of Hanover, Inc. and Lance,
Inc. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on behalf of
a class comprised of IBOs in New Jersey for alleged violations of
the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act relative to various
terminations of the distributor agreement. We believe we have
strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against
us. At this time, no demand has been made, and we cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
from this lawsuit."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Settlement in "Sparks" Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. 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, Sparks v. Diamond Foods, Inc., a
final fairness hearing on whether the proposed settlement, fees
and costs should be approved was scheduled for July 5, 2017.

Additional information on the case is available at:

               http://www.sparksvdiamondfoods.com/

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Diamond Foods on November 25, 2015 in San
Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond Foods' violation of the
California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the
start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage
statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the
employer.  Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to
add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys
General Act based on the same underlying violations.  Diamond
Foods timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7,
2016.

The parties attended the initial case management conference on May
2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on
August 1, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the parties to this
litigation reached a tentative settlement pursuant to which we
have agreed to pay $0.7 million on a class wide basis. We signed a
memorandum of understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement
amount. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court
and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 24, 2017. A final fairness hearing on whether the
proposed settlement, fees and costs should be approved was
scheduled for July 5, 2017.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: "Bensman" Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Bensman v. Diamond Foods, LLC et. al.

Diamond Foods, LLC employee Della Bensman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, LLC and Snyder's-Lance, Inc.
on April 4, 2017 in San Joaquin Superior Court alleging the
companies' violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff
alleges the companies' failure to provide third rest breaks when
Plaintiff or other employees worked a shift over ten hours and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees
in periods in which they worked more than ten hours and did not
receive a third rest break. Plaintiff's Complaint also includes a
claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act and an unfair business practices claim pursuant to the
California Business and Professions Code based on the same
underlying violations.  At this time, no demand has been made and
we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss
from this lawsuit.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that Late July's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Evaporated Cane Juice Litigation remains pending.

A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks,
LLC on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the District Court
for the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late
July Snacks, LLC of violating federal and state law by using the
term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on
its products' labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not
the common and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is
misleading. The complaint attempts to state claims for violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
unjust enrichment. Late July Snacks, LLC filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure to state a
claim.

On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing
consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels.
On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the
topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. On
August 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among
other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance. Late
July filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and a
hearing on that motion was held on February 16, 2017.

"At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit," the Company said.


SPORT CARWASH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Minimum Wages, Arinah Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Arinah, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Sport Carwash, LLC (aka "City Car Care"); Sport
Carwash Homestead, LLC; Sport Carwash Properties, LLC; Sport
Carwash Properties Homestead, LLC; Emilio Antelo; Domenico
Prevete; Alexis Adan; and Ana M. Prevete, Case No. 1:17-cv-22552-
KMM (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have
failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all
overtime pay and minimum wages they are owed, by requiring them to
work off the clock and work over 40 hours per week without
receiving "time and a half."

Sport Carwash, LLC, also known as City Car Care, is an active
Florida limited liability company, doing business in Doral,
Florida.  Sport Carwash Homestead, LLC, is an active Florida
limited liability company, doing business in Coral Gables,
Florida.

Sport Carwash Properties, LLC, is an active Florida limited
liability company, doing business in Doral, Florida.  Sport
Carwash Properties Homestead, LLC, is an active Florida limited
liability company, doing business in Coral Gables, Florida.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, directors or owners of the
Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven F. Grover, Esq.
          FOR STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
          507 S.E. 11 Ct.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 290-8826
          E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com


STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Action Lawsuits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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
Contract Class Action Lawsuits.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Penns ylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself
and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or
"whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex
rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390,
which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously
disclosed.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and
state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted
claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action").

"On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally
denying the allegations therein. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we
filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016, generally
denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety of
affirmative defenses.

"Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 29,
2016. On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a
class of "[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003
through the date of trial resided in the United States (except
Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small
Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than
their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste
disposal good and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated
price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were
asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall
be excluded from the class."

"On March 2, 2017, Stericycle filed a motion for reconsideration
and clarification relating to the Court's class certification
decision. That motion is currently pending while the parties
consider whether there would be any benefit to engaging in
mediation. Discussions through and overseen by a mediator have
ensued between the parties, and the parties may determine to take
further steps toward engaging in formal mediation or take other
steps toward a consensual resolution of the matter. The case
remains ongoing.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
each of these lawsuits."


STERICYCLE INC: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to
sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly
traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016,
inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public
offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest
in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or
around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the
Company, our directors and certain of our current and former
officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive
price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of
its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those
alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued
during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and
ending April 28, 2016."

"On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named
defendant in plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, which had previously been asserted only against the
Underwriters and certain officers and directors.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017. Plaintiffs' response to that motion
was due May 19, 2017.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit,"
the Company said.


STERICYCLE INC: TCPA Lawsuit Underway
-------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 still defends TCPA class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative
class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-
4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary,
Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), asserting that the defendants
called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute.
Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge
the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for
those products."

"Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One
class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone
calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice
message relating to a product recall, where the called party was
not the same individual who, according to Stericycle's records,
was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes
people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from
Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message
relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to
Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such
calls to their cellular telephone number.

"On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material
allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the
asserted defenses is the "emergency" exception to the TCPA, which
exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On
December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case,
we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of
the "emergency" exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff
responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The
court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the
requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in
response to that order.

"On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended
complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an "emergency"
exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an
opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the
proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary
judgment."

Stericyle is a business-to-business services provider with a focus
on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses.


SUNOPTA INC: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunopta, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are
engaged in pre-class certification discovery.

On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed
against Sunrise Growers, Inc. (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in
California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages,
equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for alleged wage
and hour violations. This case includes claims for failure to pay
all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest
period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage
statements and unfair business practices. The putative class
includes approximately 8,500 to 9,000 non-exempt hourly employees
from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard,
California. The parties are currently engaged in pre-class
certification discovery. The Company is unable to estimate any
potential liabilities relating to this proceeding, and any such
liabilities could be material.

The Company operates businesses focused on a healthy products
portfolio that promotes sustainable well-being. The Company's two
reportable segments, Global Ingredients and Consumer Products,
operate in the natural, organic and specialty food sectors and
utilize an integrated business model to bring cost-effective and
quality products to market.


SUNPOWER CORP: Aug. 31 Hearing on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re Sunpower Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:16-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal.), The SunPower Investor Group on
July 21 filed a Motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff and to
approve its selection of Lead Counsel.

JianFei Huang and Gregory Binkiewicz also filed a competing Motion
for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel.

The Hon. Richard Seeborg will hold a hearing on August 31 to
consider approval of the request.  Responses are due Aug. 4.

SunPower said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2,
2017, that two securities class action lawsuits were filed on
August 16, 2016 and August 26, 2016, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
the Company's securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9,
2016 (the "Class Period"). The substantially identical complaints
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance
of the Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised
guidance and generally allege that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

On December 9, 2016, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On March 31, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff. That motion is set
to be heard on May 25, 2017.

SunPower Corporation is a global energy company that delivers
complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power
plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware, software,
and financing options and through utility-scale solar power system
construction and development capabilities, operations and
maintenance ("O&M") services, and "Smart Energy" solutions.


TAHOE RESOURCES: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE R. CABRERA JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TAHOE RESOURCES INC., RONALD W. CLAYTON, C.
KEVIN McARTHUR, ELIZABETH DIANNE McGREGOR, and MARK T. SADLER,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05155 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tahoe securities between April 3, 2013, and July 5, 2017,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tahoe, together with its subsidiaries, explores, develops, and
operates mines in the Americas.  The Company primarily produces
copper, gold, silver, lead/zinc, and natural gas and petroleum, as
well as precious metals assets.  Formerly known as CKM Resources
Inc., the Company changed its name to Tahoe Resources Inc. in
January 2010.  Tahoe is headquartered in Reno, Nevada.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TECOGEN INC: Bid for Expedited Discovery in "May" Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that William May's motion for expedited discovery
in his class action lawsuit has been denied.

On or about February 6, 2017, Tecogen was served with a Verified
Complaint by William C. May ("May"), individually and on behalf of
the other shareholders of American DG Energy ("ADGE"). The
complaint names Tecogen as a defendant, along with ADGE, John
Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Charles T. Maxwell, Deanna M.
Petersen, Christine Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan Giacinti, Elias
Samaras, and ADGE.Acquisition Corp. The action was commenced in
the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 17-0390.

The complaint alleges that the proposed Merger is subject to
certain conflicts of interest; that the Exchange Ratio undervalues
ADGE's outstanding shares; that Tecogen's registration statement
on Form S-4 contained material omissions and that Tecogen aided
and abetted ADGE's board of directors breaching of their fiduciary
duties. Among other things, the complaint also alleged that ADGE's
board failed to protect their stockholders by failing to conduct
an auction or market check and that ADGE's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger proposal. The
plaintiff is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions related
to the Merger, rescissory damages, compensatory damages,
accounting, and other relief.

The May action is in its earliest stages. The state court denied
May's motion for expedited discovery. The defendants have not yet
answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, and May has not
yet filed a motion for injunctive relief.

Tecogen Inc., Company produces commercial and industrial, natural-
gas-fueled engine-driven, combined heat and power (CHP) products
that reduce energy costs, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and
alleviate congestion on the national power grid.


TECOGEN INC: "Vardakas" Action in Earliest Phase
------------------------------------------------
Tecogen 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 lawsuit by Lee Vardakas is
in its earliest phase.

On or about February 15, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Lee
Vardakas ("Vardakas"), individually and on behalf of other
shareholders of ADGE, naming Tecogen as a defendant, along with
ADGE, John N. Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Benjamin Locke,
Charles T. Maxwell, Deanne M. Petersen, Christine M. Klaskin, John
Rowe, Joan Giacinti, Elias Samaras, Tecogen.ADGE Acquisition
Corp., and Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC. Among other things, the
complaint alleges (1) the merger is the result of a flawed and
conflicted sales process and that the Exchange Ratio undervalues
ADGE's outstanding shares and (2) Tecogen's registration statement
on Form S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (a) the financial analyses performed by
ADGE's  financial advisor, (b) financial projections for ADGE and
Tecogen, and (c) conflicts of interest in the sales process.  The
complaint also asserts that defendants violated Section 14(a)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange
Act"), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, as a result of the alleged
materially incomplete and misleading information; that the
directors and officers of ADGE have control person liability for
the alleged material misstatements and omissions pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; that the directors of ADGE
breached their fiduciary duties to ADGE's stockholders related to
the merger, including that they failed to take steps to obtain the
highest possible consideration for ADGE shareholders in the
transaction; that Mr. John Hatsopoulos and Mr. George Hatsopoulos,
acting in concert and as a group, as controlling shareholders of
ADGE, violated their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of ADGE;
and that Mr. George Hatsopoulos, Tecogen.ADGE Acquisition Corp.,
and ADGE's financial advisor aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors and officers of ADGE.  Vardakas
is seeking to certify a class action, a preliminary injunction,
damages, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
The Vardakas action is in its earliest phase. The defendants have
not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, and
Vardakas has not yet filed a motion for injunctive relief.

Tecogen Inc., Company produces commercial and industrial, natural-
gas-fueled engine-driven, combined heat and power (CHP) products
that reduce energy costs, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and
alleviate congestion on the national power grid.


TELIGENT INC: 10 Putative Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that to date, ten putative class action antitrust
lawsuits have been filed against Teligent Inc. along with co-
defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Perrigo
Company PLC, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. The
actions have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased
or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from
any of the defendants from October 1, 2012 (or later in some
complaints) until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct ceased or will cease.

The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic
econazole, in violation of federal antitrust laws or state
antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek
treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole
during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against
Teligent.

All of these cases are in their initial stages. The court is
currently assessing briefing schedules for motions to dismiss.

"Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a
judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is
either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims,"
the Company said.

Teligent, Inc. and its subsidiaries, is a specialty generic
pharmaceutical company.


TITANIUM CONSTRUCTIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Samaniego"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend Complaint and Class Certification in the case captioned
SAMANIEGO, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. TITANIUM CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendant(s), No. 16 Civ. 1113
(LGS)(S.D.N.Y.); however, Defendant's Motion for Decertification
is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Charles Gucciardo and a putative class of current and
former employees Defendants Titanium Construction Services, Inc.,
and Anthony O'Donnell move for class certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Plaintiffs also move to amend the Complaint to dismiss Named
Plaintiff Vinicio Samaniego. Defendants cross-move to decertify
the conditionally certified class, and request that costs be
imposed on Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, in which they asserted claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

The Complaint specifically alleges that Defendants have a policy
and/or plan to violate FLSA and NYLL, which involves willfully and
purposefully failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets
and payroll records.

The Complaint further alleges that Defendants violated FLSA and
NYLL by paying employees by check for hours worked up to 40 hours
per week, and by cash for hours worked above 40 hours per week, at
the employees' regular hourly wage rate.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that plaintiffs may
sue on behalf of a class where: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions
of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of
the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted because he
has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Rule 23's
requirements are met:

   1. Numerosity. Because Plaintiffs have established that the
proposed class includes at least 50 individuals and joinder is
impracticable, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.

   2. Commonality.  Plaintiffs have shown commonality. Commonality
is satisfied where there are questions of law or fact common to
the class.  A question of law or fact [is] common to the class if
the question is capable of class-wide resolution which means that
its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

   3. Typicality and Adequacy. Defendants contend that Named
Plaintiff lacks credibility, in part, because of his arrests for
drug possession, his possession of narcotics both before and while
working for Titanium, and his termination for dealing drugs on the
job. The inquiry into the representative's personal qualities is
not an examination into their moral righteousness, but rather an
inquiry directed at improper or questionable conduct arising out
of or touching upon the very prosecution of the lawsuit.  Even if
Defendants' assertions regarding Named Plaintiff's indiscretions
are true, they do not touch upon the prosecution of the lawsuit,
which at its core is about Defendants' alleged policy of failing
to pay overtime wages. At most they may call [Plaintiffs']
credibility into question but they do not cast a shadow of doubt
so severe as to disqualify him from serving as class
representative. Accordingly, typicality and adequacy are
satisfied.

   4. Ascertainability.  Here, the proposed class includes all
individuals that Titanium employed as construction workers at New
York City job sites since February 2010, and is sufficiently
definite such that no subjective criteria is required to determine
the class' contours.  Where the court found that ascertainability
was satisfied in a wage and hour case, the class can clearly be
ascertained by objective documentation, such as Defendants'
employee payroll records and wage statements." For this reason,
and because ascertainability is not disputed, this requirement is
met.

   5. Predominance. Plaintiffs have alleged and proffered
evidence, that construction workers employed by Titanium were
subject to a common, illegal, overtime compensation policy. If
Plaintiffs prevail in showing the existence of a common policy at
trial, each of the individual class members likely will prevail on
their respective claims against Defendants.

   6. Superiority. Potential class members are aggrieved by the
same policies, the damages suffered are small relative to the
expense and burden of individual litigation, and some potential
class members are currently employed by the defendants."

Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified class
is denied as moot because Plaintiffs have withdrawn the consent to
join forms of all Opt-In Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants cite no
legal authority to support their request for the imposition of
costs on Plaintiffs, and may not move for costs in a sur-reply.
Defendants' motion for costs is denied.

Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint to remove Vinicio
Samaniego, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, are
granted. Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally
certified FLSA collective action is denied as moot.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/5ZqupM from Leagle.com.

Vinicio Samaniego, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd Robert
Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor,
New York, NY 10004  Phone: (212) 943-9080

Vinicio Samaniego, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Lee Genova,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY
10004  Phone

Charles Gucciardo, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd Robert
Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Alison Lee Genova, Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP.

Titanium Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brett Reed Gallaway -- bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin
and Stern, LLP, Lee Scott Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com --
McLaughlin and Stern, LLP & Ralph R. Hochberg --
rhochberg@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin and Stern, LLP.

Anthony O'Donnell, Defendant, represented by Brett Reed Gallaway,
McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, Lee Scott Shalov, McLaughlin and Stern,
LLP & Ralph R. Hochberg, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP.


TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Marketed Aloe Vera Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Shaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trader Joe's Company and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC667291 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2017), arises from the false,
deceptive, and misleading label of Trader Joe's Aloe Vera Gel. The
Product's label describes the Product as "Aloe Vera Gel"
containing "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice", when in reality the
Product contains no detectible amount of Aloe Vera at all.

Trader Joe's Company owns and operates grocery stores throughout
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
      Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL, LLP
      707 Wishire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (844) 622-6469
      Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
      E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
              gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com


TRANSENTERIX INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bankley" Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Transenterix, 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 motions to dismiss the case, Ashok V.
Bankley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P.
Slattery, is awaiting the court's decision.

In an Order dated June 7, Chief Judge James C. Dever III held that
the Court's Order for Discovery Plan dated May 19, vacated; and
all discovery and other proceedings in this action, including the
completion of a FRCP 26() conference, the submission of a FRCP
26(f) discovery plan, and the submission of Rule 26(a) initial
disclosures, are stayed during the pendency of Defendants',
motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Violations of
Federal Securities Laws.

On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the
"Initial Complaint"), against the Company and two of its executive
officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and
May 10, 2016.  On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under
the securities laws.   On August 30, 2016, the court appointed
Randall Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association,
and the North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead
plaintiffs in the Initial Complaint, and also provided the
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint.  On
September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts
revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery,
and adds claims against certain current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the
sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the
Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock
in its 2016 ATM Offering.  The Amended Complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements related to
the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in
violation of certain federal securities laws.  The Amended
Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class
certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock in connection with the 2016
ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On
November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. As of January 23, 2017, the motions to dismiss were
fully briefed and deemed submitted to the court for decision.


TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Transenterix, 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 Maine class action has been stayed
pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
in the Bankley Action.

On March 3, 2017, a different stockholder filed another putative
class action complaint on behalf of the Company, captioned Scott
Maine vs. Paul LaViolette, et al., in the Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number
17CV002590) (the "Maine Action").  The complaint in the Maine
Action is substantially similar to the complaint in the Pikal
Action, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
against largely the same group of defendants named in the
complaint in the Pikal Action.

On April 11, 2017, the court entered an order staying the Maine
Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Bankley Action.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Toll Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned ARON ROSENZWEIG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-00227 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff brings a class action against TSI alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 (FDCPA), the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and the Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

This matter arises from an unpaid toll that Plaintiff incurred
through the use, or failure thereof, of an E-ZPass transponder.
Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contractual relationship
with E-ZPass where he used an extension of credit to pay tolls in
E-ZPass approved toll lanes.

According to the Plaintiff, TSI mailed a "dunning" letter to
Plaintiff in an attempt to collect $55.50 allegedly owed to MTA
Bridges and Tunnels E-ZPass.  The amount consisted of $5.50 due to
an unpaid toll or tolls as well as a $50.00 administrative fee.
The letter states, "Current Balance Due: $55.50" and that your
account balance may be periodically increased due to the addition
of accrued interest or other charges as provided in the agreement
with the original creditor or as otherwise provided by law.
Standard of Review

According to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a court should dismiss a complaint when it fails "to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive
dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.

To succeed on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that
(1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3)
the defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect
a 'debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated
a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.

The District Court held that, here only the third element is at
issue. Specifically, Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC on the
basis that the unpaid toll violation, and the resulting toll
violation fee, are not consumer debts under the FDCPA.

Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's collection letters treated
the debt as one governed by the FDCPA throughout its collection
efforts, so the FDCPA should apply.

The Court disagrees.

The proper inquiry is whether the obligation in question is a debt
as defined by the FDCPA, not whether a defendant happens to call
it a debt. merely because a defendant calls itself a debt
collector" does not mean that it is a debt collector under the
FDCPA; the proper inquiry is whether the defendant meets the
definition of debt collector as defined by the act. Surely,
collection of a property tax would not be converted into a "debt"
under the FDCPA merely because the collector called it one. The
same is true here.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the
TCCWNA for, among other reasons, failing to plausibly plead that
Defendant is a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee as
required by the Statute. Plaintiff counters that Defendant is
either a creditor or bailee. The Court disagrees and finds that
Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a claim under the TCCWNA.

To state a claim under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must plead the
following four elements: (1) the plaintiff is a consumer; (2) the
defendant is a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee; (3) the
defendant offers the plaintiff a contract or gives or displays any
written notice or sign; and (4) the contract, notice, or sign
includes a provision that violates any legal right of a consumer
or responsibility of the seller, lessor, creditor, lender or
bailee.

Plaintiffs' allegations support the theory that Defendant acted as
a debt collector, and not a creditor or a bailee. Defendant sought
to collect an unpaid toll from Plaintiff. Defendant did not sell,
lease, lend or bail any money or property to Plaintiff' as
required by the TCCWNA.  Plaintiff does not state a claim under
the TCCWNA.

Defendant's motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/G8ywZ4 from Leagle.com.

ARON ROSENZWEIG, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ZEMEL, Zemel Law
LLC. 70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3, Newark, NJ 07114-2012
ARON ROSENZWEIG, Plaintiff, represented by FRED M. ZEMEL, THE
ZEMEL LAW FIRM.

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by AARON RAPHAEL
EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions.legal.com -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN
& ISRAEL, LLC.


TRG CUSTOMER: Cronk Seeks Compensation for Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Cronk and Jefferson Barbosa, Individually, and on behalf
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs,
v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc., d/b/a IBEX Global Solutions, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00059 (M.D. Tenn., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid straight time, minimum wage and overtime compensation,
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,
including claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract
under Tennessee Law.

TRG Customer Solutions operates as IBEX Global Solutions operating
in five countries including the U.S.  Plaintiffs worked as call
center agents. They claim compensation for off-the-clock work
rendered, specifically when they are not signed in into the
system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Duffy Challenges Proposed Merger With Sinclair
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DUFFY, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, BRUCE ALLEN KARSH, PETER M.
KERN, PETER E. MURPHY, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS B. LEVINSOHN, and
LAURA R. WALKER, Case No. 1:17-cv-00919-UNA (D. Del., July 7,
2017), challenges the proposed merger between Tribune and Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc.

On May 8, 2017, Tribune and Sinclair jointly announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger under which
each outstanding share of Tribune common stock will be exchanged
for $35 in cash and 0.23 shares of Sinclair, representing an
implied value of $43.50 per share.

Tribune, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified media and
entertainment company.  The Company was founded in 1847 and is
headquartered in Chicago Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

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


TRICO BANCSHARES: Settlement of Bankers' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares 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 lawsuits by two personal
bankers remains pending.

On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former branch employees with the
same or similar job duties, employed by the Bank within the State
of California during the preceding four years.

On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
expanding the class definition to include all current and former
non-exempt branch employees employed by the Bank within the State
of California at any time during the period of September 15, 2010
to the entry of judgment. The Bank responded to the First Amended
Complaint by denying the charges and the parties engaged in
written discovery. The parties then engaged in non-binding
mediation during the third quarter of 2016.

In addition to this, on January 20, 2015, a then-current Personal
Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First
Amended Complaint against the Bank and the Company in Sacramento
County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage
statement violations. As part of the Complaint Plaintiff is
seeking to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-
exempt employees who worked for the Company and/or the Bank during
the time period of December 12, 2013 to October 21, 2016.

The Company and the Bank responded to the First Amended Complaint
by denying the charges and engaging in written discovery with
Plaintiff. The parties then engaged in non-binding mediation of
the action during the third quarter of 2016 as well.

As part of the mediations, which took place concurrently, the Bank
agreed in principal to settle the two matters. In connection with
the settlement and in consideration of a full release of all
claims raised in both the actions, the Bank has agreed to pay up
to $1.9 million though the actual cost of the settlement will
depend on the number of claims submitted by the members of the
purported classes. As a result, the Bank estimates the actual cost
of the settlement may be approximately $1,450,000, and recorded
such estimate.

The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to the members of the purported classes.
Provided the parties can agree on the language to be included in
the settlement agreement and then enter into a stipulation
regarding the settlement, court hearings will be scheduled where
the court will consider the terms of the settlement. But it should
be noted there are no assurances the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties enter into such a stipulation.

Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries are a party to any other
pending legal proceedings that are material, nor is their property
the subject of any other material pending legal proceeding at this
time. All other legal proceedings are routine and arise out of the
ordinary course of the Bank's business. None of those proceedings
are currently expected to have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's and the Bank's business, their consolidated financial
position nor their operations in any material amount not already
accrued, after taking into consideration any applicable insurance.


TRINITY COURIERS: Faces "Green" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC. and TRINITY
COURIERS OF HOUSTON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02102
(S.D. Tex., July 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by employing Green and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty
hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in
excess of [forty] hours . . .  at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were]
employed."

Trinity Couriers offers courier services.  Trinity Couriers
employed Green as a courier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


U-HAUL CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Reservation Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trang Nguyen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. U-Haul Co. of New York and Vermont, Inc., U-Haul
International, Inc. and Amerco, Case No. 1:17-cv-03947 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2017), seeks redress for the deceptive manner in which
the Defendants have marketed and continue to market their
reservation guarantee policy, which states "When you make a truck
or trailer reservation, we guarantee to provide you with the
equipment size, location and pick up time, as agreed. Should you
not receive the equipment size, location and pick up time you
agreed to, U-Haul will pay you $50" and which the Defendants have
refused to live up with.

The Defendants operate a moving equipment rental business on the
East Coast and throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Sacchi and Stephen Simoni, Individually and on behalf of all
others v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines,
Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-04853-ES-
JAD (D.N.J., June 30, 2017), is an action for damages,
restitution, statutory damages, punitive damages, sanctions,
interest, court costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief for
United's contract breaches of the agreement executed on its
website that states that no change fee would be required to
subsequently use the ticket's value towards another United flight
within a year but Plaintiffs were charged money in order to
utilize the original flight's value or will be charged money when
utilizing the original flight's value.

The Defendants operate a business headquartered in Illinois that
market and sell airline travel throughout the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
      SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
      c/o JARDIM, MEISNER & SUSSER, P.C.
      30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 201
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Telephone: (917) 621-5795
      E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@Gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Claims vs. FHFA, Treasury Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals cases captioned PERRY CAPITAL LLC, FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF INVESTMENT FUNDS FOR WHICH IT ACTS AS INVESTMENT
MANAGER, Appellant, v. STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ET AL.,
Appellees. No. 14-5243, Consolidated with Nos. 14-5254, 14-5260,
14-5262 (D.C. App.), the United States Court of Appeals, District
of Columbia Circuit, affirms the judgment of the district court
denying the institutional plaintiffs' claims against the Federal
Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Treasury alleging
arbitrary and capricious conduct and conduct in excess of their
statutory authority because those claims are barred by 12 U.S.C.
Section 4617(f).

In 2007-2008, the national economy went into a severe recession
due in significant part to a dramatic decline in the housing
market.  That downturn pushed two central players in the United
States' housing mortgage market -- the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- to
the brink of collapse.  Congress concluded that resuscitating
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was vital for the Nation's economic
health, and to that end passed the Housing and Economic Recovery
Act of 2008 ("Recovery Act"), Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654.
Under the Recovery Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
("FHFA") became the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In an effort to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac afloat, FHFA
promptly concluded on their behalf a stock purchase agreement with
the Treasury Department, under which Treasury made billions of
dollars in emergency capital available to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac in exchange for preferred shares of their stock.  In return,
Fannie and Freddie agreed to pay Treasury a quarterly dividend in
the amount of 10% of the total amount of funds drawn from
Treasury.  Fannie's and Freddie's frequent inability to make those
dividend payments, however, meant that they often borrowed more
cash from Treasury just to pay the dividends, which in turn
increased the dividends that Fannie and Freddie were obligated to
pay in future quarters.  In 2012, FHFA and Treasury adopted the
Third Amendment to their stock purchase agreement, which replaced
the fixed 10% dividend with a formula by which Fannie and Freddie
just paid to Treasury an amount (roughly) equal to their quarterly
net worth, however much or little that may be.

A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit
alleging that FHFA's and Treasury's alteration of the dividend
formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory
authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and
capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A).  They also claimed that
FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law
torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend
formula.

The Court holds that the stockholders' statutory claims are barred
by the Recovery Act's strict limitation on judicial review.  The
Court also rejects most of the stockholders' common-law claims.
Insofar as the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
stockholders' common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has
waived the agency's immunity from suit, those claims, too, are
barred by the Recovery Act's limitation on judicial review, the
Court holds. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies,
some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and
privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. Section
4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims
regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Specifically, the Court affirms the judgment of the district court
denying the institutional plaintiffs' claims against the FHFA and
Treasury alleging arbitrary and capricious conduct and conduct in
excess of their statutory authority because those claims are
barred by 12 U.S.C. Section 4617(f).  With respect to the class
plaintiffs' claims and those of the Arrowood and Fairholme
plaintiffs, the Court affirms the judgment of the district court
except for the claims alleging breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding
liquidation preferences and the claim for breach of the implied
covenant with respect to dividend rights, which claims the Court
remands to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2017, Order is available
at https://is.gd/ETnmGN from Leagle.com.

Theodore B. Olson -- tolson@gibsondunn.com -- argued the cause for
Perry Capital LLC, et al. With him on the briefs were Douglas R.
Cox -- dcox@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew D. McGill,
mmcgill@gibsondunn.com -- Charles J. Cooper --
ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- David H. Thompson --
dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- Peter A. Patterson --
ppatterson@cooperkirk.com -- Michael H. Barr --
michael.barr@dentons.com -- Richard M. Zuckerman --
Richard.Zuckerman@dentons.com -- Sandra Hauser --
Sandra.Hauser@dentons.com -- Janet M. Weiss --
weiss.janet@dorsey.com -- and

     Brian W. Barnes, Esq.
     1523 New Hamspshire Ave. N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 202-220-9600

        -- and --

     Drew W. Marrocco, Esq.
     1301 K Street, NWSuite 600, East Tower
     Washington, DC 20005-3364

Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq., argued the cause for American European
Insurance Company, et al. With him on the briefs were Matthew A.
Goldstein, David R. Kaplan, and Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. --
gjarvis@ktmc.com

Thomas P. Vartanian -- thomas.vartania@dechert.com -- Steven G.
Bradbury -- steven.bradbury@dechert.com -- Robert L. Ledig --
Robert.ledig@dechert.com -- and Robert J. Rhatigan --
robert.rhatigan@dechert.com -- were on the brief for amici curiae
the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Association of
Mortgage Investors, Mr. William M. Isaac, and Mr. Robert H.
Hartheimer in support of appellants.

Thomas F. Cullen, Jr. -- tfcullen@jonesday.com -- Michael A.
Carvin -- macarvin@jonesday.com -- James E. Gauch --
jegauch@jonesday.com -- Lawrence D. Rosenberg --
ldrosenberg@jonesday.com -- and Paul V. Lettow --
pvlettow@jonesday.com -- were on the brief for amici curiae Louise
Rafter, Josephine and Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. in support of appellants and reversal.

Jerrold J. Ganzfried, and Bruce S. Ross -- bruce.ross@hklaw.com --
were on the brief for amici curiae 60 Plus Association, Inc. in
support of reversal.

Eric Grant was on the brief for amicus curiae Jonathan R.
Macey -- jonathan.macey@yale.edu -- in support of appellants and
reversal.

Thomas R. McCarthy -- info@consovoymccarthy.com -- was on the
brief for amici curiae Timothy Howard and The Coalition for Mortgage
Security in support of appellants.

Myron T. Steele -- msteel@potteranderson.com -- was on the brief
for amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of
appellants.

Michael H. Krimminger -- mkrimminger@cgsh.com -- was on the brief
for amicus curiae Investors Unite in support of appellants for
reversal.

Howard N. Cayne 555 12th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA argued
the cause for appellees Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.
With him on the brief were Paul D. Clement --
paul.clement@kirkland.com -- D. Zachary Hudson,600New Jersey
Avenue N.W., Washington D.C. 20001 Michael J. Ciatti --
mciatti@kslaw.com -- Graciela Maria Rodriguez --
gmrodriguez@kslaw.com -- David B. Bergman --
david.bergman@apks.com --  Michael A.F. Johnson --
michael.johnson@apks.com -- Dirk C. Phillips --
dirk.phillips@apks.com -- and Ian S. Hoffman --
ian.hoffman@apks.com

Mark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the
cause for appellee Steven T. Mnuchin. With him on the brief were
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alisa B.
Klein, Abby C. Wright, and Gerard Sinzdak, Attorneys.

Dennis M. Kelleher was on the brief for amicus curiae Better
Markets, Inc. in support of appellees and affirmance.
Pierre H. Bergeron was on the brief for amicus curiae Black
Chamber of Commerce in support of neither party.

Colleen J. Boles, Assistant General Counsel, Kathryn R. Norcross,
Senior Counsel, and Jerome A. Madden, Counsel, were on the brief
for amicus curiae The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in
support of FHFA and affirmance.


USANA HEALTH: Defending Against Class Action in Utah
----------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is defending against
a shareholder class action.

The Company said, "On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, with the plaintiff, Chi Wah,
alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i) the
Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper
reimbursement practices in China, (ii) these practices constituted
violations of the FCPA, (iii) as such, the Company's China
revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely
to be sustainable, and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became
known, was likely to subject the Company to significant regulatory
scrutiny.  The lawsuit names as defendants the Company; our former
Co-Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief
Leadership Development Officer, Paul A. Jones (formerly our Chief
Financial Officer)."

"On behalf of the plaintiff, and a putative class of purchasers of
USANA stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the
plaintiff asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.  The Company believes that the action is without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted."

Usana develops and manufactures high-quality, science-based
nutritional and personal care products that are distributed
internationally through a network marketing system, which is a
form of direct selling.


VITA-MIX CORP: $1.6MM Class Deal in "Gooding" Has Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
provisional certification of the class and preliminary approval of
class settlement in the case captioned RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN
GOODING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. VITA-MIX CORPORATION and KELLY SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03898-ODW(JEMx)(C.D. Calif.).

This is a wage-and-hour class action suit against Defendants Vita-
Mix Corporation and Kelly Services, Inc.  Plaintiffs, as proposed
class members, work for or worked in the past for Vita-Mix, and
they allege that Vita-Mix misclassified their employee
designations and failed to pay them overtime wages and other
benefits.

Plaintiffs now move for class certification and preliminary
approval of that settlement. Both Defendants have filed notices of
non-opposition to the settlement.

Plaintiffs define the proposed classes as follows:

   California Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants in
a covered position in California any time from June 3, 2012, to
March 13, 2017.

   Non-California Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants
in covered positions in any of the non-California Rule 23 states
(states outside California under whose laws Plaintiffs have
alleged state law claims in the proposed First Amended Complaint)
any time from June 3, 2013, to March 13, 2017.

   FLSA Class: All individuals who worked for Defendants in
covered positions in the United States at any time from June 3,
2013, to March 13, 2017, and who are not members of either the
California class or the non-California Rule 23 class.

A "covered position" for purposes of all three sub-class
encompasses the positions of Sales Representative or Demonstrator.

The parties estimate that there are 1150 members in the proposed
class (across all three sub-classes).

The parties' settlement provides for a maximum, non-reversionary
settlement amount of $1,600,000 to resolve Plaintiffs' claims on a
class and collective basis.  Plaintiffs' motion for settlement
approval states that the average payment to class members is
estimated at approximately $952.

The settlement amount will be reserved and paid out as follows:

   (1) Calculation of Payment: Class members will be paid if they
worked for Defendants in the positions of Sales Representative or
Demonstrator. The amount will be based on respective numbers of
California individual workweeks and/or non-California workweeks
during the relevant time periods.

   (2) Opting In: Members of the FLSA class will need to opt in
(pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)).  Members of the other two
classes will not need to submit a claim form in order to receive a
settlement payment.

   (3) Excluded from this settlement class are any members of an
earlier settlement class with final approval in a prior action,
entitled Thomas v. Vita-Mix Corp., in San Joaquin County state
court who have not worked for Defendants since August 27, 2015.
If class members from the prior action have worked for Defendants
since then, they can be a part of this class settlement, but their
class period will begin August 28, 2015.

   (4) Release of Claims: Members of the California and Non-
California subclasses who do not opt out will release their state
law claims, and FLSA opt-in class members will release their FLSA
claims in addition to any applicable state law claims.  No class
member will release any FLSA claims unless he or she affirmatively
opts in and joins the settlement.

Under Rule 23(a), the plaintiff must show that: (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2)
there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.  The Court finds that all of the requirements for class
certification are met.

The court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and
direct notice to the class if the settlement: '(1) appears to be
the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2)
has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant
preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the
class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval.

Plaintiffs assert in their motion for preliminary approval that
the agreement is "the result of arm's-length negotiations by
counsel," and Defendants have not opposed this contention. Under
these circumstances, the Court is convinced that the settlement
negotiations were adequate.

After reviewing the terms of the settlement, the Court determines
that there are no obvious deficiencies, the settlement does not
unfairly give preferential treatment to named plaintiffs, and it
falls within the range of possible approval.

The Court notes no deficiencies in the amount and allocations of
settlement funds.

The Court concludes that the incentive awards here fall within
these guidelines. There are only two named plaintiffs (out of
roughly 150 class members) who are receiving a total incentive
award of $10,000, which constitutes only a tiny fraction of the
maximum settlement amount.

The Court concludes that the release "adequately balances fairness
to absent class members and recovery for plaintiffs with
defendants' business interest in ending this litigation with
finality.

After reviewing this procedure, as well as a proposed copy of the
Notice of Collective and Class Action Settlement that will be sent
to potential members of the California, Non-California and FLSA
classes (SA Exs. B-1 and B-2, ECF No. 54-1), the Court is
satisfied that notice here is the best practicable under the
circumstances.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification
of the class and preliminary approval of class settlement.

A full-copy text of the District Court's July 14, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/JTYtS2  from Leagle.com

Rainoldo Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. Blakely, --
sblakley@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC.

Rainoldo Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Fletcher W.H.
Schmidt -- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC,
John H. Crouch, IV, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC,3109 Carlisle Street,
Dallas, Texas 75204-1194 pro hac vice, Paul Keith Haines --
phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Tuvia
Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup -- Haines Law Group APC &
Christine Ann Hopkins, -- christine@tremainartaza.com -- Kilgore
and Kilgore PLLC.

Nadeen Gooding, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. Blakely, Haines
Law Group APC, Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Haines Law Group, APC, John
H. Crouch, IV, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC, pro hac vice, Paul Keith
Haines, Haines Law Group APC, Tuvia Korobkin, Haines Law Group APC
& Christine Ann Hopkins, Kilgore and Kilgore PLLC.

Vita-Mix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lauri A.
Damrell -- ldamrell@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
LLP & David P. Fuad -- dfuad@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Kelly Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura Jean
Maechtlen -- lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Chantelle C. Egan, -- cegan@seyfarth.com --  Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatam.seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, pro hac vice, Shireen Yvette Wetmore --
swetmore@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & David D. Jacobson,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP. One Century Plaza, Suite 3500 2029 Century
Park, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021


VOYA RETIREMENT: "Dezelan" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company 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, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No.
3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016).

Litigation includes Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-
1251)(filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in which
plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to represent the
a class of plans whose assets are invested in VRIAC "Group Annuity
Contract Stable Value Funds."  Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by
charging unreasonable fees and setting its own compensation in
connection with stable value products.  Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
damages and attorney's fees. The Company denies the allegations,
which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the
case vigorously.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") is a stock
life insurance company domiciled in the State of Connecticut.
VRIAC and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, "the
Company") provide financial products and services in the United
States. VRIAC is authorized to conduct its insurance business in
all states and in the District of Columbia and in Guam, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.


WARNER NELSON: 9th Cir. Vacates Atty Fees Award in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the Order of the
District Court granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and vacating awards of attorneys fees in the appeals
cases captioned RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WARNER NELSON; WILLIAM
BECK, JR.; BRIAN BISH; KLAAS A. DEBOER; MICHAEL G. MARSH; ROCKY
SHARP; RICHARD BAMBERGER; DENNIS CALLIES; CLIF DAVIS; TIM DONOVAN;
HARRY THOMPSON; GARY YOUNGHANS, in Their Capacity as Trustees of
the Ibew Pacific Coast Pension Plan; CLINT BRYSON; MICHAEL CHURCH;
MICHAEL DOYLE; GREG ELDER; GLEN FRANZ; GARY GONZALES; CARL D.
HANSON; PATRICK POWELL; GARY PRICE; SCOTT STEPHENS; ROGER TOBIN;
GRANT ZADOW, Defendants-Appellants. RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-
Appellee, v. WARNER NELSON; WILLIAM BECK, JR.; BRIAN BISH; KLAAS
A. DEBOER; MICHAEL G. MARSH; ROCKY SHARP; RICHARD BAMBERGER;
DENNIS CALLIES; CLIF DAVIS; TIM DONOVAN; HARRY THOMPSON; GARY
YOUNGHANS, in their capacity as Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast
Pension Plan; CLINT BRYSON; MICHAEL CHURCH; MICHAEL DOYLE; GREG
ELDER; GLEN FRANZ; GARY GONZALES; CARL D. HANSON; PATRICK POWELL;
GARY PRICE; SCOTT STEPHENS; ROGER TOBIN; GRANT ZADOW, Defendants-
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Nos. 15-35414, 15-35457, 15-3569 (9th
Cir.), and Remanded the case for further proceedings.

In May 2008, the Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund
learned that the Fund would soon enter critical status under the
Pension Protection Act of 2006.  In response, the Trustees amended
the Pacific Coast Fund Pension Plan twice in Amendments 14 and 24
and began withholding at least $1.00 per hour from all employer
contributions to improve the Plan's funding status.

Richard Lehman filed a putative class action against the Trustees
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Lehman alleged that the Trustees breached the Pension Plan's
terms, violated ERISA sections 204 and 305, and breached their
fiduciary duties by withholding $1.00 per hour from his employer
contributions without providing an accrued benefit.

The district court granted Lehman's motion for summary judgment,
in part, and ruled that he was entitled to the withheld
contributions under the terms of the Pension Plan.

After the parties stipulated to a class definition, the district
court certified the class and awarded damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs to the plaintiffs.

The Trustees appeal the summary judgment order, an order granting
the plaintiffs' motion to enforce or clarify the order, and the
damages award.

The plaintiffs cross-appeal, seeking alternative relief under
ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) if the court reverses the
district court's grant of summary judgment under ERISA section
502(a)(1)(B).

The plaintiffs also appeal the district court's determination of a
reasonable hourly rate for the attorneys' fees award.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the damages award for withholdings under
Amendment 24's formal Rehabilitation Plan because the complaints
did not provide adequate notice to the Trustees that Amendment 24
was at issue.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) the district court's ruling that
the Trustees abused their discretion by interpreting Amendment 14
to conflict with Article 5 of the Pension Plan; (2) the award of
damages for the $1.00 hourly withholding in Amendment 14 pursuant
to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); and (3) the district court's ruling
that the plaintiffs have the right to enforce the Pension Plan's
terms, including the provisions that incorporate the Reciprocal
Agreement.

The Ninth Circuit declines to reach the issues on cross-appeal,
vacate the attorneys' fees award, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-copy text of the Ninth Circuit's July 14, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/uO5WEp from Leagle.com.

Defendants-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants
Warner Nelson, et al., are represented by:

   Seth Floyd, Esq. (argued)
   Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
   Michael A. Urban, Esq.
   The Urban Law Firm
   4270s. Decatur Blvd., Suite A-9
   Las Vegas, NV 89103
   Phone: 702-968-8087

Richard J. Birmingham -- richbirmingham@dwt.com -- (argued),
Christine Hawkins -- christine.hawkins@dwt.com -- and Joseph P.
Hoag -- josephhoag@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle,
Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Plaintiff-
Appellant Richard Lehman.


WEIBO CORP: Goldsmith Sues Over Non-disclosure, Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Goldsmith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Weibo Corporation, Gaofei Wang
and Herman Yu, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04728 (D. N.J., June
27, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that
Weibo lacks a requisite internet audio/video program transmission
license, Weibo was posting certain commentary programs with
content in violation of Chinese government regulations on its
site, Weibo operates as a social media platform for people to
create, distribute, and discover Chinese-language content. The
State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and
Television of the People's Republic of China ordered Weibo to stop
streaming political videos that were not in line with government
regulations.

On this news, shares of Weibo fell $4.71 per share or over 6% from
its previous closing price to close at $72.25 per share on June
22, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff.

Weibo is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and its principal
executive offices in Chaoyang District, Beijing 100027, People's
Republic of China. Weibo's securities are traded on the NASDAQ.
[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


WENDY'S COMPANY: Torres and FI Cases Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's Company continues to defend the Torres and FI cases,
the company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017.

The Company has been named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to
safeguard customer credit card information and failed to provide
notice that credit card information had been compromised.
Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Torres
case"). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide
class of consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of
consumers for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee,
as well as statewide classes of consumers under those states'
consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws.

Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (the "FI cases"), which seek to certify a nationwide
class financial institutions that issued payment cards that were
allegedly impacted.

In the Torres case and the FI cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and
other costs.

The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
Torres case was denied in part and granted in part with leave to
amend; the plaintiffs then filed the operative complaint
referenced above.

The Company's motion to dismiss in the FI case was denied. The
Company filed its answer in the Torres case in April 2017 and
expects to file its answer in the FI case during the second
quarter of 2017.

The Wendy's Company is the parent company of its 100% owned
subsidiary holding company, Wendy's Restaurants, LLC ("Wendy's
Restaurants"). The principal 100% owned subsidiary of Wendy's
Restaurants is Wendy's International, LLC and its subsidiaries
("Wendy's"). Wendy's franchises and operates Wendy's(R) quick-
service restaurants throughout North America (defined as the
United States of America ("U.S.") and Canada). Wendy's also has
franchised restaurants in 29 foreign countries and U.S.
territories.


XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Faces "Trejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Trejo; Marisol Trejo; Obdulia Julie Cortes; Vilma De Jesus
Alvarenga Carranza; and those similarly situated v. Xclusive
Staffing, Inc.; Xclusive Management, LLC d.b.a. Xclusive Staffing;
Xclusive Staffing of Colorado, LLC; Diane Astley; and Westin Dia
Operator, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01602 (D. Col., June 30, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a staffing agency in Westminster,
Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Hood, Esq.
      David Seligman, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE
      1535 High St., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
              david@towardsjustice.org




                         *********


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  * * *