CAR_Public/170828.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, August 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 169



                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: "St. John" Case in Alabama Remains Pending
3M COMPANY: Lawsuit by West Morgan Water Authority Still Pending
3M COMPANY: Class Suits Pending in Colo., Pa. and NY at June 30
3M COMPANY: Suits over Bair Hugger Patient Warming System Pending
3M COMPANY: Class Suit by Dentists Underway

ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
ALLSTATE CORP: Oral Argument in Williams Case Appeal Not Yet Set
ALLSTATE CORP: No Trial Date Yet in "Jimenez" Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Parties in "Perez" Suit Engaged in Discovery
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defends "Romero" Lawsuit in E.D. Pa.

APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Case Underway
BARCLAYS BANK: October 23 LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CANADA: Sept. 25 Meeting Set in Waterloo Police Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in Louisiana
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Seeks Stay of Wage-and-Hour Class Action

CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Suit Filed in Contant, Lavender Cases
CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Alpari" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Schwab Plaintiffs File Appeal in LIBOR Case
CITIGROUP INC: Moved to Dismiss SSA Bonds Suit
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DAVITA INC: Peace Officers' Benefit Fund Suit Underway in Colo.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Davenport" Settlement Hearing on Sept. 14
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of B&R Suit in N.Y.
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Settlement of Pension Fund Case Awaits OK
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order

FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Faces "Mahoney" Class Action in D. Mass.
G&H DAIRY: "Guzman-Padilla" Class Gets Conditional Certification
GUARDNOW INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files FCRA Class Action
HCP INC: Boynton Beach Pension Fund's Suit Still Pending
HUDSON COFFEE: NJ Super. Ct. Says Creditors' Claims Time-Barred

HYLAND'S INC: $2.9MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in "Forcellati"
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: October 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
J.C. PENNEY: Nov. 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JAMES R. LEININGER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Robocall Lawsuit
JIMMY CHOO: Asks 11th Cir. to Reverse FACTA Settlement Approval

KELLOGG'S: Must Face Class Action Over Cereal Labels
KRAFT FOODS: Court Decertifies Cheese Product Class Action
KUSHNER COMPANIES: Faces Rent-Stabilization Class Action
LEON'S FURNITURE: Faces $2.36MM Damages in Class Action
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion Granted

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Mediation Ordered in Chinese Laminates Cases
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gold" Class Action Pending in California
LYFT: N.J. Woman Files Class Action Over Drivers' Pay
MCDONALD'S CORP: Plaintiff Dismisses Beverage Tax Case
MDL 2704: Court Narrows Claims in Interest Rate Swaps Case

MEDTRONIC INC: Shareholder Litigation Remanded to District Court
MOBILEIRON INC: Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
MU HEALTH: September 5 Hearing Set in Meal Break Class Action
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Timlick" Remanded to Calif. State Court
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

NCO FINANCIAL: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEBRASKA: Corrections Dept. Faces Overcrowding Class Action
NEDBANK: May Face Class Action Over Sale in Execution Tactics
NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Poland Spring Labeling
NEW YORK TIMES: Recorded $3.7M Charge in 4th Quarter 2016

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Fights Landowners' Class Certification Bid
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Abuse at CPRI
OREGON: Local Groups Want Benton to Back Out of Timber Case
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Wiper Fluid
PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Court Grants Leave to File SAC in "Titus"

PAREXEL INT'L: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Actions Over Power Outage
PHARMAPRIX INC: Settles Class Action Over Optimum Program
PHOENIX, AZ: Trump May Pardon Joe Arpaio of Criminal Contempt
PURDUE PHARMA: Darien May Join Opioids Suit

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court's Order
REGENCY CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in "Hollins"
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Defendants' Appellate Brief Due September 12
REMY INTERNATIONAL: Ct. Denies Approval of "Bushansky" Settlement
ROCK-TENN CO: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay

SABRE CORP: To Defend Against Remaining Antitrust Suit Claims
SABRE CORP: Faces Class Action over Cybersecurity Incident
SABRE CORP: Faces Two Consumer Class Action Suits
SAUL CHEVROLET: Must Produce Additional Docs in "Rivera" Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reduces Attorney's Fee to $2.7-Mil.

SEWERAGE & WATER: Class Actions Mulled Over Flooding
SOUTHERN CHINA: November 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal over Class Certification Order Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Consumers Class Suit in Discovery
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Civil Case in Canada Underway

SPOKEO INC: Appeals Court Revives Case Over False Online Data
STANDARD INNOVATION: Judge Inks $3.75-Mil. We-Vibe Settlement
TING HSIN: Ordered to Pay NT$10.23MM in Oil Class Action
TRINET GROUP: September 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Key Question Arises on Arbitration Issue

ULTA SALON: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Delk" Suit
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Remands Injunction Issue
US STEEL: Court Consolidates "Ortiz" and "Payne" PSLRA Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Del. Chancery Court Responds to Remand Order
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in "Corvello" Suit Get Prelim. Approval

WEST MARINE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
WILD PLANET: Aug. 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Bid to Replace Lead Plaintiff in "Brenner" Nixed
WILMINGTON TRUST: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ESOP Class Action
ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Bernal" Denied

* DOL Fiduciary Rule Delay May Impact Best-Interest Contract
* Moore & Van Attorney Discusses CFPB Final Arbitration Rule
* Senator Warren Wants Bank CEOs to Go on Record on CFPB Stance
* Unions, Rights Group Claim Class-Action Waivers Are Invalid


                            *********


3M COMPANY: "St. John" Case in Alabama Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the St. John class action
litigation remains pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds
(the Chandler case) granted the Company's motion to abate the
case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution
of class certification issues in the St. John case.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until
the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the Stover case) seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County.  In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John
case.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Lawsuit by West Morgan Water Authority Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend a lawsuit by West Morgan-East
Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority
(Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M
Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint
also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint
on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors
of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five
local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water
(collectively, the "Water Utilities"). The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on
allegations that the defendants' chemicals, including PFOA and
PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have
contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake,
and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment
processes utilized by the Water Authority.

In September 2016, the court granted 3M's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' trespass claims with prejudice, negligence claims for
personal injuries, and private nuisance claims, and denied the
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claims for property
damage, public nuisance, abatement of nuisance, battery and
wantonness.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Class Suits Pending in Colo., Pa. and NY at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that eight purported class actions
have been filed against 3M and other defendants in federal or
state courts -- three in federal court in Colorado, four in
federal court in Pennsylvania, and one in state court in New York
-- as of June 30.  An individual complaint also has been filed in
the federal court Pennsylvania.

The complaints seek unstated damages and other remedies, such as
medical monitoring, and allege that the plaintiffs suffered
personal injury and property damage from drinking water supplies
contaminated with certain PFCs used in Aqueous Film Forming Foam
(AFFF) at current or former airports and air force military bases
located in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York.

In December 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General
Lori Swanson, acting in its capacity as trustee of the natural
resources of the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin
County District Court against 3M to recover damages (including
unspecified assessment costs and reasonable attorney's fees) for
alleged injury to, destruction of, and loss of use of certain of
the State's natural resources under the Minnesota Environmental
Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota Water
Pollution Control Act (MWPCA), as well as statutory nuisance and
common law claims of trespass, nuisance, and negligence with
respect to the presence of PFCs in the groundwater, surface water,
fish or other aquatic life, and sediments (the "NRD Lawsuit").

The State also seeks declarations under MERLA that 3M is
responsible for all damages the State may suffer in the future for
injuries to natural resources from releases of PFCs into the
environment, and under MWPCA that 3M is responsible for
compensation for future loss or destruction of fish, aquatic life,
and other damages.

In November 2011, the Metropolitan Council filed a motion to
intervene and a complaint in the NRD Lawsuit seeking compensatory
damages and other legal, declaratory and equitable relief,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, for costs and fees that the
Metropolitan Council alleges it will be required to assess at some
time in the future if the MPCA imposes restrictions on
Metropolitan Council's PFOS discharges to the Mississippi River,
including the installation and maintenance of a water treatment
system. The Metropolitan Council's intervention motion was based
on several theories, including common law negligence, and
statutory claims under MERLA for response costs, and under the
Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) for declaratory and
equitable relief against 3M for PFOS and other PFC pollution of
the waters and sediments of the Mississippi River.

3M did not object to the motion to intervene. In January 2012, 3M
answered the Metropolitan Council's complaint and filed a
counterclaim alleging that the Metropolitan Council discharges
PFCs to the Mississippi River and discharges PFC-containing sludge
and bio solids from one or more of its wastewater treatment plants
onto agricultural lands and local area landfills

Accordingly, 3M's complaint against the Metropolitan Council asks
that if the court finds that the State is entitled to any of the
damages it seeks, 3M be awarded contribution and apportionment
from the Metropolitan Council, including attorneys' fees, under
MERLA, and contribution from and liability for the Metropolitan
Council's proportional share of damages awarded to the State under
the MWPCA, as well as under statutory nuisance and common law
theories of trespass, nuisance, and negligence. 3M also seeks
declaratory relief under MERA.

In May 2017, the Metropolitan Council paid 3M approximately $1
million and agreed to dismiss its claims against 3M. As part of
the settlement agreement, 3M agreed to dismiss its claims against
the Metropolitan Council.

In April 2012, 3M filed a motion to disqualify the State of
Minnesota's counsel, Covington & Burling, LLP (Covington). In
October 2012, the court granted 3M's motion to disqualify
Covington as counsel to the State and the State and Covington
appealed the court's disqualification to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals.

In July 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's disqualification order. In October 2013, the Minnesota
Supreme Court granted both the State's and Covington's petition
for review of the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

In April 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings. The district court took evidence on the
disqualification issues at a hearing in October 2015.

In February 2016, the district court ruled that Covington violated
the professional ethics rule against representing a client (here
the State of Minnesota) in the same or substantially related
matter where that person's interests are materially adverse to the
interests of a former client (3M). The district court, however,
denied 3M's motion to disqualify Covington because it further
found that 3M impliedly waived by delaying to assert the conflict.
Other activity in the case, which had been stayed pending the
outcome of the disqualification issue, has resumed. Trial of the
NRD Lawsuit is scheduled to begin in February 2018.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Suits over Bair Hugger Patient Warming System Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company as of June 30, is a
named defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 2,600
plaintiffs (compared to approximately 1,260 plaintiffs at December
31, 2016), most of which are pending in federal or state court in
Minnesota, in which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various
joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later
developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The complaints seek damages and
other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence,
breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design
and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent
misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations
of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade
practices and/or false advertising acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief
(including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories
similar to those asserted in the MDL.

The Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the
2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a manufacturer of patient
warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain
normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has
been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that
any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Class Suit by Dentists Underway
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending a class
action lawsuit that were brought by dentists and dental practices.

In September 2011, 3M Oral Care launched Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM
dental restorative material. The product was originally indicated
for inlay, onlay, veneer, and crown applications.

In June 2015, 3M Oral Care voluntarily removed crown applications
from the product's instructions for use, following reports from
dentists of patients' crowns debonding, requiring additional
treatment. The product remains on the market for other
applications. 3M communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, as well as regulators outside the United States.
3M also informed customers and distributors of its action, offered
to accept return of unused materials and provide refunds.

As of June 30, 2017, there are two lawsuits pending that were
brought by dentists and dental practices against 3M. The
complaints allege 3M marketed and sold defective Lava Ultimate
material used for dental crowns to dentists and, under various
theories, seek monetary damages (replacement costs and business
reputation loss), punitive damages, disgorgement of profits,
injunction from marketing and selling Lava Ultimate for use in
dental crowns, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

One lawsuit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, is a class action that names 39 plaintiffs and seeks
certification of a class of dentists in the United States and its
territories, and alternatively seeks subclasses in 13 states.

The other lawsuit is an individual complaint against 3M in Madison
County, Illinois.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Aug. 16 disclosed that it
has filed a class action on behalf of investors who purchased
Acacia Communications, Inc. ("Acacia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ACIA) securities between August 11, 2016 and July 13, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Acacia investors have until
October 13, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.  To obtain
information or participate in the class action, please visit the
Acacia page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/acacia-communications-inc.

Investors suffering losses on their Acacia investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements, including misleading investors: (1) that
the Company was experiencing declining demand for its products
from important customers; (2) that the Company's manufacturing
quality control system was inadequate; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's manufacturing process was causing certain of the
Company's units to be unsaleable; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Acacia's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Acacia during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than October 13, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


ALLSTATE CORP: Oral Argument in Williams Case Appeal Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that oral argument in a
class action appeal is likely, but has not been scheduled by the
appellate court.

The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.
Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The first case is Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate
Insurance Company. The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. The case involves
two classes. The first class includes auto field physical damage
adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005
to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to
pay for off-the-clock work to those adjusters who performed
certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class
includes all non-exempt employees in California from December 19,
2006 until June 2011 who received pay statements from Allstate
which allegedly did not comply with California law. On April 13,
2016, the court granted the Company's motion to decertify both
classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and until the
appellate court orders the classes recertified.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on November 22, 2016.
Allstate's response was filed on May 16, 2017. Plaintiff's reply
brief was filed on July 6, 2017. Oral argument is likely, but has
not been scheduled by the appellate court.

The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: No Trial Date Yet in "Jimenez" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that no trial date has been
scheduled in the "Jimenez" class action lawsuit.

The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.
Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The second case is Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company. Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs
allege that they worked off-the-clock; they also allege other
California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid
overtime. In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes
all adjusters in the state of California, except auto field
adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.

Allstate appealed the court's decision to certify the class, first
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate's
petition for a writ of certiorari. The case was scheduled for
trial on September 27, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the court vacated
that trial date in part because the court had not approved a trial
plan. No trial date has been scheduled because the parties
continue to wait for the court's approval of a trial plan.

The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Parties in "Perez" Suit Engaged in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the
case, Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al., are engaged in
discovery.

The case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v.
Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-
fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt
employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault
adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair
Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. There are 105
members of the Fair Labor Standards Act class and 137 members of
the New York Labor Law class. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defends "Romero" Lawsuit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is
defending a consolidated proceeding relating to the reorganization
of its agent sales force in 2000, when the Company discontinued
employee agent programs, terminated the contracts of its employee
agents, and offered those agents the opportunity to become
Allstate Exclusive Agent independent contractors or to take
severance benefits in exchange for a release of claims. The
consolidated proceeding, captioned Gene Romero, et al. v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al., is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This matter has a long and complex history, only relevant portions
of which are summarized here. The case began in 2001 as two
separate putative class actions filed by approximately 32 former
employee agents.

In one case, plaintiffs challenged the reorganization alleging
claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA,
breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also
challenged the release of claims on various grounds including
alleging that the release was retaliatory under the ADEA and
ERISA.

In the other case, plaintiffs challenged certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and sought to have service as Exclusive Agent
independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits.
Plaintiffs sought various relief, including back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital,
loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to Exclusive
Agent or retirement from the Company, repeal of the challenged
plan amendments with all attendant benefits revised and
recalculated, and attorneys' fees. Allstate, among other defenses,
asserted that the release bars all of the asserted claims.

In February, 2014, the court addressed motions for summary
judgment filed by both the plaintiffs and the Company regarding
the validity and enforceability of the release and determined that
the question of whether the releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved
at trial. The court also held that the release, if valid, would
bar all claims.

In late 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class for purposes of determining whether the releases were signed
knowingly and voluntarily. The court also ordered that all
statutes of limitations would resume running on March 2, 2015,
after which approximately 460 additional individual plaintiffs
filed separate similar lawsuits or sought to intervene.

A jury trial was held in June, 2015, to determine whether the
releases of ten plaintiffs were knowingly and voluntarily signed.
Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses to the
release which were to be determined by the court and not the jury.
The jury found that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly
and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not. Subsequently, the
court ruled in the Company's favor on the two equitable defenses
to the release with respect to all ten plaintiffs. The result
affecting these ten plaintiffs is final in the trial court.

On May 2, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the
original and intervening plaintiffs' claims, and ordering
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of 498
plaintiffs, most of whom had previously filed separate lawsuits or
intervened in the earlier proceedings. The consolidated complaint
alleged the claims asserted in the previously filed complaints.
The Company asserted defenses, including the release. On July 6,
2016, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
state law breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims, but
granted dismissal of plaintiffs' retaliation claims under the ADEA
and ERISA challenging the release of claims.

The court separated the case into two phases to address "common
issues" in plaintiffs' claims: (a) "Phase I" addressing claims by
118 plaintiffs alleging that certain plan amendments violated
ERISA's anti-cutback provision by eliminating an accrued benefit
and (b) "Phase II" addressing all plaintiffs' claims for alleged
interference with employee benefits under ERISA and disparate
impact under the ADEA.

Regarding Phase I, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the Company's summary judgment motion on plaintiffs' claims
challenging certain Plan amendments. The court granted the motion
with respect to one plaintiff whose claim was barred by the
statute of limitations. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim
that a 1993 Plan amendment resulted in an unlawful cutback of
benefits and plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. A
bench trial on the remaining Phase I claims was held in December,
2016.

On April 27, 2017, the court issued its Phase I opinion and ruled
that (i) the Company's 1991 amendments to the Plan did not violate
ERISA by improperly cutting back on plaintiffs' benefits, and (ii)
with respect to only 118 plaintiffs, the Company's interpretation
of the Plan's definition of "retire" violated ERISA's anti-cutback
rule. The court required the parties to provide further
information, in the form of an accounting, to determine whether
any plaintiffs suffered a loss based on any such cutback.
Plaintiffs submitted their Phase I accounting to the court,
alleging that only two of the 118 plaintiffs asserting this
cutback claim suffered a loss as a result of the court's order.

The Company then submitted its objections to plaintiffs'
accounting on May 26, 2017, arguing that no plaintiff suffered a
compensable loss and that judgment should be entered in favor of
the Company.

"We await a final ruling by the court," the Company said.

Regarding Phase II, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on both the ADEA disparate impact and ERISA
interference with benefits claims and denied plaintiffs' cross-
motion.  This resolves these claims in the trial court as to all
plaintiffs.

In June and July 2017, the Company and 41 plaintiffs reached
agreements in principle to settle all claims of those plaintiffs
on a confidential basis, subject to negotiating and executing
appropriate written settlement agreements.

In June 2017, the court entered an order establishing Phases III
and IV of the litigation. In Phase III, the remaining claims of
the eight individual plaintiffs who reside in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania will be litigated, possibly culminating in two
separate jury trials each addressing the claims of four
plaintiffs. Those claims are ADEA disparate treatment (asserted by
six of the eight plaintiffs), breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and challenges to the release. The trials are
scheduled for January and March, 2018.

In Phase IV, which runs concurrently with Phase III, the parties
will engage in further written discovery relating to the claims of
all other plaintiffs (those residing outside the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania) until the court determines the proper venue for
depositions, dispositive motions, and trials of those claims.

In March, 2018, the parties are to submit further briefing setting
forth their positions on resolving the non-resident plaintiffs'
remaining individual claims, including whether to transfer those
claims to each plaintiff's home jurisdiction.

Regarding Phase III, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment as to the six Phase III plaintiffs asserting ADEA
disparate treatment claims arguing that none of those plaintiffs
filed timely age discrimination charges with the EEOC and thus
those claims must be dismissed. The Company is also seeking
summary judgment on all eight of the Phase III plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims (breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty) asserting that plaintiffs ratified the release by
failing to return the consideration the Company gave them in
exchange for signing the release.

The final resolution of these matters is subject to various
uncertainties and complexities including how trials, post-trial
motions, possible appeals with respect to the validity of the
release, and any rulings on the merits will be resolved.

The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer in the United
States.


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, In Re Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, remains
pending.

After the announcement of the execution of the AMTG Merger
Agreement, two putative class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed First Merger (as defined in the AMTG Merger Agreement),
captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al.,
No. 24-C-16-001532 and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City. A putative class and derivative lawsuit was
later filed in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., No. 24-C-16-002610. Following a hearing on May 6,
2016, the Court entered orders among other things, consolidating
the three actions under the caption In Re Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610.

The plaintiffs have designated the Crago complaint as the
operative complaint. The operative complaint includes both direct
and derivative claims, names as defendants AMTG, the board of
directors of AMTG, ARI, Arrow Merger Sub Inc., Apollo and Athene
Holding Ltd. and alleges, among other things, that the members of
the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties to the AMTG
stockholders and that the other corporate defendants aided and
abetted such fiduciary breaches.

The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was
the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene Holding Ltd. are unfair and that the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains
materially misleading disclosures and omits certain material
information.

The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification
of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
First Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.
Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral
argument was held on December 8, 2016.

The Company is a Maryland corporation that has elected to be taxed
as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Company
primarily originates, acquires, invests in and manages performing
commercial first mortgage loans, subordinate financings, CMBS and
other commercial real estate-related debt investments. These asset
classes are referred to as the Company's target assets.


BARCLAYS BANK: October 23 LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Owned a U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Instrument Between August
2007 and May 2010

You May Be Eligible for a Payment from a $120 Million Settlement

There is a Settlement with Barclays that impacts individuals and
institutions that entered into over-the-counter financial
derivative and non-derivative instruments directly with Barclays
or a Non-Settling Defendant that received payments tied to
U.S. Dollar LIBOR. Barclays and the NonSettling Defendants are
U.S. Dollar LIBOR Panel Banks (see list of Defendants on
Settlement website).  The instruments include certain interest
rate swaps, forward rate agreements, asset swaps, collateralized
debt obligations, credit default swaps, inflation swaps, total
return swaps, options, and floating rate notes.

The litigation claims that the banks manipulated the U.S. Dollar
LIBOR rate during the financial crisis, artificially lowering the
rate for their own profit, which resulted in purchasers receiving
less interest payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments from the banks as they should have. Plaintiffs assert
antitrust, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims.
Barclays denies all claims of wrongdoing.

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlement if you (individual or entity):

   -- Directly purchased certain U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments;
   -- From Barclays or any Non-Settling Defendant (or their
subsidiaries or affiliates);
   -- In the United States; and
   -- Owned the instruments at any time between August 2007 and
May 2010.

What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement will create a $120 million Settlement Fund that
will be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid
claims.  Additionally, Barclays will cooperate with the Plaintiffs
in their ongoing litigation against the Non-Settling Defendants.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a Proof of Claim to get a payment.  You can submit
a Proof of Claim online or by mail.  The deadline to submit a
Proof of Claim is December 21, 2017.  You are entitled to receive
a payment if you have a qualifying transaction with Barclays or a
Non-Settling Defendant.  At this time, it is unknown how much each
Class Member who submits a valid claim will receive.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue Barclays
for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning the Settlement.  This Settlement will not result in a
release of your claims against any Non-Settling Defendant, and the
litigation against Non-Settling Defendants is
ongoing.  If you want to keep your right to sue Barclays, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by October 9, 2017.  If
you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object
to the Settlement by October 9, 2017.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 23, 2017 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses.  You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

1-888-568-7640 www.BarclaysLiborSettlement.com

October 17, 2017, in Courtroom 1941 at the United States


CANADA: Sept. 25 Meeting Set in Waterloo Police Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Record.com reports that a judge named as case manager of a
proposed class-action lawsuit against Waterloo Regional Police
will meet with lawyers for both sides next month.

The meeting with Superior Court Justice Deena Baltman is set for
Sept. 25.

The lawsuit, announced in June, alleges widespread gender-based
discrimination and sexual harassment by regional police against
female officers. The allegations have not been proven.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs and the police service will be
at the meeting at the courthouse in Brampton, said Doug Elliott,
the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was filed in
Brampton.

"The Waterloo Regional Police Service has said that the courts
have no jurisdiction to deal with the case," Elliott said. "We say
that they do and I expect that Justice Baltman will be asked to
decide whether she should deal with the question of jurisdiction
first or whether she should deal with the jurisdiction issue at
the same time as certification."

To proceed, the class action must be certified by a judge.

"I expect that will be heard within a year," Elliott said.

Baltman is the case management judge.

"She will not be the trial judge but she'll be dealing with
certification and everything else up until the trial," Elliott
said.

Const. Angelina Rivers and former constable Sharon Zehr say they
were subjected to routine harassment and abuse by their male
counterparts and their bosses.

Joining the claim is retired regional police superintendent Barry
Zehr, who said he repeatedly spoke to police management about
systemic discrimination, but nothing was done. Zehr is married to
Sharon Zehr. He retired from the service in April.

The three plaintiffs are leading the class action on behalf of
female members of regional police. The suit is against the police
service as well as the police services board. The total amount
sought is $167 million.

In a statement, the police service said it does not tolerate any
form of discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

"Some of the allegations attributed by the plaintiffs date back to
1988 and those have only just come to the attention of our
service," Chief Bryan Larkin said in the statement. "Some were
already the subject of an investigation by an independent law firm
and dealt with appropriately."

The statement said the chief and police services board take the
allegations seriously, but added that it is important to note they
remain allegations and have not been proven in court.

The service said the allegations should have been dealt with by
the grievance and arbitration system that is provided by the
Police Service Act and is governed by the officers' collective
agreement. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, on Aug. 15 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors in CenturyLink, Inc.
("CenturyLink" or the "Company") who purchased CenturyLink shares
between March 1, 2013 and June 19, 2017.  The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana and captioned Scott v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., case
number 17-cv-01033.

The complaint alleges CenturyLink engaged in unlawful business
practices that resulted in unauthorized charges to its clients.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
CenturyLink failed to disclose that CenturyLink's employees added
services or lines to accounts without customer permission,
resulting in millions of dollars in unauthorized charges to
CenturyLink customers.  The complaint alleges that, as a result,
CenturyLink's revenues were unsustainable.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by
August 21, 2017.  If you wish to discuss your legal rights, you
are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. at
arankin@holzerlaw.com or call the firm by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Seeks Stay of Wage-and-Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Chipotle
Mexican Grill Inc has moved to stay a former employee's lawsuit
based on an Obama administration rule extending mandatory
overtime, government enforcement of which was blocked by a federal
judge in Texas.

Chipotle on Aug. 11 asked U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in New
Jersey to put Carmen Alvarez's proposed wage-and-hour class action
on hold pending a ruling by U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in
Sherman, Texas. [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Suit Filed in Contant, Lavender Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the CONTANT and
LAVENDER plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action
complaint in CONTANT.

On April 28, 2017, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their amended
complaint in BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. On
April 28 and June 10, 2017, plaintiffs (including certain of the
Baker plaintiffs) filed two new putative class action suits,
captioned CONTANT ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. and
LAVENDER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL;
respectively, against various financial institutions, including
Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp, and CGMI. The suits were filed on
behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers of FX
instruments sold by the defendants. Plaintiffs in each case allege
that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices in
violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, and
seek unspecified money damages (including treble damages), as well
as equitable and injunctive relief.

On June 30, 2017, the CONTANT and LAVENDER plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint in CONTANT. Additional
information concerning these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.), 17 Civ. 4392 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), and 17
Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Alpari" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is defending against the case, ALPARI (US), LLC v.
CITIGROUP, INC. AND CITIBANK, N.A., the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On July 12, 2017, a putative class action captioned ALPARI (US),
LLC v. CITIGROUP, INC. AND CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising out of alleged cancellation of electronic FX
transactions and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees.  Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 17 Civ. 5269 (S.D.N.Y.).


CITIGROUP INC: Schwab Plaintiffs File Appeal in LIBOR Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Schwab plaintiffs,
whose claims were dismissed in their entirety in December 2016,
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

In May 2017, plaintiffs in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL) filed motions to certify
proposed classes in the over-the-counter (OTC), exchange-based,
and lender class actions. On June 8, 2017, Judge Buchwald entered
partial final judgment for the OTC plaintiffs, allowing them to
appeal parts of the court's December 20, 2016 decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Additional
information concerning these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.).

The Schwab plaintiffs, whose claims were dismissed in their
entirety in December 2016, filed a notice of appeal to the Second
Circuit on May 12, 2017. Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 17-1569 (2d Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: Moved to Dismiss SSA Bonds Suit
----------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on July 14, 2017,
defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in IN RE SSA BONDS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this
action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 16 Civ. 03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02546-RM-MEH
Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-02547-RM-MEH,
15-cv-02697-RM-MEH, and 16-cv-00459-RM-MEH

SONNY P. MEDINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

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

TO:   All persons and entities who or which (i) purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Clovis Oncology, Inc.
("Clovis") and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired exchange
traded call options on Clovis common stock and/or sold/wrote
exchange traded put options on Clovis common stock, during the
period between May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class").

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action, on behalf
of itself and the other members of the Settlement Class, has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $142 million, with
$25 million paid in cash and $117 million paid in shares of Clovis
common stock (the "Settlement").  If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 26, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Raymond P. Moore at the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, Courtroom A601, 6th Floor, 901 19th Street, Denver,
Colorado 80294, to determine, among other things, (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 18, 2017 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the terms and
conditions of the issuance of the Settlement Shares pursuant to an
exemption from registration requirements under Section 3(a)(10) of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, are fair to all persons
and entities to whom the shares will be issued; (iv) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Clovis
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, PO Box 3127, Portland, OR
97208-3127; by toll-free phone at 1-888-697-8556; or by email at
info@ClovisSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.ClovisSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than December 11,
2017.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 5, 2017,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Settling Defendants' Counsel such
that they are received no later than October 5, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

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

Clovis Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Systems
PO Box 3127
Portland, OR 97208-3127
1-888-697-8556
info@ClovisSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.ClovisSecuritiesLitigation.com

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

John C. Browne, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496

By Order of the Court

URL: www.ClovisSecuritiesLitigation.com


DAVITA INC: Peace Officers' Benefit Fund Suit Underway in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia securities
class action civil suit remains pending, Davita Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers
the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges,
generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and
revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium
assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The
complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of
DaVita's business and operational status and future growth
prospects." The Company disputes these allegations and intends to
defend this action accordingly.

DaVita Inc. operates two major divisions, DaVita Kidney Care
(Kidney Care) and DaVita Medical Group (DMG, formerly known as
HealthCare Partners or HCP).  Its Kidney Care division is
comprised of its U.S. dialysis and related lab services business,
its ancillary services and strategic initiatives, including its
international dialysis operations, and its corporate
administrative support.  Its DMG division is comprised of its U.S.
integrated healthcare business.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Davenport" Settlement Hearing on Sept. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the final approval
hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2017, on the settlement of
the class action lawsuit by Sumner Davenport.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).

On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was substituted as lead
plaintiff for Polly Hansen. On January 13, 2017, plaintiff filed
an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement to resolve the case. On January 20, 2017, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The final approval
hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2017. If approved, the case
will be dismissed with prejudice as to all certified class members
who do not opt out of the settlement.

Discover Financial Services ("DFS") is a direct banking and
payment services company.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Seek Dismissal of B&R Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company has
requested permission to file a motion to dismiss the claims
against it in the B&R Supermarket, Inc., class action lawsuit in
New York.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and
EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016. On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company. Discovery is
proceeding and class certification is fully briefed but the court
did not rule on certification before it entered an order in May
2017 transferring the entire action to a federal court in New York
that is presiding over certain related claims that are pending in
the actions consolidated as MDL 1720.

In June 2017, the federal court in New York declined to
consolidate the B&R case with MDL 1720, but ordered the parties to
coordinate discovery across the actions to the extent they
involved related issues.

On July 6, 2017, the Company requested permission to file a motion
to dismiss the claims against it in the federal court in New York.

A ruling on that request is expected on or before the August 24,
2017 status conference in which the Court is expected to set a
schedule for remaining discovery and further proceedings on class
certification.

The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely
outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but
will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.

Discover Financial Services ("DFS") is a direct banking and
payment services company.


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Settlement of Pension Fund Case Awaits OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the case, City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire
Pension Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al., awaits court
approval, Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On September 19, 2016, EGL was named as a defendant in the First
Amended and Supplemented Verified Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint"), filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware
in a case entitled City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Pension
Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 12481-VCL). The
Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all ExamWorks common stockholders and purports to assert a claim
against EGL for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties
by ExamWorks officers and directors in connection with a merger
transaction between ExamWorks and affiliates of Leonard Green &
Partners, L.P. that was agreed to on April 26, 2016 and
consummated on July 27, 2016. The Complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case
prior to trial which would result in no liability to EGL.  The
settlement is subject to court approval.

Evercore Partners Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") is an
investment banking and investment management firm, incorporated in
Delaware on July 21, 2005 and headquartered in New York, New York.
The Company is a holding company which owns a controlling interest
in Evercore LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Evercore LP").
Subsequent to the Company's initial public offering, the Company
became the sole general partner of Evercore LP. The Company
operates from its offices and through its affiliates in North
America, Europe, South America and Asia.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the lead plaintiff in a
class action litigation have taken an appeal from the District
Court's decision granting a motion to dismiss.

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss the four
consolidated putative securities class action lawsuits that were
filed in November 2015, against the Company and certain of its
officers.

The lawsuits were previously consolidated into a single case, and
a consolidated amended complaint had been filed. The consolidated
amended complaint asserted that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. The complaint sought an award of damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.

The lead plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision granting
the motion to dismiss.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted. Discovery has not
yet commenced. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the outcome of this litigation.

Flotek is a global, diversified, technology-driven company that
develops and supplies chemistries and services to the oil and gas
industries, and high value compounds to companies that make
cleaning products, cosmetics, food and beverages, and other
products that are sold in consumer and industrial markets. Flotek
operates in over 20 domestic and international markets.


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Faces "Mahoney" Class Action in D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foundation Medicine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a purported stockholder
of the Company filed on July 28, a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against us
and certain of our current and former executives, captioned
Mahoney v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-11394.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
based on allegedly false and misleading statements when providing
2015 financial guidance. The lawsuit seeks among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's
allegedly inflated stock price between February 26, 2014 and
November 3, 2015, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

Foundation Medicine, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
Foundation Medicine Securities Corporation and FMI Germany GmbH,
is a molecular information company focused on fundamentally
changing the way in which patients with cancer are evaluated and
treated.


G&H DAIRY: "Guzman-Padilla" Class Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HERNAN GUZMAN-PADILLA, CIPRIANO BENITES,
CARLOS FABIAN TORRES PEREZ, and GUILLERMO BENITEZ SANTOYO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs, v. GERARD VAN DE POL; HENRY VAN DE POL; AND GERARD VAN
DE POL AND HENRY VAN DE POL d/b/a/G&H DAIRY Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00196-KJN(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Conditional
Certification of Classes and Preliminary Approval of Stipulation
of Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree.

In connection with the settlement of the action, Magistrate Judge
Newman certified these two classes under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     a. Employee Class: All Hispanic persons born outside of the
United States employed by the Defendants at any time between Jan.
27, 2013 through preliminary approval of the settlement (start and
end dates inclusive), except for those who file a timely request
to opt out of the Employee Class.

     b. Housing Class: All Hispanic persons born outside of the
United States employed by the Defendants and their families who
were provided housing by the Defendants and lived on property
owned or managed by the Defendants between Jan. 27, 2013 through
preliminary approval of the settlement (start and end dates
inclusive) except for those who file a timely request to opt out
of the Housing Class.

The Magistrate Judge appointed Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Cipriano
Benitez, Carlos Fabian Torres Perez, and Guillermo Benitez Santoyo
as the class representatives for both the Employee Class and the
Housing Class.  He also appointed Altshuler Berzon LLP; California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; and Mayall Hurley P.C. as the
Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes.

Having reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree, including the
plan of allocation and the release of claims; and also having read
and considered the Declarations of James M. Finberg, Robert
Wasserman, and Dawson Morton in support of preliminary approval,
Magistrate Judge Kendall preliminarily approved the Settlement.
He finds and concludes that the Settlement is the result of arms-
length negotiations between the parties conducted after Class
Counsel had adequately investigated the Plaintiffs' claims and
become familiar with their strengths and weaknesses.

The Magistrate Judge finds and concludes that the proposed plan
for distributing the Class Notice will provide the best notice
practicable, satisfies the notice requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), and satisfies all other legal and due
process requirements.  Accordingly, he approved the form of the
Class Notice, the Information and Correction, and the manner of
distributing the Class Notice to the Classes.

Promptly following the entry of the Order, he directed the
Settlement Administrator to prepare final versions of the Class
Notice and the Information and Correction Form, incorporating into
the Class Notice the relevant dates and deadlines set forth in the
Order.  For purposes of the Order, he adopts all defined terms set
forth in the Consent Decree.

Within five business days after the Court enters its Preliminary
Approval Order, the Defendants will provide the Settlement
Administrator and Class Counsel with the Mailed Notice Class List.
This information will be drawn from Defendants' payroll records
and other records of employment and tenancy.  The Defendants will
consult with the Settlement Administrator prior to the date for
providing the information to ensure that the format will be
acceptable to the Settlement Administrator.

Prior to the mailing of the Class Notice, the Settlement
Administrator will update any new address information for Class
Members as may be available through the National Change of Address
database or equivalent system.  Within 10 business days after
receiving the class member information from the Defendants, the
Settlement Administrator will mail, via first-class mail, the
Class Notice to all Class Members at their last known address or
at the most recent address that may have  been obtained through
the U.S. Postal Service National Change of Address System.

The Settlement Administrator will take all reasonable steps to
obtain the correct address of any Class Members for whom the
notice materials are returned by the U.S. Postal Service as
undeliverable.  The Settlement Administrator will trace all
returned undeliverable Notice Materials and re-mail them to the
most recent address available.  The Settlement Administrator will
promptly notify Class Counsel and counsel for Defendants of any
mail sent to Class Members that is returned as undeliverable after
the first mailing as well as any such mail returned as
undeliverable after any subsequent mailing(s).  The Settlement
Administrator will take all other actions in furtherance of claims
administration as are specified in the Consent Decree.

Magistrate Judge Kendall scheduled the hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval of the Settlement for Oct. 12,
2017 at 10:00 a.m.  Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
counsel for the Defendants will file a declaration with the Court
confirming that it complied with the notice requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The Class Members will have 30 calendar days after the date on
which the Settlement Administrator mails Class Notice to submit to
the Settlement Administrator a valid, written request not to
participate in the Settlement for purposes of monetary relief.  If
more than 10% of the Class Members opt out, the parties'
settlement will be considered void ab initio and will be of no
force or effect whatsoever, and will not be referred to or used
for any purpose whatsoever.  In the event that more than 10% of
the Class Members opt out, the parties will meet and confer in
good faith to determine whether they are able to reach an
alternate settlement agreement.

Any Class Members who wish to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must do so in
writing, either in English or in Spanish.  They will have 30
calendar days after the date on which the Settlement Administrator
mails Class Notice to submit an objection to the Settlement
Administrator.  The Class Members who have timely and properly
objected to the Settlement in writing may also appear at the Final
Approval Hearing.

The Class Members will be permitted to rescind any Opt-Out
Statement or withdraw any objection by submitting a written
notice, in English or Spanish, to the Settlement Administrator no
later than 10 days prior to the final approval hearing.
Rescission statements and objection withdrawals may be mailed or
delivered to the Settlement Administrator.

The Settlement Administrator will stamp the date received on the
original of any opt-out statement, any objections, and rescission
statements or objection withdrawals it receives and serve copies
of the statement on the Class Counsel and the Defendants' counsel
not later than two business days after receipt thereof and will
file the date-stamped originals of any opt-out statement, any
objections, and rescission statements or objection withdrawals it
receives with the Clerk of the Court no later than five business
days prior to the date of the final approval hearing.  The
Settlement Administrator will retain copies of all opt-out
statement, objections, and rescission statements or objection
withdrawals it receives in its files under such time as the
Settlement Administrator is relieved of its duties and
responsibilities under the Order.

Not later than 28 calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing,
the Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement.  At least 14 days prior to the deadline for Class
Members to submit objections, the Plaintiffs will file (i) a
motion for approval of service payments for the Class
Representatives and (ii) a motion for approval of service payments
for the Class Representatives.  One week or more before the Final
Approval Hearing, they may file a reply brief responding to any
filed objections or opposition memoranda to the motion.

CPT Group is appointed Settlement Administrator by the Magistrate
Judge to carry out the duties set forth in the Preliminary
Approval Order and the Consent Decree.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017, Order is available
at https://is.gd/XyXkEq from Leagle.com.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg
-- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Rosa Erandi
Zamora, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Alexandra
Thompson Revelas, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
Dawson McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve
H. Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall
Hurley P.C..

Cipriano Benites, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation, Alexandra Thompson Revelas, California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Dawson McKinnon Morton,
California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve H. Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C..

Guillermo Benitez Santiago, Plaintiff, represented by Dawson
McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M.
Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Fabian Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua
Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C., Dawson McKinnon Morton, California
Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M. Finberg, Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Gerard Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson --
shenderson@thtlaw.com -- Terpstra Henderson, APC.

Henry Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson,
Terpstra Henderson, APC.


GUARDNOW INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files FCRA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik on Aug. 15 disclosed that they have filed a proposed
class action Complaint against Guardnow, Inc. for allegedly
failing to provide their California employees with the legally
required thirty-minute uninterrupted meal periods and allegedly
failing to pay all overtime due to their California employees.
Additionally, the Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
nationwide class alleging Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act in conducting of background checks on their
employees.  The Guardnow, Inc. lawsuit, Case No. 1:17-cv-00998-
DAD-EPG is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California.

The lawsuit filed against Guardnow, Inc., claims that the company
failed to accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other
California Class Members for missed meal and rest breaks, and also
overtime."  Under the California Labor Code, an employee who is
classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis must be
paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a
workday and time worked over forty hours in a workweek.  The
Complaint also alleges that the employees working in California
for Defendant were not always able to take their thirty-minute
uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours. The penalty for failing to
provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the
California Labor Code.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit also alleges claims on
behalf of a nationwide class under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
stating that the company failed to adequately disclose and obtain
authorization to conduct background checks on their employees. As
alleged in the complaint, "The inclusion of the liability release
clause in DEFENDANT's authorization forms invalidates the
purported consent and also triggers statutory damages under the
FCRA in the amount of up to $1,000 for each applicant that
DEFENDANT obtained a consumer report without a facially valid
authorization, as well as punitive damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Guardnow, Inc. please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to one of the
attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

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


HCP INC: Boynton Beach Pension Fund's Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
remains pending, HCP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its
officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The
suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made
certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of
and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing
to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by
the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit
demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and
expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert fees), and
equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

HCP, Inc., a Standard & Poor's ("S&P") 500 company, is a Maryland
corporation that is organized to qualify as a real estate
investment trust ("REIT") which, together with its consolidated
entities (collectively, "HCP" or the "Company"), invests primarily
in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the United
States ("U.S."). The Company acquires, develops, leases, manages
and disposes of healthcare real estate and provides financing to
healthcare providers. The Company's diverse portfolio is comprised
of investments in the following reportable healthcare segments:
(i) senior housing triple-net; (ii) senior housing operating
portfolio ("SHOP"); (iii) life science and (iv) medical office.


HUDSON COFFEE: NJ Super. Ct. Says Creditors' Claims Time-Barred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's decision after determining
that the claims asserted in the case captioned BART COMMODITIES
and GO COFFEE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUDSON COFFEE, INC.,
ARMENIA COFFEE CORPORATION, REGAL TRADING, INC., JOSEPH APUZZO,
JR., and ESTATE OF JOSEPH APUZZO, SR., Defendants-Respondents,
Docket No. A-3156-15T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), were time-barred.

Plaintiffs Bart Commodities (Bart) and Go Coffee, LLC (Go Coffee)
assert that they are the holders of a loan agreement with Hudson
Coffee Inc. for $50,000 required to be repaid.  They also allege
Hudson owed them $17,527 from an invoice.  Prior to Hudson's
filing for bankruptcy, Fourteen Florence Street Corporation, Mecca
& Sons Trucking Company, Inc., and Helen Mecca (Mecca Entities)
filed a State Court complaint alleging fraud and fraudulent
transfers.

Go Coffee purchased a two-thirds interest in Bart's $67,527 claim
against Hudson, consisting of the loan and unpaid invoice. Go
Coffee also obtained an option to acquire capital stock in Hudson.
Seeking a receiver does not in itself toll the statute of
limitations, nor does reframing past claims under new legal
theories.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs sought certification as a
class action for all unpaid creditors of Hudson, compensatory
damages, and various other relief including the appointment of a
receiver and the enforcement of the attorney's fee judgment. They
argue that defendants' fraudulent activities tolled the applicable
statutes of limitations. They also claim that this new litigation
should "relate back" to prior litigation, pursuant to Rule 4:9-3,
which covers "When Amendments Relate Back" to the original
pleading, and does not discuss a new action relating back to a
prior action between different parties.

The Plaintiffs appeal from three orders denying the appointment of
a receiver and other relief, dissolving all previous restraints,
denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and dismissing
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

The Superior Court stated that it has long recognized "the strong
interests in the finality of litigation and judicial economy."
Jansson v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 198 N.J.Super. 190, 193
(App. Div. 1985). Seeking a receiver does not in itself toll the
statute of limitations, nor does reframing past claims under new
legal theories, the Superior Court held.  After a plenary review
of the pleadings, viewing plaintiffs' assertions as true, the
Superior Court affirmed the decision of the motion court
substantially for the reasons expressed in its written reasons
attached to the orders.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's August 14, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8m845jdfrom Leagle.com.

Barry, McTiernan and Wedinger, P.C., attorneys for appellants
(Laurel A. Wedinger, Richard W. Wedinger, and Kerry E. Bocchetto,
65 Joline Ave; New York, New York 10307. on the briefs).

Gibbons, P.C., attorneys for respondents, Regal Trading, Inc. and
Joseph Apuzzo, Jr., (Frederick W. Alworth --
falworth@gibbonslaw.com -- and Jonathan S. Liss --
jliss@gibbonslaw.com -- of counsel and on the brief).

Bendit Weinstock, P.A., attorneys for respondent Armenia Coffee
Corporation (James F. Keegan -- jfkeegan@benditweinstock.com --
and Sherri Davis Fowler -- sdfowler@benditweinstock.com -- on the
brief).


HYLAND'S INC: $2.9MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in "Forcellati"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Central District of California,
issued an Order granting the parties' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, and Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards in the case captioned
ENZO FORCELLATI and LISA ROEMMICH, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYLAND'S, INC., STANDARD
HOMEOPATHIC LABORATORIES, INC., and STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:12-CV-01983 ODW (MRW) (C.D. Cal.).

On February 7, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement between the parties in this
Consolidated Action.  In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
provisionally certified a Settlement Class of all persons in the
United States who purchased the following Hyland's products on or
after March 8, 2008: (i) Cold 'n Cough 4 Kids, (ii) Cough Syrup
with 100% Natural Honey, (iii) Sniffles 'n Sneezes 4 Kids, (iv)
Cold Relief Strips 4 Kids with Zinc, (v) Nighttime Cold 'n Cough 4
Kids, (vi) Complete Flu Care 4 Kids, (vii) Baby Teething Gel,
(viii) Baby Cough Syrup, (ix) Baby Gas Drops, (x) Baby Infant
Earache Drops, and (xi) Baby Nighttime Tiny Cold Syrup.  The Court
also approved the procedures for giving notice and the forms of
notice.  Additionally, in the Preliminary Approval Order, the
Court concluded that the parties' proposed settlement, as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, was within range of
possible final approval.

The Court grants the Motion for Final Approval and Plaintiffs'
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive
Awards and finds and orders, inter alia, as follows:

   * The Court appoints Enzo Forcellati, and Lisa Roemmich as
Class Representatives.

   * The Court appoints Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Vozzolo LLC, and
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.

   * The Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately
represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and
implementing the Stipulation of Settlement.

   * The Court finds that the settlement set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement provides meaningful relief
to the Class including, cash relief, and injunctive relief, and
certainly falls within the range of possible recoveries by the
Class. Additionally, among other things, the fact that the
parties' agreement is the result of arm's length negotiations, the
risk of trial, and the complex legal and factual posture of this
Consolidated Action support the finding that the settlement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable. Any objections to the settlement
are overruled as without merit.

Accordingly, the Stipulation of Settlement is finally approved in
all respects, and the Parties are directed to perform its terms.

The Court awards to Class Counsel $2.9 million, which includes
reimbursement of Class Counsel's costs and expenses, as attorney's
fees and costs.

The Court awards to the Class Representatives $5,000 as an
Incentive Award for their roles in this Action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 14, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8pvavw6from Leagle.com.

Enzo Forcellati, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Vozzolo, Faruqi
and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor,
New York, NY 10017.

Enzo Forcellati, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Beatrice Skye
Resendes -- sresendes@watkinsfirm.com -- Benjamin Heikali, Faruqi
and Faruqi LLP, Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
Bursor and Fisher PA, Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com --
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald A. Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher PA &
Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP,
pro hac vice.

Lisa Roemmich, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Vozzolo, Faruqi
and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Barbara A. Rohr, Faruqi and Faruqi
LLP, Benjamin Heikali, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, David E. Bower,
Bower Law Group PC, Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron APLC, Scott A. Bursor, Bursor and Fisher PA, Timothy J.
Peter, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice & Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor and Fisher PA.

Ashley Hammack, Movant, represented by Michael F. Creamer, Jr.,
Michael Creamer Jr Law Offices, PO Box 17743, Anaheim, CA 92817
Hylands Inc, Defendant, represented by Jade F. Jurdi --
jjurdi@scalilaw.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Jeffrey B.
Margulies -- jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Spencer Persson --
spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP & Stephanie Anne Stroup --
stephanie.stroup@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP.

Standard Homeopathic Laboratories Inc, Defendant, represented by
Jade F. Jurdi, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Jeffrey B. Margulies,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Spencer Persson, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP & Stephanie Anne Stroup, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP.

Standard Homeopathic Company, Defendant, represented by Jade F.
Jurdi, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Jeffrey B. Margulies, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Spencer Persson, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP & Stephanie Anne Stroup, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.

Patrick S Sweeney, Objector, Pro Se.

Zeynep Vitale, Objector, Pro Se.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: October 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Directly Purchased Containerboard Products Between February
15, 2004 through November 8, 2010, You Could be Affected by a
Proposed Class Action Settlement.

What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs in this case allege that Defendants participated in an
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of Containerboard Products at artificially high levels,
including via various types of supply restrictions, in violation
of U.S. antitrust laws.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and is known as Kleen Products LLC
et al. v. International Paper, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-05711.
On November 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Complaint") alleging that the Defendants
participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the price of Containerboard Products at artificially
high levels, including via various types of supply restrictions,
in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs have filed subsequent amendments to the Complaint.  The
lawsuit claims that any person or entity that purchased
Containerboard Products directly from any Defendant during the
Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have
paid in a competitive market.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover three times the actual damages that Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants' conduct caused, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs. Settling Defendants and the Non-
Settling Defendants deny any liability.

On March 26, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois certified the Class for
purposes of litigating the merits of this case, and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on August 4, 2016.
The Defendants then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
seeking review by the United States Supreme Court, which was
denied on April 17, 2017.

The certified Class Period is from February 15, 2004 through
November 8, 2010.

Discovery has been completed and cross-motions for full or partial
summary judgment have been filed by the Plaintiffs and all
Defendants other than PCA and Norampac.  Rulings on these motions
are pending.

The Court has not set a date for trial.

Who are the Defendants?
The Defendants include Settled (PCA and Norampac), Settling, and
Non-Settling Defendants.

The Court granted final approval of settlements with Defendant PCA
on September 3, 2014, and Defendant Norampac on May 21, 2015. This
Notice pertains to a proposed settlement with Defendants
International Paper Company, Temple-Inland Inc. (now known as
Temple-Inland LLC) and TIN Inc. (now known as TIN LLC)
(collectively, "TIN"), and Weyerhaeuser Company.  The Non-Settling
Defendants are Georgia-Pacific LLC ("Georgia-Pacific") and
WestRock CP, LLC (formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container
Corporation) ("Smurfit").

The Defendants also include all of these companies' predecessors
(including Containerboard Products manufacturers merged with or
acquired by them) and each of their wholly-owned or controlled
subsidiaries or affiliates that sold Containerboard Products
directly to purchasers in the United States during the Class
Period.

To be a member of the Class you must have purchased Containerboard
Products directly from one of these
companies in the United States from February 15, 2004 through
November 8, 2010 and not requested to be excluded from the Class
by December 5, 2016.

What are Containerboard Products?
"Containerboard Products" include linerboard, corrugated medium,
rollstock, corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including
displays, boxes and other containers.

What does the Proposed Settlement provide?
Pursuant to the Proposed Settlement, International Paper Company
has agreed to pay $354,000,000.  Settling Defendants have agreed
to cooperate with the Plaintiffs in their ongoing litigation
against the Non-Settling Defendants.  There is a provision in the
Settlement Agreement providing for a reduction of the settlement
amount if Plaintiffs settle the case with Georgia-Pacific for less
than a certain amount.  The maximum reduction allowed under the
provision is $118,000,000.  There are limitations to the terms of
this agreement and $118,000,000 will be held in escrow until those
limitations no longer apply.  For further details relating to this
provision and the limitation on the potential reduction, see the
Settlement Agreement filed with the Court in connection with
Plaintiffs' request for preliminary approval of this settlement.
The Settlement Agreement is also available on the case website:
www.containerboardproductscase.com.

How do I know if I am part of the Proposed Settlement?
Any person or business that fits the following description, and
did not request to be excluded from the Class by December 5, 2016,
is affected by the Proposed Settlement and therefore a member of
the certified Class, defined as: All persons who purchased
Containerboard Products directly from any of the Defendants or
their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United
States from at least as early as February 15, 2004 through
November 8, 2010.

Specifically excluded from this Class are the Defendants;
officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant;
any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and
any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any
Defendant. Also excluded from the Class are any federal, state or
local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over
this action and the members of his or her immediate family and
judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

The certified Class Period is from February 15, 2004 through
November 8, 2010.

"Containerboard Products" means linerboard, corrugated medium,
rollstock, corrugated sheets and corrugated products, including
displays, boxes and other containers.

For purposes of determining whether you are affected by the
Proposed Settlement, it does not matter from which Defendant you
purchased Containerboard Products, so long as you purchased
directly from at least one Defendant at any time during the Class
Period for use or delivery in the United States.

How will the funds from the settlement be distributed?
Subject to the Court's approval, Plaintiffs' counsel may use the
Settlement Fund (a) to pay for reasonable expenses associated with
the costs of giving notice and administration of the Settlement
Fund; (b) to distribute funds to Class Members; and (c) subject to
Court approval, to pay interim fees and expenses incurred by Class
Counsel for prosecution of the Action on behalf of the Class.  It
is anticipated that a partial distribution of
Settlement Funds will be made to Class Members in an amount not to
exceed $165,000,000. Plaintiffs intend to file with the Court a
Proposed Plan of Distribution on or before August 28, 2017.
Plaintiffs also intend to file with the Court a Petition for
Partial Payment of Fees on or before August 28, 2017
requesting a partial payment of fees not to exceed 30% of the
Settlement Amount ($354,000,000), or approximately $106,200,000,
with 30% of that amount ($31,860,000) to be held in an escrow
account until resolution of the settlement reduction clause.
The Plan of Distribution and Petition for Partial Payment of Fees
will be available for viewing on the case website:
www.containerboardproductscase.com.

How do I tell the Court that I don't like the Proposed Settlement,
Plan of Distribution or Interim Fee Request?
If you are a Class Member, you can object to the Proposed
Settlement, Plan of Distribution or Interim Fee Request.  You can
give reasons why you think the Court should not approve the
Proposed Settlement, the Plan of Distribution or the Interim Fee
Request.  The Court will consider your views.  To object, you must
send a letter that includes the following:

   -- A statement saying what you object to in the Proposed
Settlement, Plan of Distribution or Interim Fee
Request, together with your name, address, telephone number, and
signature.
   -- The reasons for your objection.
   -- Proof of your membership in the Class, such as invoices
showing that you satisfy the definition.

Your objection must identify this case and case number and must be
filed with the Court at the following address, postmarked by
September 11, 2017.

          Clerk of Court
          United States District Court
          for the Northern District of Illinois
          Everett McKinley Dirksen
          United States Courthouse
          219 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60604

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Proposed Settlement?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on
October 17, 2017, in Courtroom 1941 at the United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. At this
hearing, the Court will consider whether the Proposed Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If there are objections, the
Court will consider them.  Judge Leinenweber will listen to people
who have asked to speak at the hearing.  After the hearing, the
Court will decide whether to approve the Proposed Settlement.  The
Court may change the time and date of the Fairness Hearing.
Notice of any change will be posted at the
courthouse or on the Court's website.

How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the litigation and the Settlement. You can
learn more about the litigation and settlements by visiting
www.containerboardproductscase.com, calling 888-764-8864, or
writing to Containerboard Products Class Action, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173014, Milwaukee, WI 53217.

You may also write to any of Class Counsel at the following
addresses:

         Michael J. Freed
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
         Bannockburn, IL 60015
         Telephone: (224) 632-4500
         Fax: (224) 632-4521

         Daniel J. Mogin
         MOGINRUBIN LLP
         707 Broadway, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 687-6611
         Fax: (619) 687-6610


J.C. PENNEY: Nov. 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the JCPenney Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

ALAN B. MARCUS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,
vs.

J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

CLASS ACTION
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00736-RWS-KNM
(Consolidated)

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED J.C. PENNEY
COMPANY, INC. ("JCPENNEY" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK OR
EXCHANGE-TRADED CALL OPTIONS, OR WHO SOLD EXCHANGE-TRADED JCPENNEY
PUT OPTIONS ("SECURITIES"), BETWEEN AUGUST 20, 2013 AND SEPTEMBER
26, 2013, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a hearing
will be held on November 29, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, United States Magistrate Judge, at
the William M. Steger Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 211 West Ferguson Street, Room 353, Tyler, TX 75702,
for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed Settlement
of the Action for the sum of Ninety-Seven Million, Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($97,500,000.00) in cash should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in
this Action being dismissed with prejudice against the Released
Persons as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated June 14,
2017; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (3) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with
this Action, together with interest thereon, and the application
of Plaintiffs for an award of their time and expenses in
representing the Class.

If you purchased, acquired or sold JCPenney Securities, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
JCPenney Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404005, Louisville, KY 40233-4005, or by
downloading this information at
www.jcpenneysecuritieslitigation.com.  If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no
later than November 6, 2017, or online at
www.jcpenneysecuritieslitigation.com no later than November 6,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request
to be excluded, in writing, to JCPenney Securities Litigation,
Claims Administrator, EXCLUSIONS, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, 3301
Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked by November 8,
2017.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than November 8, 2017, and
received by the following no later than November 8, 2017:

Counsel for Plaintiffs
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ROBERT R. HENSSLER JR.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants
IBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JASON J. MENDRO
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: July 24, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


JAMES R. LEININGER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Robocall Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
a federal jury on Aug. 16 found in favor of a Texas doctor in a
class-action lawsuit here over more than 3 million robocalls that
went out to promote a movie in 2012.

Texas doctor and businessman James R. Leininger, who sank $10
million into the marketing of the "Last Ounce of Courage" movie,
was the only remaining defendant in the suit.  On Aug. 14, U.S.
District Judge E. Richard Webber ruled that Gabriel Joseph III, of
Virginia, and his affiliated companies had violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  Violations are punishable by fines of up
to $500 per call, but no damage amount has yet been determined.

Ron and Dorit Golan, of St. Louis County, filed the lawsuit in
2012 and represented call recipients.  The Golans, who received
two calls that went to voicemail, are on the Do Not Call registry
and did not consent to receiving any calls.

Some of Dr. Leininger's money went to fund the robocall campaign,
but his attorneys argued that he did not have the necessary
control over that campaign to be held responsible for it.

Leininger attorney Brian Schwalb told jurors in closing arguments
on Aug. 15 that the plaintiffs and their attorneys were trying to
blame his client for what others did.

The movie featured the voice of former presidential candidate and
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.  He testified on Aug. 11, telling
jurors that he did not talk to Leininger about the robocall
campaign.  He was once a named plaintiff but had been dismissed
before his testimony.

The movie, about "faith, family and freedom," opened Sept. 14,
2012, but flopped. [GN]


JIMMY CHOO: Asks 11th Cir. to Reverse FACTA Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that a
member of a proposed class action accusing luxury shoemaker Jimmy
Choo of printing sensitive data on credit card receipts has asked
the Eleventh Circuit to reverse approval of a $2.5 million
settlement, arguing that a lower court erred in awarding
attorneys' fees in excess of 25 percent.

The would-be class member, Cynthia L. Wagner, said in a brief
filed on Aug. 14 that the district court abused its discretion by
awarding class counsel one-third of the gross settlement fund and
ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 2010 in Perdue v. Kenny
A.  The high court ruling establishes "a strong presumption" that
the lodestar method for calculating attorneys' fees would be
sufficient to achieve a reasonable fee in the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act suit against Jimmy Choo,
Ms. Wagner said.

Ms. Wagner, who urged the Eleventh Circuit to reverse the district
court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings,
called class counsel's fee request "excessive and unearned."  She
said the district court had overruled her objection to the request
in error and then awarded class counsel all of its requested fee,
which amounts to an upward adjustment of more than $200,000 from
the 25 percent benchmark.

"The size of the award, $833,333, vastly over-compensates class
counsel, giving them an undeserved windfall of $208,333 more than
the 25 percent benchmark fee of $625,000," Ms. Wagner told the
Eleventh Circuit.  "Class counsel failed to provide a reasonable
basis for enhancing the fee above the 25 percent benchmark. This
is even more apparent considering that the case was lightly
litigated, without class certification or summary judgment
proceedings or aggressive motion practice."

Separately, the Tennessee resident argued that the FACTA suit
represented by lead plaintiff Kerri C. Wood against J Choo USA
Inc., which does business as Jimmy Choo, failed to satisfy Article
III standing requirements under another Supreme Court ruling,
Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, from 2016.

Ms. Wagner filed her objection in federal court in Miami on March
17 as she sought to upend the agreement reached by Ms. Wood and
Jimmy Choo to resolve the potential nationwide class action
alleging claims under FACTA. She complained about the requested
attorneys' fees and the incentive payout to the named plaintiff,
raising questions about their motivations and casting suspicion on
the legitimacy of the allegations and Wood's reasons for accepting
a settlement.

The settlement proposal states that Wood would seek a $5,000
incentive award as the named plaintiff, while her legal team --
consisting of members of the law firm Farmer Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos & Lehrman PL and solo practitioner Bret L. Lusskin
Jr. -- would ask for an attorneys' fee award of 33 percent, or
just over $833,000.

With another $150,000 going to cover notice and administration
costs and about $7,000 for expenses, that would leave 60 percent
of the gross settlement fund to the members of the opt-in
settlement class -- which the parties estimate includes 135,588
Jimmy Choo customers, according to Ms. Wagner and case records.
Doled out in pro rata shares, the parties have anticipated that
individuals who submit timely claims will receive between $75 and
$175.

Class co-counsel Seth Lehrman of Farmer Jaffe declined to comment
on Aug. 16.

Ms. Wood filed her complaint against Jimmy Choo in October 2015,
alleging that the retailer had run afoul of FACTA by printing
credit and debit card expiration dates and other sensitive
information such as home addresses, phone numbers and cashiers'
names on its store receipts.

Jimmy Choo moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing, but
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled in August that the pleadings
had met the standard set by the Supreme Court's May 2016 ruling in
Spokeo, which held that a consumer must assert a concrete and
particularized injury in order to satisfy Article III standing.

Shortly after that ruling, the court referred the case to
mediation, where the parties reached the settlement disclosed in
late January.

In her objection before both the district court and the Eleventh
Circuit, Wagner questioned whether Wood had standing to bring the
case, raising the same argument as Jimmy Choo about Wood not
showing concrete and particularized injury.

In a footnote in her district court objection, Ms. Wagner made an
even stronger statement, saying, "The facts surrounding the filing
of the lawsuit suggest a scenario in which the plaintiff was sent
to the Jimmy Choo [store] to make a purchase in order to base a
lawsuit upon her purchase."

Ms. Wood is represented by Steven R. Jaffe, Seth M. Lehrman and
Mark S. Fistos of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman
PL, Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens PA and Bret L. Lusskin Jr. of
Bret Lusskin PA.

Jimmy Choo is represented by Mark R. Cheskin, Carol A. Licko and
James L. VanLandingham of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Cynthia L. Wagner is represented by Allen McDonald.

The case is Kerri C. Wood v. J Choo USA Inc., d/b/a Jimmy Choo,
Case No. 17-12578 (11th Cir.).  The case was filed June 6, 2017.
[GN]


KELLOGG'S: Must Face Class Action Over Cereal Labels
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the maker
of Raisin Bran and Frosted Mini-Wheats must answer a legal
challenge in federal court in San Jose, California, saying
Kellogg's breakfast cereals are in fact unhealthy and contribute
to obesity and disease because they are laced with extra sugar, in
the wake of a 64-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh who
sits in a jurisdiction sometimes referred to by its own judges as
"the food court."

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part Kellogg's motion to
dismiss a class action claiming several of its cereals and
breakfast bars are labeled as healthy when they contain enough
sugar to compromise the health of people who eat it regularly.

"The court finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged that
defendant's products are unhealthy due to excess added sugar for
the purposes of the instant motion to dismiss," Judge Koh wrote in
the 64-page ruling.

Plaintiff Stephen Hadley says he has eaten Kellogg's products in
the morning for several years, content in his belief that he was
eating healthy options for breakfast.  However, he claims he
recently discovered that the amount of sugar the company puts in
several of its products puts him at greater risk of contracting
diseases related to excessive consumption of sugary foods --
including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, liver disease, obesity, inflammation, high cholesterol,
hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, and some cancers.

The product lines in question include Kellogg's Raisin Bran,
Frosted Mini-Wheats, Smart Start-Original Antioxidants, Crunchy
Nut, Nutri-Grain Cereal Bars, Nutri-grain Soft-Baked Breakfast
Bars, Nutri-Grain Oat & Harvest Bars, and Nutri-Grain Harvest
Hearty Breakfast Bars.  These lines also have variants, bringing
the total number of products involved in the lawsuit to 29.

Mr. Hadley says the products contain anywhere from 18 to 40
percent of a person's daily recommended value of sugar, beyond the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration guideline of 10 percent.

Kellogg argued Hadley doesn't know how much sugar is in each
product, and that advertising related to the health benefits of
its products are either true or harmless puffery common to
advertising language.

Specifically, Kellogg argued the FDA's establishment of the 10
percent rule gave the company safe harbor because they have
manufactured their products to hew closely to the guidelines.

But Judge Koh said this adherence to federal dietary guidelines
does not protect the company from litigation.

Kellogg next turned to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of
1990, which the company said pre-empts any claims filed under
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and other state-related
laws cited in the original lawsuit.

Judge Koh said that certain language the company used relates to
matters determined by the FDA and therefore are not bound by state
laws in California, but that other claims made by the company
could be adjudicated under state laws.

"The three claims identified in the parties' briefing, the court
finds that the No High Fructose Corn Syrup and Heart Healthy
claims are not pre-empted at this stage of the litigation," Judge
Koh wrote in the ruling.

Finally, Judge Koh agreed with Kellogg that some of the language
identified by Hadley is hyperbole common to advertising, but said
some of the assertions made by Kellogg do not amount to sales
puffery.

"The court finds that the 'unbelievably nutritious' and
'positively nutritious' statements are puffery, but that the
'nutritious,' "essential nutrients," and 'wholesome' statements
cannot be dismissed as puffery in the instant motion to dismiss,"
Judge Koh wrote.

Judge Koh dismisses claims relating to 5 of the 29 products with
prejudice, finding the statements made in relation to those
products are puffery.  However, claims made pertaining to the
remaining 24 products -- including Raisin Bran, Frosted Mini
Wheats and several lines of breakfast bars -- will move forward.

"The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss as to the above-
listed 24 products because these products contain at least one
statement that the court found was not pre-empted, non-misleading,
or puffery as a matter of law," Judge Koh wrote. [GN]


KRAFT FOODS: Court Decertifies Cheese Product Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
court has decertified a class action lawsuit against Kraft Foods
over one of its natural cheese products in a move that an attorney
is calling a "well-rounded decision."

But plaintiffs attorneys have also asked U.S. District Judge John
A. Kronstadt to recertify the class after his June 9 order found
that the plaintiffs had not shown any evidence that supports a
request for restitution.  Ryan Clarkson --
rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- of the Clarkson Law Firm filed
the plaintiffs' motion to recertify the class on June 16.

"This Court should recertify this case as a Rule 23(b)(2) class so
Plaintiffs may continue their pursuit of an injunction which
prevents Kraft from deceptively labeling as 'natural cheese' a
product which contains artificial color comprised of annatto and
titanium dioxide, as well as punitive damages for knowingly
deceiving consumers for years," Clarkson wrote.

The plaintiffs, Claudia Morales and Mocha Gunaratna, sued the food
giant over claims a cheese product was all natural when it
allegedly contained artificial ingredients.

They claimed they purchased Kraft's Fat Free Shredded Cheddar
Cheese on the basis that it was all natural.

The lawsuit was originally certified as a class action suit for
residents of California in June 2015.  However, Kraft filed a
motion for decertification in February.

In June, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the decertification motion without prejudice.

One of the major reasons cited for the decision was the
plaintiff's inability to prove a material cost of their suffering.

"I think it is yet another well-reasoned decision indicating that
it is very difficult to come up with a reliable damages model on
these cases for a variety of reasons," Perkins Coie partner
Charles Sipos -- CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- told Legal Newsline.

"Specific to the Morales case, is that there is no way to really
accurately estimate any premium associated with a natural claim or
even whether or not to determine if such a premium exists."

He said he believed the court thoroughly examined the issue and
"concluded that the plaintiff data simply didn't prove any
reliable measure of damages that could be applied class-wide."

One interesting aspect of the case, Mr. Sipos said, was that Kraft
was able to show there was no premium made on its natural-label
products over products without a natural label.

"Products on sale with that distinguishing feature were priced no
differently," Mr. Sipos said.

The plaintiffs had requested the class apply to those who
purchased the product from May 7, 2010, to present in California.
[GN]


KUSHNER COMPANIES: Faces Rent-Stabilization Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Will Parker, writing for The Real Deal, reports that Kushner
Companies violated rent-stabilization laws at a building the
company owns in Brooklyn Heights, a new class-action lawsuit
alleges.

The legal action comes at a time when the company is already
facing scrutiny over its ownership and management of a massive
multifamily portfolio with hundreds of rent-stabilized units
across the city, and puts a further spotlight on Jared Kushner,
the former CEO of the firm and top White House adviser who
continues to hold a stake in the Brooklyn Heights property.

For years, the 48-unit apartment building at 89 Hicks Street was a
servant to institutions.  It was first converted to religious
housing for the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1989, and later became a
dorm for Brooklyn Law School.  In 2014, it was picked up for $14.3
million by Kushner Companies, which was on its way to becoming one
of the biggest players in the borough.

According to the complaint, apartments at the building had for
more than two decades enjoyed a temporary reprieve from the
burdens of rent stabilization, due to a law that makes exceptions
for buildings used for institutional purposes, such as for
schools, hospitals or religious organizations.  With the Kushner
Companies acquisition, the building went back into the private
sector, and the building's apartments were required to become
rent-stabilized again.  But Kushner Companies did not comply with
that requirement, according to the lawsuit, filed on Aug. 15 in
Kings County State Supreme Court, and instead leased many
apartments in the building at market rates.

After the Kushner Companies' acquisition, the legal rent for the
apartments would have to revert back to what they were before the
building received the reprieve, according to state rent laws.  In
the case of at least one apartment, the year of reset was 1991,
meaning that the legal rent for the apartment would be a fraction
of what the market-rate rent in tony Brooklyn Heights is today.
The tenants are demanding monetary damages equivalent to the
amount of rent overcharge, plus interest.

Lucas Ferrara, a partner at Newman Ferrara who is representing the
tenants in the suit, said the laws were clear.

"There are only three possible explanations for the abuses we have
uncovered here," he said.  "Ignorance, indifference or utter
disregard of the law.  We suspect the latter."  Ms. Ferrara said
he brought the lawsuit after the Housing Rights Initiative, a
nonprofit group that has organized many recent rent-stabilization
suits against major landlords, brought the 89 Hicks situation to
his law firm's attention.

A representative for Kushner Companies said that "we are reviewing
the lawsuit."  The company, which has a sprawling portfolio of
multifamily holdings in New York and across the Northeast, has
been accused in the past of flouting rent-stabilization laws.

According to Jared Kushner's most recent White House financial
disclosures from July, Kushner retained a personal interest in 89
Hicks Street through KF-BLS Member, LLC, an asset made up of
numerous other LLCs, including 89 Hicks Street, LLC.  The value of
Kushner's interest in the KF-BLS Member is listed in the
disclosure as being between $500,000 and $1,000,000. He continues
to hold significant stakes in properties such as the Puck Building
in Soho and the Dumbo Heights complex.

Last month, The Real Deal published a detailed look at Kushner
Companies' compliance with the rent-stabilization laws across its
multi-family portfolio and found that the state recently
intervened at a building in Williamsburg, where the company failed
to properly register more than 40 apartments.  A portfolio-wide
analysis revealed that hundreds of apartments in its residential
portfolio have disappeared from rent-stabilization rolls in recent
years.

The company has been accused of harassment of its rent-stabilized
tenants in the past. At a number of its East Village properties,
tenants have accused the company of using interior construction as
a tactic to push them out.  More recently, the company is said to
be the subject of a federal investigation into how it solicits
Chinese investments in its real estate projects through the EB-5
visa program. [GN]


LEON'S FURNITURE: Faces $2.36MM Damages in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Luis Millan, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that Leon's
Furniture Limited, Canada's largest discount furniture and
appliance retailer, was ordered to pay $2.36 million, including $1
million in punitive damages, to thousands of consumers after the
Quebec Superior Court found that it engaged in deceptive
advertising and marketing with its popular "buy now, pay later"
promotions.

The ruling, one of a handful of Quebec class actions that was
decided on its merits, represents a convincing victory for
consumer rights and serves as a cautionary tale for business that
rely on false and misleading advertising pitches to lure
customers, according to legal experts.

"The takeaway from this ruling is that one cannot repeatedly and
continuously use a business model that avoids respecting consumer
protection laws without exposing oneself to liability," noted Jean
Saint-Onge, a Montreal class action lawyer with Lavery. "This
ruling will serve as guidance to other retailers who often rely on
the same business model."

The class action, launched by consumer advocacy group Option
Consommateurs, took aim at the marketing practices of Leon's,
whose retail banners include Leon's and The Brick, for enticing
consumers with newspaper and television advertisements that
boasted that customers could purchase big-ticket items without
having to pay for periods of up to 36 months.

Between 1,000 and 2,000 Quebecers finance their purchases through
Leon's finance program each week, revealed evidence at the trial.

But "in reality" at least 7,300 consumers who opted to pay their
purchases through Leon's financing program between 2007 and 2011
were slapped with a $21 annual fee that was charged by
Citifinanciere Canada Inc., the financial institution that Leon's
did business with, found Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-Andre
Blanchard in Option Consommateurs v. Meubles Leon ltee 2017 QCCS
3526.

In some cases, clients had to also pay the federal and provincial
sales tax at the time of purchase, added Justice Blanchard.  "It
is clear that the retailer's advertising strategy rests on a
repeated and systemic violation of the relevant provisions of the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act," said Justice Blanchard in a 62-
page ruling that harshly castigated the retailer.

Justice Blanchard also found that Leon's infringed article 244 of
the act, which prohibits any advertisement of goods and services
that notifies consumers credit can be offered to them "except to
mention the availability of credit" through the use of a logo of a
financial institution, an illustration of a credit card, or a
mention that credit can be offered or accepted.

"We hope that this ruling will prove to be a warning signal to
companies and a turning point in advertising practices in general
because Leon's is not the only one to use such marketing
strategies," said Elise Theriault -- etheriault@option-
consommateurs.org -- a lawyer with Option Consommateurs in
Montreal.

The Canadian retailer has faced five Quebec class actions since
2002, two of which dealt with extended warranties while the others
with financing charges.  In 2005 Leon's settled a class action
that paid $38 to each member of the class, gave $160,000 to
charities and paid $420,000 in legal fees. In another class action
settlement reached in 2010 Leon's paid a lump sum of $125,000 and
pledged to change its advertising practices.

"One can even question the good faith of the enterprise when it
committed in a legal framework to change its practices but did not
do it for a substantial period of time," underlined Justice
Blanchard.

But the ruling also highlights the challenges faced by judges when
applying the landmark class action ruling by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Richard v. Time Inc. 2012 SCC 8. Under s. 272 of the
act, a consumer can institute proceedings to have the court
sanction a failure by a merchant or a manufacturer to fulfil an
obligation imposed on them by the act.  When a merchant or
manufacturer fails to fulfil such obligations, the consumer can
claim a contractual remedy, compensatory damages and punitive
damages.  It is up to the trial judge to award the remedies he
considers to be appropriate.  In Time the SCC held that the
"recourse provided for in s. 272 C.P.A. is based on the premise
that any failure to fulfil an obligation imposed by the Act gives
rise to an absolute presumption of prejudice to the consumer."
Judges are still grappling with that guidance, noted Montreal
class action lawyer Mathieu Charest-Beaudry of Trudel Johnston &
Lesperance.

Earlier this year, the Quebec Court of Appeal held in Videotron v.
Union des consommateurs 2017 QCCA 738 that claims for damages are
still governed by common law and that consumers must show evidence
of the harm they suffered and the causal link between the harm and
the violation of the act.  Justice Blanchard rejected that
guidance. Instead he relied on the SCC's Time ruling.

"The courts are having a problem to delineate clearly this notion
of absolute presumption of prejudice to the consumer," said
Mr. Charest-Beaudry.  "Justice Blanchard casts doubt on the
guidance provided by the Quebec Appeal Court over this notion. He
says that in this case that absolute presumption of prejudice to
the consumer applies."

All told, Leon's was ordered to pay almost $163,000 to class
members for the $21 fee that they had paid, $703,800 to class
members in damages for its illegal, false and deceptive
advertising, $1 million in punitive damages and $495,000 in
damages under article 36 of the Competition Act to cover expenses
incurred by the consumer lobby group.

Leon's issued a statement that it intends to file leave to appeal
before the Quebec Court of Appeal. Leon's Furniture Limited,
Canada's largest discount furniture and appliance retailer, was
ordered to pay $2.36 million, including $1 million in punitive
damages, to thousands of consumers after the Quebec Superior Court
found that it engaged in deceptive advertising and marketing with
its popular "buy now, pay later" promotions.

The ruling, one of a handful of Quebec class actions that was
decided on its merits, represents a convincing victory for
consumer rights and serves as a cautionary tale for business that
rely on false and misleading advertising pitches to lure
customers, according to legal experts.

"The takeaway from this ruling is that one cannot repeatedly and
continuously use a business model that avoids respecting consumer
protection laws without exposing oneself to liability," noted Jean
Saint-Onge, a Montreal class action lawyer with Lavery. "This
ruling will serve as guidance to other retailers who often rely on
the same business model."

The class action, launched by consumer advocacy group Option
Consommateurs, took aim at the marketing practices of Leon's,
whose retail banners include Leon's and The Brick, for enticing
consumers with newspaper and television advertisements that
boasted that customers could purchase big-ticket items without
having to pay for periods of up to 36 months.

Between 1,000 and 2,000 Quebecers finance their purchases through
Leon's finance program each week, revealed evidence at the trial.

But "in reality" at least 7,300 consumers who opted to pay their
purchases through Leon's financing program between 2007 and 2011
were slapped with a $21 annual fee that was charged by
Citifinanciere Canada Inc., the financial institution that Leon's
did business with, found Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-Andre
Blanchard in Option Consommateurs v. Meubles Leon ltee 2017 QCCS
3526.

In some cases, clients had to also pay the federal and provincial
sales tax at the time of purchase, added Justice Blanchard.  "It
is clear that the retailer's advertising strategy rests on a
repeated and systemic violation of the relevant provisions of the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act," said Justice Blanchard in a 62-
page ruling that harshly castigated the retailer.

Justice Blanchard also found that Leon's infringed article 244 of
the act, which prohibits any advertisement of goods and services
that notifies consumers credit can be offered to them "except to
mention the availability of credit" through the use of a logo of a
financial institution, an illustration of a credit card, or a
mention that credit can be offered or accepted.

"We hope that this ruling will prove to be a warning signal to
companies and a turning point in advertising practices in general
because Leon's is not the only one to use such marketing
strategies," said Elise Theriault, a lawyer with Option
Consommateurs in Montreal.

The Canadian retailer has faced five Quebec class actions since
2002, two of which dealt with extended warranties while the others
with financing charges.  In 2005 Leon's settled a class action
that paid $38 to each member of the class, gave $160,000 to
charities and paid $420,000 in legal fees. In another class action
settlement reached in 2010 Leon's paid a lump sum of $125,000 and
pledged to change its advertising practices.

"One can even question the good faith of the enterprise when it
committed in a legal framework to change its practices but did not
do it for a substantial period of time," underlined Justice
Blanchard.

But the ruling also highlights the challenges faced by judges when
applying the landmark class action ruling by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Richard v. Time Inc. 2012 SCC 8. Under s. 272 of the
act, a consumer can institute proceedings to have the court
sanction a failure by a merchant or a manufacturer to fulfil an
obligation imposed on them by the act.  When a merchant or
manufacturer fails to fulfil such obligations, the consumer can
claim a contractual remedy, compensatory damages and punitive
damages. It is up to the trial judge to award the remedies he
considers to be appropriate.  In Time the SCC held that the
"recourse provided for in s. 272 C.P.A. is based on the premise
that any failure to fulfil an obligation imposed by the Act gives
rise to an absolute presumption of prejudice to the consumer."
Judges are still grappling with that guidance, noted Montreal
class action lawyer Mathieu Charest-Beaudry of Trudel Johnston &
Lesperance.

Earlier this year, the Quebec Court of Appeal held in Videotron v.
Union des consommateurs 2017 QCCA 738 that claims for damages are
still governed by common law and that consumers must show evidence
of the harm they suffered and the causal link between the harm and
the violation of the act.  Justice Blanchard rejected that
guidance. Instead he relied on the SCC's Time ruling.

"The courts are having a problem to delineate clearly this notion
of absolute presumption of prejudice to the consumer," said
Mr. Charest-Beaudry.  "Justice Blanchard casts doubt on the
guidance provided by the Quebec Appeal Court over this notion. He
says that in this case that absolute presumption of prejudice to
the consumer applies."

All told, Leon's was ordered to pay almost $163,000 to class
members for the $21 fee that they had paid, $703,800 to class
members in damages for its illegal, false and deceptive
advertising, $1 million in punitive damages and $495,000 in
damages under article 36 of the Competition Act to cover expenses
incurred by the consumer lobby group.

Leon's issued a statement that it intends to file leave to appeal
before the Quebec Court of Appeal. [GN]


LIBERTY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, wrote that an emerging issue in class
action litigation against the insurance industry involves an
attempt by plaintiffs' attorneys to argue that insurers should not
be permitted to apply any deductible to payments made on an actual
cash value basis.  Most homeowners and commercial property
insurance policies provide for insurers to make an initial payment
for the actual cash value of the damage (often calculated as the
estimated replacement cost less depreciation), and then, after the
repairs are completed, make an additional payment so that the
total amount paid is the replacement cost value of the damage (in
accordance with the terms of the policy).

In Bond v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114778 (W.D.
Mo. July 24, 2017), the court, which had previously certified a
class, granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The court reasoned that "[b]oth the Home Protector Plus
Endorsement and base policy's respective loss settlement
provisions are silent regarding an ACV deductible in the face of
their explicit references to an RCV deductible.  This silence
suggests the parties did not intend to make the deductible
applicable to ACV payments."  The court rejected the insurer's
argument that the declarations page indicated that a deductible
would apply, as well as other arguments raised by the insurer.

This decision appears to be contrary to longstanding, well-
established insurance industry practice.  Mr. Ackerman said he
would not be surprised if the rulings in this case lead to
additional class action filings against insurers in Missouri and
perhaps other jurisdictions as well. [GN]


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Mediation Ordered in Chinese Laminates Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a
Virginia court has appointed lead settlement counsel for the
plaintiffs in two multidistrict ligitations over Chinese flooring
products, and directed the parties to mediate before another
federal judge of the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes of
settlement discussions.

                    Formaldehyde-Related Cases

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages sought from the
Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order
transferring and consolidating ten of the related federal class
actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). In a series of
subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL Panel has
transferred the other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company
continues to seek to have any newly filed cases transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court and, ultimately, it expects all
federal class actions involving formaldehyde allegations,
including any newly filed cases, to be transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the
Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and
Products Liability Litigation (the "MDL").

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law.

Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the First
Amended Representative Class Action Complaint ("FARC") in which
they added implied warranty claims under New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal warranty claim. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The
Virginia Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent
misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred
as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion.

The Company also filed a motion to strike nationwide class
allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not yet ruled. The
Company also filed a motion to strike all personal injury claims
made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed
and the Virginia Court has ordered that no Chinese formaldehyde
class action pending in this lawsuit will seek damages for
personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order does not affect
any claims for personal injury brought solely on an individual
basis.

The Company's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' First
Amended Representative Complaint in the MDL was granted in part
and denied in part, and its motion to exclude expert reports and
testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to deconstructive testing
was denied.

In addition, on or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele")
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada
Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint,
Steele's allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (a)
compensatory damages, (b) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (c) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.

                   Abrasion-Related Cases

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs")
sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the
United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate
flooring products (the "Dream Home Product") from Defendant for
personal use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide
classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey,
Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana. The products that are
the subject of these complaints are part of the same products at
issue in the MDL.

The SAC alleges violations of each of these states' consumer
protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment.
The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages
in the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, sought
an order certifying the action as a class action, an order
adopting the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and
finding that the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper
representatives, an order appointing their counsel as class
counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from continuing
to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false
abrasion class ratings, restitution of all monies it received from
the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs and class members, damages (actual,
compensatory, and consequential) and punitive damages.

The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and
the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The
court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the
California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Non-California Abrasion
Plaintiffs") be dropped from the action with leave to re-file.
Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate
complaints in the Central District of California within the
required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the
district court located in the place of residence of each Non-
California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar
causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and
consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions to the
Virginia Court. In subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL
Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company
will seek to have any additional related cases transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the
Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL").

The Virginia Court issued an initial pretrial order instructing
all parties to undertake certain discovery and planning tasks and
scheduled certain preliminary conferences. Pursuant to a court
order, on February 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Representative
Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court. The complaint
challenged the durability of the Dream Home Product and asserted
claims under Alabama, California, Nevada, New York and Virginia
law for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of consumer
protection statutes. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
representative complaint, which the Virginia Court granted in
part. The Company also filed a motion to strike irrelevant and
prejudicial allegations from the representative complaint, which
is currently pending.

                Estimated Liability Associated with
                  Formaldehyde and Abrasion MDLs

In April 2017, the Company initiated settlement discussions to
jointly settle the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. As a result of this
and other developments, the Company recognized an estimated
liability of $18 million in its results of operations (within
selling, general and administrative expenses) for the three months
ended March 31, 2017, with a corresponding current liability on
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as the
Company determined a loss was both probable and reasonably
estimable, with no additional accrual recorded during the quarter
ended June 30, 2017. This is an estimate and significant
uncertainty remains regarding whether a reasonable settlement can
be reached, and the timing, amount and form of any ultimate loss.
The Company believes that such a settlement may be funded by a
combination of cash, shares of common stock, and coupons.

In July 2017, the Virginia Court appointed lead settlement counsel
for the plaintiffs in each of the MDL and Abrasion MDL, and
directed the parties to mediate before another federal judge of
the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes of settlement
discussions.

The ultimate resolution of the MDL and the Abrasion MDL matters,
including the form of any settlement or any loss in the absence of
a settlement, could have a material adverse effect, individually
or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity. The Company will monitor new information
or developments in these contingencies in future reporting periods
and adjust its accruals, as necessary, in accordance with ASC 450-
20-25. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the
amount or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts
previously accrued.

If the Company is unable to reach a reasonable settlement, the
Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are
meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, class certification and success on the merits.
The Company does not have insurance coverage with respect to the
MDL and Steele matters, and may have limited insurance coverage
relative to the Abrasion MDL.

In addition to the MDL, the Steele matters, and the Abrasion MDL,
there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging (i)
damages due to excessive formaldehyde emissions and (ii) damages
similar to those in the Abrasion MDL. While the Company believes
that a loss associated with these additional matters and the
Steele matter is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss. Any such
losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect,
individually or collectively, on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition, and liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators is an American retailer of hardwood flooring.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gold" Class Action Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company's motion to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs in the
"Gold" class action lawsuit is currently pending.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective.

On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added
three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold
Plaintiffs"). The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed
certain omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, then a Third
Amended Complaint on January 20, 2016, and then a Fourth Amended
Complaint on June 26, 2017.

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the
complaint to the Company's Morning Star Strand Bamboo flooring
that the Company sells (the "Bamboo Product") and allege that the
Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair
competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo
Product's defective nature. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Gold
Plaintiffs limited the purported class of individuals to those who
are residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, respectively, and purchased the
Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household use. Gold
Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold Plaintiffs
seek (i) a declaration that the Company's actions violate the law
and that it is financially responsible for notifying all purported
class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring the Company to
replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in
structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a
declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported classes, all or part of the profits received from the
sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members.

Fact discovery in the matter is now complete. The Gold Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify state-
wide classes for purchases of the Bamboo Product in California,
Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The
Company filed an opposition to class certification and a motion to
exclude the opinions of the Gold Plaintiffs' experts. These
motions are currently pending. The Company also filed a motion to
dismiss the non-California plaintiffs, which is currently pending.

Lumber Liquidators is an American retailer of hardwood flooring.


LYFT: N.J. Woman Files Class Action Over Drivers' Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Alex Napoliello, writing for NJ.com, reports that a Long Branch
woman filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 15 in federal court
against the ride-sharing service Lyft, alleging drivers are
underpaid.

Lyft drivers earn a commission based on the fare the company
charges passengers.  According to the lawsuit, that amount is
either 75- or 80-percent depending on when the driver began
driving for Lyft.

The lawsuit, filed by driver Keara Nieves of Long Branch, says
Lyft calculates its fare based on an estimation of the time and
distance it will take to complete the ride.  However, Lyft pays
its drivers based on a separate fare calculation on the actual
miles and minutes the trip takes, the lawsuit claims.

The towns cite traffic issues as one of the reasons they say Uber
and Lyft drivers need to use legal parking spaces

"Because Lyft does not calculate the Lyft Drivers payment based on
the actual fare charged to the Riders as is required by the terms
of the LTS (Lyft Terms of Service agreement), Lyft is paying Lyft
Drivers less than what they are contractually entitled to
receive," the lawsuit states.

Ms. Nieves is seeking class certification and an award of money
damages.

"Lyft unjustly enriched itself by failing to pay its drivers what
they were and are contractually entitled to receive," Ms. Nieves'
attorney, Stephan Mashel, said in a statement.

A spokesman for Lyft said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.

In March, a U.S. judge approved a $27 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit against Lyft.  That lawsuit was filed by
drivers in California who said they were entitled to reimbursement
for expenses, including gasoline and vehicle maintenance. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Plaintiff Dismisses Beverage Tax Case
------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a lawsuit
alleging that McDonald's bungled the rollout of Cook County's new
penny-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax has been dismissed.

The lawsuit, which sought class-action status, was filed by a
Chicago man and accused the fast-food chain of essentially taxing
the tax by adding it to his order before calculating other sales
taxes.

In reality, McDonald's didn't mess up, according to documents
filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

"After further investigation into the facts surrounding" the case,
"in spite of plaintiff's initial good faith," it appears "sales
tax was not applied to the amount charged to plaintiff under Cook
County's new sweetened beverage tax," Cook County Circuit Judge
Thomas Mulroy wrote in an order on Aug. 15.

"Accordingly, and because plaintiff has no reason to believe that
customers were 'double taxed' at any other McDonald's restaurant
in Cook County, plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his lawsuit," the
judge wrote.

Yvan Wojtecki alleged he bought food at a McDonald's franchise
Aug. 8 and was overcharged by 2 cents because the so-called soda
tax was applied to his order before other sales taxes.

Philadelphia's soda tax offers lessons for Cook County
Defendants included McDonald's Corp and most locations in the
county.

Franchisee Nick Karavites, whose roughly two dozen McDonald's
franchises in Cook County were among the defendants, denied the
allegations, saying he understood "the inherent confusion this new
tax has created for our customers."

Mr. Karavites said on Aug. 15 that after "a walk-through of the
receipt to demonstrate that double taxation had not occurred, this
lawsuit was withdrawn."

Daniel Seidman, the lawyer who filed the suit against McDonald's,
said on Aug. 14 that his client's case had been voluntarily
dismissed after they were convinced they were incorrect, but he
declined to elaborate.

Besides McDonald's, Walgreens and 7-Eleven were also sued for
allegedly wrongly applying the tax.  The retailers are accused of
applying the charge to unsweetened beverages.  All the lawsuits
sought class-action status.

Lead plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits aren't always what one
might consider common folks raging against the machine.  For
example, one of the three plaintiffs has a connection to the law
firm representing him and another is involved in public policy
work.

Mr. Wojtecki, who sued McDonald's, once worked full time as a
clerk for the law firm that filed the suit against the fast-food
chain on his behalf, his lawyer, Mr. Seidman, said.

Mr. Wojtecki has also been lead plaintiff in three other cases
handled by Mr. Seidman's firm in Cook County.

Two were personal injury cases, initially filed in 2009, in which
Mr. Wojtecki was bitten by a one-eyed male Neapolitan mastiff,
court records show. A jury in 2015 awarded him a total of $56,000,
records show.

Mr. Wojtecki couldn't be reached for comment.

It's not uncommon for law firms filing class-action lawsuits to
have a "repeat plaintiff" as the lead plaintiff, said Chicago
lawyer Andrew Stoltmann, who handles many class-action cases.

"Harmed consumers are often hard to find for these firms," he
said. "That being said, the optics of it certainly aren't good."

Defense lawyers often point out, including to the court and the
media, that the plaintiffs' side doesn't have a harmed individual
"but rather a serial litigator," Mr. Stoltmann said.

It's worrisome when plaintiffs have a pre-existing relationship
with class counsel, including having a client as an employee, said
Adam Hoeflich, a Northwestern University law professor whose areas
of focus include class actions.

"Class representatives have obligations to the rest of the class,
and if they're too close to their lawyer, there's a concern that
they'll put the interests of the lawyers and of maintaining their
relationship ahead of other class members," Mr. Hoeflich said.
"There is also a concern that when class counsel chooses 'repeat
players,' they may not have actually chosen an appropriate class
representative but instead reached out to the easiest person to
agree to be the face of the class."

Given the concern that many class actions are filed to enrich
plaintiffs' lawyers rather than to remedy a genuine wrong, this is
a practice class counsel should avoid, he said.

The lead plaintiff in the 7-Eleven lawsuit is Kelly Tarrant, an
investigator at Project Six, which, according to its website, is
"dedicated to investigating, exposing and ending government
corruption in Chicago and across Illinois."  Project Six, founded
last year, is headed by Faisal Khan, Chicago's former legislative
inspector general.  Ms. Tarrant was a chief investigator under
Khan during his time in that job.

Project Six spokesman Nathaniel Hamilton said on Aug. 11 that
Ms. Tarrant is a plaintiff against 7-Eleven as a private citizen.
Tarrant declined to comment.

Project Six has taken no position on her lawsuit specifically or
the soda tax in general, but the group did oppose Cook County's
move in court to seek nearly $17 million in damages from a group
of retailers after a judge threw out the merchants' lawsuit
challenging the tax.

Such efforts -- "Cook County using the courts to issue a threat" -
- are an "abuse of power," said Hamilton, former communications
manager for Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank.

Cook County later backed down from seeking the damages from
retailers in court.

The LinkedIn profile of Vincent De Leon, the lead plaintiff in the
case against Walgreens, says he's a paralegal.  He couldn't be
reached for comment.

The soda tax also has come under criticism outside of the courts.

Several Illinois House Republicans have introduced legislation
that would repeal the Cook County soda tax.  Backers of the bill,
which would immediately repeal the tax, include state Reps.
Michael McAuliffe of Chicago, Christine Winger of Bloomingdale,
Peter Breen of Lombard, Grant Wehrli of Naperville and Keith
Wheeler of Oswego.

"This pop tax is a repeated example of another financial burden
being imposed upon the people of Cook County," Mr. McAuliffe said
in a news release.  "I spent this past weekend in my district, and
the feedback against this tax was overwhelmingly negative."

Also, the sweetened beverage tax landed the state in hot water
with the federal government, potentially causing the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to withhold roughly $87 million in food
stamp money.

Purchases made with federal food stamp benefits are exempt from
the soda tax under federal law, but Cook County has allowed
retailers to tax those purchases and provide refunds as a
workaround for stores that haven't been able to program their
point-of-sale systems.

USDA officials told the county the regulation was "unacceptable"
in a phone call in late June, according to its memo to the state.
The county has said it was unaware of the USDA's position
following the phone call, but it promised to "work collaboratively
with both the state and USDA to address USDA's concerns."

Meanwhile, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission wrote a letter
June 30 to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle expressing
concerns about potential complications for beverage distributors -
- many of which handle both alcohol and nonalcoholic beverages
subject to the county tax -- in dealing with refunds for purchases
made with food stamp benefits.

Preckwinkle spokesman Frank Shuftan said the county doesn't agree
with the commission's assessment but plans to meet with
representatives from the beverage industry to hear their concerns.
[GN]


MDL 2704: Court Narrows Claims in Interest Rate Swaps Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on July 28, 2017, in IN
RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court ruled on
defendants' motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying
them in part. Additional information is publicly available in
court filings under the docket number 16 MD 2704 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Engelmayer, J.).

In an Opinion and Order, the Court:

     (1) grants defendants' motion to dismiss class plaintiffs'
         claims of a Sherman Act Sec. 1 conspiracy to the extent
         covering the period 2008-2012. The Court denies
         defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Sec. 1 claims
         to the extent covering the period 2013-2016.

     (2) grants defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of
         plaintiffs Javelin and Tera of tortious interference with
         business relations.

     (3) denies defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of
         plaintiffs Javelin and Tera under the Donnelly Act, but
         limits these claims to the period 2013-2016.

     (4) grants defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of
         plaintiffs Javelin and Tera of unjust enrichment. The
         Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss the class
         plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment, but limits these
         claims to the period 20132016.

     (5) grants the motions to dismiss all claims against
         defendants HSBC, ICAP, and Tradeweb.

All other motions to dismiss are denied.

The Court also held that, "An order will follow shortly as to next
steps in this case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate all pending motions. SO ORDERED. re: (165 in 1:16-md-
02704-PAE) MOTION to Dismiss all claims filed by ICAP Capital
Markets LLC., ICAP SEF (US) LLC, (123 in 1:16-md-02704-PAE) JOINT
MOTION to Dismiss All Claims filed by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan
Securities PLC, (159 in 1:16-md-02704-PAE) JOINT MOTION to Dismiss
the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and the
Javelin and TeraExchange Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint Filed on Behalf of The Dealer Defendants filed by J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities PLC, (132 in 1:16-md-02704-
PAE) MOTION to Dismiss all claims filed by ICAP Capital Markets
LLC., (189 in 1:16-md-02704-PAE) MOTION to Dismiss all claims and
adoption of prior submissions of ICAP Capital Markets LLC and ICAP
SEF (US) LLC in support of same filed by ICAP Global Derivatives
Limited, (169 in 1:16-md-02704-PAE) MOTION to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaints filed by Tradeweb Markets LLC,
(127 in 1:16-md-02704-PAE) MOTION to Dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaints filed by Tradeweb Markets LLC. (Signed by Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/28/2017) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:16-
md-02704-PAE et al., as per Chambers. Party Tradeweb Markets LLC,
HSBC Bank PLC and ICAP Capital Markets LLC. terminated."


MEDTRONIC INC: Shareholder Litigation Remanded to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, No. A15-0858 (Minn.), Judge Lorie Skjerven Gildea of
the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed in part and reversed in
part the court of appeals' decision granting in part Medtronic's
motion to dismiss, and remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.

On June 15, 2014, Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
announced its decision to acquire Covidien plc, a public Irish
company, in a transaction to be structured as an inversion.  In
this transaction, Medtronic acquired Covidien through a new
holding company, Medtronic plc, incorporated in Ireland, with
Medtronic and Covidien then becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of
the Irish holding company.  Shareholders of Medtronic had their
stock converted into shares in new Medtronic on a one-for-one
basis, while shareholders of Covidien received $35.19 and 0.956
shares of new Medtronic for every share of Covidien stock held.
Ultimately, former Medtronic shareholders collectively owned
approximately 70% of new Medtronic and former Covidien
shareholders collectively owned approximately 30% of new
Medtronic.

As a result of the inversion transaction, Medtronic now operates
as a wholly owned subsidiary of an Irish company and thus is
subject to Ireland's tax laws.  Shareholder Kenneth Steiner
alleged that Medtronic reduced the interest of its shareholders to
70% of new Medtronic in order to secure and protect the tax
benefits it sought in this transaction.  In addition, because the
Internal Revenue Service treats an inversion transaction as a
taxable event for the shareholders of the U.S. company, Medtronic
shareholders incurred a capital-gains tax on Medtronic shares held
in taxable accounts but received no compensation from the company
for this tax liability.  On the other hand, Steiner alleged,
Medtronic officers and directors who incurred an excise-tax
liability on their stock-based compensation as a result of the
transaction were reimbursed by Medtronic for that expense.

After the transaction was announced, Steiner filed a class-action
lawsuit against Medtronic and members of its Board of Directors
("Medtronic").  The Amended Complaint alleged claims for breach of
fiduciary duty (Counts I-II); claims for violations of the
Minnesota Business Corporation Act (Counts III-X); and claims for
violation of the Minnesota Securities Act (Counts XI-XII). The
Amended Complaint specifically alleged the following injuries to
Medtronic shareholders: (i) disparate treatment of Medtronic, as
compared to Covidien, shareholders; (ii) disparate treatment with
respect to the tax liability incurred by Medtronic shareholders
and the lack of compensation for that liability as compared to the
reimbursement paid to Medtronic's officers and directors for their
excise-tax liability; (iii) violation of provisions of the
Minnesota Business Corporation Act that were intended to protect
shareholders of Minnesota corporations; and (iv) the possibility
of a reduction of shareholders' interest in the combined company
to 60% causing significant dilution to their interest in New
Medtronic.

In the Amended Complaint, Steiner alleged that Medtronic's
shareholders were harmed as a result of the wrongful conduct,
regardless of the lack of harm (or even any benefit) to Medtronic
itself.  Additionally, he does not challenge the business decision
to merge with Covidien, but instead challenges the Board's
decision to structure the transaction as an inversion.

Before the district court, Medtronic moved to dismiss the claims
under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.09, for failure to make a demand on the
Medtronic Board; and under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The district
court concluded that the harms alleged due to the violations
stated in Counts I-X of the Amended Complaint relate to the
structure of the merger as an inversion, and as such, are direct
to Medtronic and derivative to Medtronic's shareholders.  Thus,
these claims were dismissed for failure to comply with Minn. R.
Civ. P. 23.09.  Counts XI and XII were dismissed under Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.

Steiner appealed.  The court of appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part.  Specifically, the court of appeals agreed with
the district court that Count VII of the Amended Complaint, which
alleged that the excise-tax reimbursement violated Minn. Stat.
Section 302A.521, alleged a harm that belongs to the corporation
because voiding the Excise Tax Reimbursement would result in a
return of funds to the corporation.  The court of appeals
concluded, however, that the remaining claims that the district
court dismissed under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.09 are direct claims.
Steiner's appeals and requires that the Court decides whether the
claims he asserts in a class-action challenge to a merger
transaction were properly dismissed.

Judge Gildea concludes that the test that the Court have applied
previously, which distinguishes direct from derivative claims by
identifying who suffered the injury and therefore who is entitled
to the recovery for that injury, provides the answer to the
direct-versus-derivative question in the case.

Moreover, she reiterates that she views the allegations of the
Amended Complaint as true at this stage of the case, and therefore
she expresses no opinion on Steiner's ability to prevail on claims
that allege a dilution injury.  Under this standard, and under the
direct-versus-derivative test stated, the claims are direct
because the nature of the injury (the dilution) harms the
shareholders, and does not harm the corporation.  Indeed,
according to Steiner, the dilution was solely for Medtronic's
benefit -- to protect the tax advantage it sought in the
transaction.  Therefore, she concludes that the district court
erred in dismissing claims that rest on allegations of injury due
to dilution.

For these reasons, Judge Gildea affirmed the court of appeals'
decision in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with her
opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ilbBz6 from Leagle.com.

Eric J. Magnuson -- EMagnuson@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan
L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and James K. Langdon --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Michelle S. Grant --
grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- James K. Nichols --
nichols.james@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for appellants.

Vernon J. Vander Weide -- vjvanderweide@locklaw.com -- Gregg M.
Fishbein -- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Richard A. Lockridge --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Mark C. Gardy -- mgardy@gardylaw.com -- James S. Notis
--  jnotis@gardylaw.com -- Jennifer Sarnelli --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP, New York, New York;
and Emily Komlossy, Ross Appel, Komlossy Law, P.A., Hollywood,
Florida, for respondent.

David R. Marwill -- dmarwill@fredlaw.com -- Leah C. Janus --
ljanus@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.


MOBILEIRON INC: Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, that a court has held a hearing
concerning final approval of the settlement in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit.  The hearing was held August 18,
2017.

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public
offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no
longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. On
August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the corrected
consolidated complaint. The court overruled the demurrer on
October 4, 2016.

On March 8, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the actions and the court granted preliminary approval of
that settlement on June 9, 2017. The proposed settlement calls for
a payment of $7.5 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all
claims against the Company, its officers, directors and the other
defendants. The Company will contribute $1.1 million to the
settlement in the three months ending September 30, 2017. This
amount represents the remainder of the Company's retention amount
under its Director & Officer liability insurance policy. The
balance will be paid by the Company's Director & Officer liability
insurance.

"We have recorded a liability of $7.5 million in "accrued
expenses" and a corresponding receivable in "prepaid expenses and
other current assets" for the expected reimbursement under our
insurance policy on our consolidated balance sheet at June 30,
2017," the Company said.

While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each
of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company
agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid
the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further
distractions to management. The settlement is subject to final
court approval.

Additional information is available at:

          http://www.mobileironshareholdersettlement.com/

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively,
provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy and a native user experience.


MU HEALTH: September 5 Hearing Set in Meal Break Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rudi Keller, writing for Columbia Tribune, reports that a lawsuit
filed last year over unpaid work at University of Missouri Health
Care has identified more than 2,500 clinical employees who are
owed up to $10.1 million for five years of missed meal breaks.

The case filed by respiratory therapist Richard Hunsley and nurse
Donna Reeves challenged a system that automatically deducted 30
minutes from employees' reported work hours for meals, whether
they received a break or not.  The lawsuit claims the practice
violated federal labor law and MU Health Care policies that
employees should be paid if their meal is interrupted or otherwise
do not receive a full 30-minute break.

The complaint already forced changes to timekeeping procedures at
MU Health Care but the case isn't over.  Mr. Hunsley and his
attorney, Brendan Donelon of Kansas City, are seeking approval
from Boone County Circuit Judge Jodie Asel to make the case a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly clinical employees.

A hearing on Sept. 5 will set a timetable for deciding whether the
case will become class action, Mr. Donelon said on Aug. 14.  When
it was filed in May 2016, Mr. Donelon wanted it to include all
hourly MU Health Care employees.

"We are trying to make it as tight and strong as possible," he
said.  "The people we are hoping to represent are people who
didn't leave the premises, who had to stay close for patient
care."

MU Health Care declined to answer questions about policy changes
since the lawsuit was filed or whether any employees have been
compensated because they were underpaid.

"It's our policy not to discuss pending litigation," spokeswoman
Mary Jenkins wrote in an email.

Mr. Hunsley began questioning the system for automatically
recording meal breaks after his supervisor sent an email Jan. 8,
2016, that staff in respiratory therapy had to carry their pagers
and phones with them and remain on the hospital premises during
meal breaks.  Hospital employment policies do not promise meal
breaks, but employees who work eight hours or more in a shift will
be given at least 30 minutes if workload allows.

"If for some reason an employee is scheduled to work through a
meal period and is unable to get away from the work area during
the assigned shift, the employee will be paid for that time," the
policy states.

There is no ambiguity in the policy, Mr. Donelon said on Aug. 14.

"The policy is adamantly clear," he said. "If employees are not
permitted to leave, or must keep their pager or phone, they should
be paid for the entire period."

Mr. Hunsley began complaining about the automatic deductions soon
after the department directive and respiratory therapists were
paid for the half-hour retroactive to the date of its issuance.
But the practice wasn't ended until Sept. 11, when a new policy
was enacted ending automatic deductions and requiring hourly staff
to clock in and clock out for their meals.

In a deposition given Oct. 26, Sue Kopfle, chief human resources
officer since January 2008, said the issue of automatic time
deductions was debated and some employees objected to losing it
because they didn't want the bother of clocking in and out for
meals. But it proved to have too many difficulties, she said.

"I mean, in hindsight, it was set up to work," Ms. Kopfle said.
"We all believed it worked. I've been there for eight years, and
not a soul complained. You actually think it's all fine, and then
one day, somebody raises their hand and says, not so fine."

Through records obtained for the lawsuit, Mr. Donelon has
identified 2,611 current and former clinical employees who had
meal breaks automatically deducted from their pay between May 2011
and Sept. 11. That covers a five-year statute of limitations on
breach of contract and unlawful enrichment, he said.

The hours missed are multiplied by each employees pay and, when
appropriate, the overtime rate for that worker, he said.

"We can get it down to the penny," Mr. Donelon said. [GN]


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: "Timlick" Remanded to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remanded the case captioned LISA
ARLENE TIMLICK, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00559-HSG(N.D. Cal.) to the Superior
Court of California, County of Lake.

On Dec. 27, 2016, Plaintiff Timlick filed a class action complaint
against Defendant National Enterprise Systems, Inc. ("NESI") and
unknown Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of
Lake.  On Feb. 3, 2017, NESI filed its notice of removal,
asserting that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b)
because the Court allegedly had original jurisdiction pursuant to
the diversity statute, and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").  On Feb. 15, 2017, Timlick filed her motion to remand.

The complaint's single cause of action alleges that the Defendants
violated section 1812.701(b) of the California Civil Code by
failing to include the notice required by California Civil Code
Section 1812.700(a) in their first written notice to the Plaintiff
in a type-size that was at least the same type-size as that used
to inform he Plaintiff of her specific debt or in at least 12-
point type.  Consequently, the complaint asserts that the
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of statutory damages in the
amount not to exceed $1,000 against each Defendant and the Class
is entitled to an award of statutory damages in an amount not to
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of each
Defendant.  The complaint does not assert that Timlick or the
putative class members suffered any actual damages.

Judge Gilliam finds that removal of the case was inappropriate
because it could not have been filed originally in federal court.
The Plaintiff's individual claim does not provide a basis for
removal under the diversity jurisdiction statute because the
amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, cannot
exceed $75,000.  The class claim does not provide a basis for
removal under CAFA because the aggregate amount in controversy,
exclusive of interest and costs, cannot exceed $5 million.  Thus,
as to both the individual and class claims, NESI has failed to
meet its burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction.

Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action,
remand is required.  However, Judge Gilliam declines Timlick's
request for attorney fees under Section 1447(c) because the
Defendant's arguments in support of CAFA jurisdiction, while
unpersuasive, are not objectively unreasonable.

For these reasons, Judge Gilliam granted Timlick's motion to
remand the case to the Superior Court of California, County of
Lake.  The clerk will remand the case forthwith and close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/a9pvmV from Leagle.com.

Lisa Arlene Timlick, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn,
Consumer Law Center, Inc..

Lisa Arlene Timlick, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C.
Salmonsen -- matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com -- Consumer Law
Center, Inc. & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston --
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com -- Consumer Law Center, Inc..

National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Anthony Paul John Valenti -- AValenti@EllisLawGrp.com -- Ellis Law
Group, LLP & Mark Ewell Ellis -- mellis@ellislawgrp.com -- Ellis
Law Group, LLP.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has approved
the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

According to the case Web site, the Court granted final approval
of the settlement on July 13, 2017. Settlement checks will be
mailed to class members who timely mailed or submitted valid
claims on September 20, 2017.  If there is an appeal of the
settlement, payment may be delayed.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and
federal consumer protection laws. One of these putative class
action suits is Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").

On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnson filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). During the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement and, in December 2016, filed a Motion
to Approve the Class Action Settlement with the Court.

The Court approved the settlement in July 2017. NSI denied all
claims asserted, but agreed to settle the case to avoid the
burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continued litigation. A
reserve was established for this matter as of December 31, 2016.

According to the case Web site, NSI will establish a settlement
fund in the amount of $19,744,650. Out of the settlement fund, NSI
will pay:

     a. Settlement compensation to the class members;

     b. The costs and expenses of administrating the class action
        settlement;

     c. An award of attorneys' fees in an amount up to one-third
        of the settlement fund, subject to the Court's approval;

     d. Costs and expenses incurred litigating this matter, not to
        exceed $55,000, and

     e. Service awards to Johnson in an amount up to $25,000, and
        to Toure and Heard in an amount up to $5,000 each,

Each class member who submitted a timely and valid form will be
entitled, subject to the provisions of the settlement agreement,
to his or her equal share of the settlement fund as it exists
after deducting: the costs and expenses of administrating the
class action settlement; the attorneys' fees, subject to the
Court's approval; the costs and expenses of the litigation,
subject to the Court's approval; and the service awards for
Johnson, Toure and Heard, subject to the Court's approval. How
much each class member receives depends on how many people make
approved claims. Class counsel estimates that the amount of the
cash award may be within the range of $200 to $350.

Any remaining monies from uncashed settlement awards may be
redistributed in a second distribution to class members who
submitted a valid and timely claim. However, if a second
distribution would result in less than $5 per qualifying claimant,
the remaining monies will instead be donated to the National
Endowment for Financial Education.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                https://johnsontcpasettlement.com/

Navient is a provider of asset management and business processing
solutions for education, health care, and government clients at
the federal, state, and local levels.  Headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New
York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and other locations.


NCO FINANCIAL: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
A Court authorized this notice to let you know about a proposed
Settlement with the Defendant.  You have legal rights and options
that you may act on before the Court decides whether to approve
the proposed Settlement. You may be eligible to receive a cash
payment as part of the Settlement.  This notice explains the
lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights.

Judge Thomas R. Allen of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division is overseeing this
class action.  The case is called Thornton v. NCO Financial
Systems, Inc., Case No. 5780.  The people who filed the lawsuit,
Wesley Thornton and Antoinette Stansberry, are the Plaintiffs.
The company they sued, NCO/EGS, is the Defendant. You don't have
to live in Illinois to be affected by or get a payment under the
Settlement.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (now known as EGS Financial Care Inc.)
("Defendant" or "NCO/EGS"), a debt collector.  The
suit alleges that NCO/EGS violated a federal telemarketing law by
making automated phone calls, and calls using an artificial or
prerecorded voice, to cell phones without consent.  NCO/EGS denies
any wrongdoing.  The settlement doesn't decide who is right, but
is a compromise to end the lawsuit and avoid the uncertainties and
expenses associated with continuing the case.

NCO/EGS has agreed to create an $8 million Settlement Fund, which
will cover all costs of the Settlement.

The Settlement Fund will also cover expenses, attorneys' fees, and
incentive awards for the two Plaintiffs, who serve as Class
Representatives.


You are a Class Member included in the Settlement if you received
a call by or for NCO/EGS on your cell phone from January 16, 2009
through August 31, 2016.  You may be a member of the Injunctive
Settlement Class only, or both the Injunctive Settlement Class and
a subgroup called the Damages Subclass.

If you received a call from NCO/EGS on your cell phone from
January 16, 2009 through August 31, 2016, you are a member of the
Injunctive Settlement Class.  As a member of the Injunctive
Settlement Class, you are entitled to injunctive relief, which
means that NCO/EGS will stop automatically calling cellular
telephones without consent.  In addition, you may still bring an
individual lawsuit against NCO/EGS based on the issues the
settlement concerns, and NCO/EGS won't raise an important defense
about the type of dialing equipment it used.  If you decide to
sue NCO/EGS individually, this may make your case easier to prove.
By staying in the Injunctive Settlement Class, however, you give
up your right to sue NCO/EGS through another class action
regarding the calls at issue in this case.

You may also be included in a subgroup of the Injunctive
Settlement Class called the Damages Subclass if you received a
call by or for NCO/EGS on your cell phone from January 16, 2009
through August 31, 2016 that was made from certain NCO/EGS offices
using a special type of automated dialing equipment. Members of
the Damages Subclass who submit valid Claim Forms
will receive a cash payment of up to $90 from the Settlement Fund
created by NCO/EGS.  If you are a Damages Subclass member, you
will likely receive a postcard summary of this notice in the mail,
if you have not received one already.  By staying in the Damages
Subclass, you give up your right to sue NCO/EGS on the issues the
Settlement concerns through an individual case or
class action.

You can ask to be excluded from the entire Settlement or just the
Damages Subclass.  To do so, you must send a written request
stating that you want to be excluded from the Settlement, or the
Damages Subclass only, in Thornton v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 16 CH 5780.  Your written request must (1)
state the case name, (2) include the name, address, and telephone
number of the person seeking exclusion, (3) be physically signed
by the person seeking exclusion, and (4) be postmarked or received
by the Settlement Administrator on or before October 2, 2017.

You must mail your exclusion request no later than October 2, 2017
to:

     Debt Call Settlement
     ATTN: Thornton v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. Exclusion
     Requests
     1801 Market Street, Suite 660
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

You can't exclude yourself on the phone or by email.

If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you can object
to or comment upon the Settlement if you don't like any part of it
or want to voice your opinions about it.  You can give reasons why
you think the Court should not approve the Settlement by filing an
objection.  To do so, you must file a letter or brief with the
Court stating that you wish to object to or comment upon the
Settlement in Thornton v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 16
CH 5780 no later than October 2, 2017.

Your objection or comment may be sent to the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, at the following address:

     Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division
     Richard J. Daley Center, Room 802
     Chicago, Illinois 60602

If you are represented by a lawyer, your lawyer must file your
objection or comment with the Court.  Include your lawyer's
contact information in the objection or comment.

Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the settlement
website its request for attorneys' fees and incentive award on
September 11, 2017.

The Court will hold the final fairness hearing on October 26, 2017
at 11:00 a.m. CT, before the Honorable Thomas R. Allen at Richard
J. Daley Center, 50 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois
60602 in Courtroom 2302.  The purpose of the hearing is for the
Court to determine whether the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.
At the hearing, the Court will hear any objections and arguments
concerning the fairness of the proposed Settlement, including
those related to the amount requested by Class Counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses and the incentive awards to the Class
Representatives.

A copy of the Long Form Settlement Notice is available at:

   http://www.debtcallsettlement.com/pdf/Long_Form_Notice.pdf


NEBRASKA: Corrections Dept. Faces Overcrowding Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Wheeler, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
class action filed in Nebraska federal court early on Aug. 16
wants the Nebraska Department of Corrections and state parole
board to address several prison issues including overcrowding,
inadequate health care and a lack of accommodation for disabled
prisoners.

"Nebraska's prison system has an overcrowding crisis," said
Danielle Conrad, executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, in a
statement.  "The overcrowding exacerbates already severe problems
that threaten the lives and health of its prisoners.  The lack of
appropriate mental and physical health care hurts prisoners while
inside, and upon release hampers their re-entry into society.  In
order to protect the constitutional rights and well-being of
incarcerated Nebraskans we need reform to the Nebraska state
prison system at all levels."

Citing violations of the Eighth Amendment and federal Americans
with Disabilities laws, the complaint states that "Nebraska state
prisons are in a state of chaos that endangers the health, safety,
and lives of prisoners and staff alike on a daily basis. For over
20 years, Nebraska state prisons have been overcrowded, under-
resourced, and understaffed. The result is a dangerous system in
perpetual crisis."

Currently at 159 percent of capacity, Nebraska prisons have been
above the emergency capacity level for over a decade, according to
the ACLU statement.  As a consequence, prisoners lack access to
adequate health care, are held in extreme isolation, exposed to
violence and refused accommodations for disabilities.

Incidents that spurred the class action include a prisoner who was
left to die alone in his cell when his calls for help during a
heart attack received no response, and an instance from earlier
this year when a prisoner was killed by his inmate after the two
were placed together in an isolation cell designed to hold a
single occupant.  Suicide rates in Nebraska corrections facilities
are also 30 percent higher than the national average for state
prisons.

Plaintiff Hannah Sabata, a 24-year-old woman being held at the
Correctional Center for Women in York, says she has suffered
through repeated lapses in prescription medications she requires
to treat schizophrenia and HIV.

Another, a minor whose initials are R.P., says he is held in his
cell for 23 hours a day despite his psychiatric disabilities and
has been placed in shackles so frequently that his wrists and
ankles are scarred.

Michael Gunther is 62 years old and says he lost his sight because
corrections failed to provide adequate treatment of his diabetes.
Mr. Gunther, who has trouble walking because of his complications,
is currently at risk of amputation.  He says he sometimes goes
without eating because he can't navigate his way to a dining area
in another building without help and staff have "tripped him and
put objects in his path," according to the complaint.

"The crisis in Nebraska prisons threatens the health, safety, and
lives of both prisoners and staff," said David Fathi, director of
the ACLU National Prison Project, in a statement.

Conrad, also with the ACLU, added, "Nebraska should immediately
declare an emergency.  Public safety is threatened every day."

The deteriorating condition of Nebraska's corrections system has
become a big story locally in recent years, as its problems have
spilled into the community.  Two riots rocked state penitentiaries
in the last two years, the 90-page complaint notes, with multiple
staff injuries and four prisoner deaths occurring during these
eruptions.

A scandal over widespread errors in sentencing calculations and
the high-profile case of Nikko Jenkins has further eroded public
faith in corrections.  Mr. Jenkins murdered four people within
days of his release from prison, with negligent parole supervision
and improper sentence calculations playing a role as well,
according to the complaint. Authorities set Jenkins free despite a
lengthy history of violence both while incarcerated and while free
in society, and had spent much of the two years before his release
in solitary confinement while his mental state deteriorated.

"Despite these events, repeated warnings from prison staff,
multiple reports by outside consultants, and recommendations from
the Nebraska Legislature, defendants have failed to take effective
action to address these long-standing and well-known
deficiencies," the complaint asserts, demanding an order
compelling the state to address its issues.

This past April, ACLU Nebraska publicized a letter to Gov. Pete
Ricketts, a Republican, demanding he take "immediate action to
remedy to the violations of law" and threatening litigation if no
steps were taken.  Making good on its threats, the ACLU notes that
"there has been no meaningful action taken to address the
overcrowded and unsafe conditions in Nebraska state prisons" since
its April letter.

In a statement issued on Aug. 16, Gov. Ricketts pushed back
against the notion that his administration and corrections
officials have been inactive.

"Over the past few years, all three branches of state government
have made justice reinvestment and corrections reform a top
priority.  Together, we have invested millions of taxpayer dollars
to protect public safety and expand state prisons.  This
litigation from the ACLU threatens public safety by seeking the
early release of dangerous criminals and could endanger our
corrections officers by further limiting the tools they have to
manage the inmate population," he said.

Corrections director Scott R. Frakes declined to comment on the
lawsuit.  But in April, he responded to the ACLU's demand by
publicizing a letter of his own saying the department was making
progress under his watch.

"Thanks to a collaborative and comprehensive approach including
all three branches of government we are on the road to reducing
our prison population," Mr. Frakes said at the time.

Eleven current prisoners filed the lawsuit, and class
certification is requested on behalf of all current and future
prisoners in Nebraska.

David Fathi of the National Prison Project of the ACLU in
Washington, Michael W. Bien of Rosen Bien, Christopher M. Young of
DLA Piper, Amy A. Miller of ACLU of Nebraska, Robert E. McEwen of
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law and Debra Patkin of the National
Association of the Deaf all signed the complaint.

Along with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and
its director Scott R. Frakes, defendants include director of
health services for corrections Harbans Deol and Nebraska Board of
Parole and its acting administrator Julie Micek. [GN]


NEDBANK: May Face Class Action Over Sale in Execution Tactics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prinesha Naidoo, writing for Moneyweb, reports that South Africa's
largest banks stand to face a R60 billion claim related to their
conduct in attaching and selling the homes of defaulting debtors
at prices below market value.

Advocate Douglas Shaw filed an application on Aug. 16 for direct
access at the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on behalf of 219
people nationwide and "the country as a whole".  It is to be
argued that going through three courts (Magistrates Court, High
Court and Supreme Court of Appeal) is inappropriate as the case is
being brought by people who are "exceptionally poor" and have been
made "even poorer by the unconstitutional actions of banks".

Court papers shared with Moneyweb list Nedbank, Absa, FirstRand,
Standard Bank, Changing Tides 17 -- a trustee of the SA Home Loans
Guarantee Trust -- Investec, the National Credit Regulator, the
South African Human Rights Commission, The Rules Board and the
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development as respondents.

Allegations

The case seeks to establish whether South Africa's current law of
sale in execution -- whereby properties are sold at a public
auction held by a Sheriff of the Court -- is unconstitutional. For
a sale in execution to take place, a bank must first obtain a
court order to attach and sell the property so as to recover home
loan repayments that are in arrears.

Mr. Shaw argues in a 151-page application that this process is not
constitutionally sound in that it allows properties to be sold for
less than their market value "which is against the rights to
property and housing", as defined by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it terms a previous ConCourt order that stated that
banks must only sell a property as a last resort "a dead letter".
Domestic banks are said to sell property five times more
frequently than international norms and in some cases for only 50%
of market value.  As such, the applicants want the court to
explain what is meant by "last resort".  Mr. Shaw argues that the
High Court should not issue an execution order if the loan can be
rescheduled or if there is sufficient equity to allow for the
resolution of payments in arrears, as well the possibility of
renting the property out and using the proceeds to cover bond
repayments and the ability of the owner to sell the property or
have the site developed.

The papers refer to one case where a bank attached and sold a
property thought to have been financed by a R300 000 loan, when
the actual loan amount was only R30 000.  "Despite this being
drawn to their attention, they went ahead and sold the property.
They sold it for R236 000 when it was worth R700 000 at the time,"
the papers state.  "It is now common cause and the bank admitted
it did so wrongfully.  No compensation has been forthcoming from
the bank to date.  This is typical of bank ethics (or lack
thereof).  Even when there is a clear bank mistake, it is
necessary to sue them in order to recover the funds. Most people
do not have the resources.  Therefore, regulation is necessary."
The former property owner is said to have lost out on the returns
from a 14-unit development due to the bank error.

The applicants also want the court to order that no debt shall be
reclaimable from a creditor when a property is sold for less than
the value of the bond.  They would also like to establish that
attached properties may be sold by estate agents rather than the
sheriff to maximise sales prices for the benefit of debtors and
creditors.

Liability in delict

The case also seeks to hold the banks and home loan providers
liable when they sell properties at prices far below their market
value.  "Banks are liable in delict (or tort) in all other
countries studied for selling property for less than it is worth.
It would be strange, with our Constitution, if we were the only
country where banks could act with impunity regardless of the
damage done," the papers state.  Mr. Shaw said these countries
include England, Scotland, New Zealand and Australia.

In arriving at the R60 billion figure, he explained that around
100 000 homes have been sold in execution since 1994.  It is
estimated that 10% of these homes were sold for close to market
value and as a last resort, with the remaining 90% sold below
prevailing market values.  "The average house price in today's
money is about R1 million and the average discount that properties
have been sold for appears to be around 50% of market price. Thus,
the damage done to these 100 000 people is expected to be R500 000
times 100 000, which is R50 billion."  The maximum damages that
could be awarded if every person affected since 1994 joined the
claim would be R60 billion, which is equivalent to around one
year's income generated by the big four banks, the papers sate.

Criminal liability

The applicants also want the Director of Public Prosecution to
look into the criminal liability of the directors of each
respondent bank for "knowingly selling properties for less than
their value after the Constitution was introduced".  It stipulates
that a report should be presented to the court within six months.

Banks respond

The vast majority of claims are leveled against Absa, FNB, Nedbank
and Standard Bank.

Prior to the filing of the court papers, representatives from FNB
and Standard Bank told Moneyweb that they were aware of intentions
to launch proceedings against various banks and that the
allegations would be formally reviewed and addressed once tabled
before a court.

Nedbank also confirmed it had seen a draft version of the papers,
and that it would defend the matter.

Case funding

Mr. Shaw said only some of the applicants in the case have paid
him fees.  In cases related to township homes, of which there are
around 100, people have paid him R1 000 each.  He said he has
received 10% to 20% of "normal fees" for the work that he has done
and is pursuing the case as he thinks it is right.
[GN]


NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Poland Spring Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward d. Murphy, writing for Press Herald, reports that a
Connecticut law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
owner of Poland Spring, claiming the company's source for its
Maine bottled water is not a spring.

The case is not a first: Nestle Waters, which owns Poland Spring,
was sued 14 years ago on similar claims and another Nestle Water
brand was sued in a similar case in Illinois in 2012.

The label says "Natural Spring Water From Maine Since 1845."

In 2003, the company was sued, also in Connecticut, because its
advertising suggested that the water in Poland Spring came from a
source deep in the woods of Maine when, in fact, the principal
source was located near a parking lot.  That suit was settled with
Nestle Waters offering about $8 million in consumer discounts and
more than $2 million in charitable donations.

Nestle, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, owns a number of
regional bottled water brands.  The water originally came from
Poland Spring, but now the company draws its water from sources
throughout the state, including in Hollis and Fryeburg.

The latest suit, filed on behalf of 11 consumers, alleges that
Poland Spring's bottles are inaccurately labeled as spring water.
It is seeking at least $5 million in damages.

"Breaching and exploiting is customers' trust to reap massive
undue sales and profits is (the) defendant's entire business
model," the suit alleges.

The lawsuit claims that Poland Springs' water comes not from a
spring but instead is "ordinary groundwater" from wells.

"The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and an obvious
attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal gain," a
spokeswoman for Nestle Waters North America said on Aug. 16.
"Poland Spring is 100 percent spring water . . . . We remain
highly confident in our legal position."

The company said it meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations defining spring water, all state regulations governing
spring classifications, and regulations governing spring water
collection, product quality and labeling. [GN]


NEW YORK TIMES: Recorded $3.7M Charge in 4th Quarter 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company recorded a
charge of $3.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016 within
discontinued operations related to a class action lawsuit against
NEMG T&G, Inc.

The Company was involved in class action litigation brought on
behalf of individuals who, from 2006 to 2011, delivered newspapers
at NEMG T&G, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("T&G"). T&G was a
part of the New England Media Group, which the Company sold in
2013. The plaintiffs asserted several claims against T&G,
including a challenge to their classification as independent
contractors, and sought unspecified damages.

In December 2016, the Company reached a settlement with respect to
the claims, which was approved by the court in May 2017. As a
result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $3.7
million in the fourth quarter of 2016 within discontinued
operations.


OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Fights Landowners' Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, Vidya Kauri and Cara Salvatore, writing for
Law360, report that Occidental Chemical Corp. asked a Louisiana
federal judge on Aug. 15 to block a bid for class certification by
landowners suing over a massive sinkhole that opened near the
underground operations of Texas Brine Co., saying proposed class
members are not bound by a common issue.

In a pre-hearing memo that opposes the proposed class' bid for
certification, Occidental -- which owns the land where Texas Brine
was operating -- argued the putative class members don't qualify
for certification because the individual properties that make up
the proposed class have nearly nothing in common with each other
except for their existence close to the sinkhole.

The parcels of land "are mostly found more than a mile from the
sinkhole [and] include wetlands and dry-lands.  Some properties
are inaccessible by road. Some are wholly undeveloped, but some
have commercial operations.  Some have oil and gas leases, others
do not," the chemical company said, adding that it also owns a
large plot of the land within the proposed class area.

"Plaintiffs seek to certify a class on the theory that the
occurrence of the sinkhole caused a class-wide diminution in the
value of these properties.  Because determining whether the
sinkhole caused any damage to property values requires
individualized inquiries, certification should be denied," the
company said.

Louisiana landowners are suing Occidental Chemical Corp., as well
as insurers, over a 400-foot-wide sinkhole that appeared near
their properties, alleging lost income and cratered property
values.

They have asked the judge for certification multiple times, saying
the question of whether the sinkhole caused them harm is a common
issue suited for a class action.

But Occidental rejected such an assertion, saying the landowners
have no way of proving their alleged common harms occurred on a
class-wide basis.  For example, the company said, "several class
representatives claim emotional distress, but it is well settled
in the Fifth Circuit that individual testimony is necessary to
establish emotional damages."

The chemical company also noted it has already settled individual
claims with multiple landlords who otherwise fall within the
lawsuit's definition of the proposed class, further invalidating
their claims that common issues prevail, the memo said.

The landowners' suit against Occidental and Texas Brine Co. is one
of several consolidated actions over a massive sinkhole that
opened up in 2012 near a salt cavern leased by the company in
Assumption Parish, Louisiana.  At more than 400 feet deep and
nearly 400 feet wide, the hole spurred litigation and forced
residents to evacuate after a release of a foul diesel odor and a
slush of saltwater and diesel fuel, the documents said.

According to the certification bid, the class would include "all
landowners who own land, but who did not reside on that land, that
is within a 2-mile radius of the sinkhole," and exclude anyone who
had previously settled with Texas Brine.

The proposed lead plaintiffs said the class description fits a
large enough group to warrant a class action.  More than 100
parcels of land exist within the area, they said, which means
hundreds of potential members because many of those parcels are
owned in division.

Texas Brine also launched its own claims against insurance
companies it says should have to foot the bill, the documents
said.  Some of the relevant insurance policies were issued to
Occidental Chemical Corp., the owner of the land where Texas Brine
was producing brine.

Occidental is the only defendant in the case that opposes the
motion for class certification, according to the proposed class'
certification motion.

The parties were not immediately reachable for comment.

Occidental is represented by Christoffer C. Friend --
cfriend@joneswalker.com -- and Meghan Elizabeth Smith --
msmith@joneswalker.com -- of Jones Walker and attorneys with
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The proposed class is represented by Lawrence J. Centola III of
Martzell Bickford & Centola, Calvin C. Fayard Jr. of Fayard &
Honeycutt, Matthew B. Moreland of Becnel Law Firm LLC and Richard
Perque of the Law Offices of Richard Perque LLC.

Texas Brine is represented by Leopold Sher, James Garner, Peter
Hilbert Jr., Christopher Chocheles and Jeffrey Kessler of Sher
Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert LLC.

The case is Leblanc et al. v. Texas Brine Co. LLC, Case No. 2:12-
cv-02059 (E.D. La.).  The case is assigned to Judge Jay C. Zainey.
The case was filed August 10, 2012. [GN]


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Child Abuse at CPRI
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lupton, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed by a Toronto law firm alleges the Ontario government
failed to do enough to prevent alleged abuse of patients at a
London facility for children with behavioural, developmental and
psychiatric issues.

The $200-million lawsuit alleges that in its operation of the
Children's Psychiatric Research Institute -- which became the
Children and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI) in 1992 -- the Crown
failed in its duty to prevent alleged incidents of physical,
sexual and emotional abuse against residents.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court.  The lawsuit applies only to CPRI's residential centre,
not the modern-day CPRI which operates many mental health programs
from its location in west London.

"There was systemic negligence in the operation of the
institution," lawyer Jody Brown -- jbrown@kmlaw.ca -- of the firm
Koskie Minsky told CBC London.  He said the Crown failed to
provide the standard of care to ensure patients "were safe from
both staff abuse and abuse from other residents.

"If you have an institution where you're housing a 10-year-old who
has attention deficit disorder alongside a 17-year-old who has a
psychiatric disorder, the 10-year-old is in danger and you need to
put something in place to prevent that," he said.

He said the alleged abuse ranges from beatings of residents by
other residents and staff members, to "routine" sexual assaults,
typically by other residents.

The lawsuit's class-action status -- which means all plaintiffs
will be represented collectively -- was approved in December 2016.

Anyone who was an inpatient at CPRI between September 1, 1963
until July 1, 2011 will be considered part of the class action
unless they opt out of the lawsuit before Oct. 20.  It's estimated
the lawsuit could include about 5,000 former residents.

After Oct. 20, the list of participants in the class-action suit
can't be changed.

Crown denies negligence

In a statement of defence, the Crown denies the plaintiffs'
allegations and says CPRI patients received quality care by well-
trained staff in a safe, supervised environment.

"Throughout their time at CPRI, children and youth received
supervision, treatment, education and training and guidance in
accordance with the highest standards of care appropriate to their
needs and abilities.

"The Crown specifically denies that such abuse or neglect resulted
from any failure on the part of the Crown to meet applicable
standards of care."

The statement of defence also says CPRI has received "widespread
praise" for its work with children.

The lawsuit has a representative plaintiff, whose claim is filed
on behalf of the larger group.

He's now 51 but was 16 when he was admitted to CPRI as a full-time
resident from 1982 to 1983.

Ms. Brown says he was "traumatized" by his stay at CPRI.

The statement of claim alleges the representative client was
repeatedly called "worthless" by CPRI staff and told he would
"never amount to anything."

The lawsuit alleges he witnessed "the repeated and continuous
abuse and punishment of residents by CPRI staff and other
residents.

The Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which
currently operates CPRI, said there would be no comments about the
lawsuit.

In a statement to CBC London, the Ministry said the class-action
certification is a "procedural step" that does not "address the
merits of the claim."

The statement goes on to say:

"Children and families will continue to receive services
throughout the proceedings. We remain committed to providing
services and support to children and youth and their families."
[GN]


OREGON: Local Groups Want Benton to Back Out of Timber Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Rimel, writing for Corvallis Gazette-Times, reports that a
group of 15 environmental, outdoor, community and progressive
organizations asked the Benton County Commission to pull the
county out of a $1.4 billion lawsuit against the state of Oregon
by a group of Oregon counties over lost revenue from state forest
lands.

The representatives of the group used the public comment session
of the Aug. 15 commission meeting to read into the record a letter
arguing the lawsuit could compromise the health of state forests,
contribute to global warming and harm the state's budget for
schools, social services and county funding.

Groups signed onto the letter included the Audubon Society of
Corvallis, the Oregon Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters of
Corvallis, 350 Corvallis, the Benton Forest Coalition, the
Association of Northwest Steelheaders and Our Revolution Corvallis
Allies.

The Benton County Commission voted 2-1 in January to remain a
defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Linn County on behalf
of 15 Oregon counties and other taxing entities in those counties
that claim state forest management policies have cost them revenue
they are owed for state forest lands.  In essence, the lawsuit
argues that by not managing the lands to generate the maximum
revenue possible from timber sales, the state has breached a
contract with the counties.

The counties turned the lands over to the state for management
after they acquired logged-over and fire-damaged properties
through tax foreclosures in the 1930s and 1940s.

Dave Toler, Corvallis resident and a former county commissioner in
Josephine County, was among those who spoke at the meeting, saying
most of the people in Benton County believed forest lands should
be managed with environmental interests in mind rather than just
revenue generation.

Mr. Toler said the lawsuit, if successful, would cause the state
to increase logging on state lands.

"If you sue an owner of a forest for undercutting and you win,
it's pretty clear what the consequences will be."

Vance Croney, the county's counsel, said the period for opting out
of the lawsuit ended a long time ago.

"Once time for opting out passes, the court almost never lets a
plaintiff out of a class action lawsuit," he said.

The letter by the groups asking the county to drop out of the
lawsuit said Clatsop Community College was allowed to drop out of
the lawsuit after the normal time for opting out had ended.
However, Mr. Croney said, that was a special circumstance because
the community college was not able to hold a meeting with a quorum
of its board members until after the deadline had passed.

County Commissioner Anne Schuster, who along with Xan Augerot
voted to stay in the lawsuit, said even if the counties win the
lawsuit, it did not mean logging would increase.

Clackamas County officials, she said, plan to buy more forest land
with their share of the money, should they win.

"Staying in gives us options," she said.

Annabelle Jaramillo, the only commission member to vote against
staying in the lawsuit, said she regretted that commission
decision, but said that it was too late to withdraw from the
lawsuit.

Mr. Augerot was not at the meeting.

Mr. Toler said even if the county could not leave the lawsuit, the
commissioners should make a statement against it because such a
statement would align with the values of most Benton County
residents.

"Even if you can't opt out, you can stand up and say we don't
believe in the premise of the lawsuit.  My guess is they won't
keep you in after that."

However, Ms. Schuster disagreed that public sentiment was as
strongly opposed to the lawsuit as Toler believed. She said public
comments at a forum in January were evenly split between
supporting and opposing the lawsuit. (The Gazette-Times reported
that just over half the 45 speakers at the forum urged the county
to opt out of the lawsuit).

The commission voted to increase the county's stipend for District
Attorney John Haroldson from $30,157 last year to $33,250 for the
2017-18 fiscal year.  Mr. Haroldson's salary of $104,316 is paid
by the state, but like most Oregon counties the county pays its DA
an additional stipend. [GN]


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Wiper Fluid
--------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a
St. Louis consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
Springfield-based automobile parts dealer, citing alleged breach
of implied warranty.

Paul Weishaar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit
Court against O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc. alleging that the
defendant violated the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in 2010, he
purchased the defendant's windshield wiper fluid that was
advertised to keep vehicle windows from freezing.  The plaintiff
claims the wiper fluid froze and failed to perform as advertised.
As a result, Mr. Weishaar and others claim they were forced fix
their windshield to remedy the issues caused by freezing
windshield wiper fluid, and they claim they were at an increased
risk of accidents due to poor visibility.

The plaintiff holds O'Reilly Automotive Stores responsible because
the defendant allegedly omitted or suppressed material fact
regarding the product and made false promise and misrepresentation
as the product did not protect down to the freezing temperature as
advertised and marketed for sale to the public.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment
individually and on behalf of the other members of the class, his
expenses, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and for such other and further relief as may be just and
proper.  He is represented by Ryan P. Horace of SWMW Law LLC in
St. Louis and Steven J. Stolze of Holland Law Firm in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10830
[GN]


PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Court Grants Leave to File SAC in "Titus"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
issued an Order granting parties' stipulation for Plaintiff to
file second amended class action complaint in the case captioned
DENISE TITUS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT EQUITY
MORTGAGE, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00349-MCE-KJN (E.D. Calif.).

Stipulation by and between the parties, through their counsel of
record, that, Plaintiff Denise Titus will have leave to file the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in place of the operative
First Amended Class Action Complaint in the matter, and that
Defendant Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, will have 21 days after
service of the filed Second Amended Class Action Complaint within
which to answer or otherwise plead in response thereto.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 14, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya29ggddfrom Leagle.com.

Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C.

Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John Scardigli --
nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C., Vladimir Joseph
Kozina -- vjkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. & William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C.

Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by John L.
Barber -- John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith, LLP, Karen Weiling Luh -- Karen.Luh@brisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Tracy Wei Costantino ==
TracyWei.Constantino@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP.


PAREXEL INT'L: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Aug. 15 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of holders of PAREXEL
International Corporation ("PAREXEL") common stock in connection
with the proposed acquisition of PAREXEL by affiliates of Pamplona
Capital Management ("Pamplona") announced on June 20, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against PAREXEL, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Pamplona, is captioned Scarantino v.
PAREXEL International Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-11360 (D.
Mass.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On June 19, 2017, PAREXEL entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Pamplona.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of PAREXEL will receive $88.10 in
cash for each share of PAREXEL stock they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2017.  The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that
PAREXEL stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to
make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, including material information with respect to
PAREXEL's financial projections, the analyses performed by
PAREXEL's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of PAREXEL common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 13, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Actions Over Power Outage
-------------------------------------------------------
WRAL.com reports that four more potential class-action lawsuits
have been filed over the week-long power outage along much of the
Outer Banks last month.

On July 27, PCL Construction, a contractor working on the Bonner
Bridge replacement, accidentally severed two of the three
transmission lines supplying power to Hatteras and Ocracoke
islands.  The outage forced Gov. Roy Cooper to declare a state of
emergency, and a mandatory evacuation was put into place for both
islands.

Utility crews were able to restore power by Aug. 3, and the
evacuation order was lifted the following day.

But the week without power put a serious dent in the tourism-based
economy along the coast, and people now want PCL to pay for its
mistake.

The owners of vacation rental properties, a charter boat captain,
Outer Banks retailers and their workers and a Massachusetts man
who lost out on his vacation all filed federal lawsuits against
the contractor since the end of July.

The lawsuits are in addition to one filed July 31 on behalf of two
people who own homes used as vacation rentals and an art gallery
owner. [GN]


PHARMAPRIX INC: Settles Class Action Over Optimum Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Option consommateurs on Aug. 16 disclosed that it has entered into
an agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart Corporation, 911979 Alberta
Ltd., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Pharmaprix Inc. (collectively
"Pharmaprix") in a class action regarding the Pharmaprix Optimum
Program.

Pharmaprix has agreed to pay 2,354,032,174 Optimum Points as part
of this agreement, having a value of $4,350,102 without admission
of liability.

The agreement must be approved by the Superior Court of Quebec
during a hearing which will be held at the Montreal Courthouse on
September 6, 2017 at 9:30am in Room 2.08.

Overview of facts

Starting in 2010, Option consommateurs filed a class action
against Pharmaprix.  The organization blames the company for
modifying the Pharmaprix Optimum Program on March 8, 2008, May 2,
2009 and July 1, 2010.  The class action seeks to compensate the
members of the Optimum Program for the loss of value of their
Optimum Points resulting from the modifications made to the
Optimum Program.

Pharmaprix denies any wrongdoing or liability and contests the
merits of the class action.

If this settlement is approved, it will put an end to the class
action.

Members affected

This agreement has been concluded for the individuals who are
currently active members of the Pharmaprix Optimum and were active
members of the Pharmaprix Optimum Program at the time of the
modifications.

How to receive compensation

In order to receive the compensation to which they are entitled,
the members covered by the agreement do not have to take any
action.  A points credit will be applied directly to the
Pharmaprix Optimum accounts if they fulfil the admissibility
criteria provided for in the agreement.

Option consommateurs is represented by the law firm Sylvestre
Fafard et associes LLP (Me Marie-Anais Sauve).

For more information regarding the development of the cases over
the following months, consumers may consult the following Web
sites:

Option consommateurs: www.option-consommateurs.org

Lawyers of Option consommateurs: www.spavocats.ca/en/class-
actions/action-collective-contre-pharmaprix-programme-optimum/

                   About Option consommateurs

Founded in 1983, Option consommateurs --
http://www.option-consommateurs.org-- is an association devoted
in advocating and promoting the rights of consumers.  To achieve
this, it is involved in approximately twenty class actions and is
interested in issues relating to health, agrofood, energy,
financial services and commercial practices. [GN]


PHOENIX, AZ: Trump May Pardon Joe Arpaio of Criminal Contempt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News, reports that President
Donald Trump said he may pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio
for his criminal contempt of court conviction for racially
profiling Latinos in defiance of a federal judge's order, because
Arpaio is "a great American patriot" who "has done a lot in the
fight against illegal immigration."

"I am seriously considering a pardon for Sheriff Arpaio," Trump
told Fox TV on Aug. 13 during an interview at his golf club in
Bedminster, N.J. "He has done a lot in the fight against illegal
immigration. He's a great American patriot and I hate to see what
has happened to him."

Sheriff Arpaio, a Republican, lost his bid for a seventh term as
Maricopa County sheriff last November.

He was convicted of misdemeanor criminal contempt of court on July
31 this year by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, for defying
another federal judge's order to stop detaining undocumented
immigrants.  That order came in a racial-profiling class action
filed against Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies in 2007 for racially
profiling Latinos during traffic stops.

Sheriff Arpaio admitted to civil contempt for prolonging traffic
patrols for 17 months after the court order, but claimed he did
not intend to violate the order. During his criminal trial, his
attorneys said Sheriff Arpaio's lawyers did not adequately explain
the court order to him.

As for the pardon, "I might do it right away," Trump said in the
interview, broadcast on Aug. 14.  "I am seriously thinking about
it."

The comments came amid widespread criticism that Trump failed to
criticize white supremacists whose violent rally in
Charlottesville, Virginia on Aug. 12 left a woman dead and dozens
injured.  Trump finally did denounce the white racists on
Aug. 14, after a weekend of withering criticism from members of
his own party.

During his presidential campaign, Trump criticized the federal
judge presiding over the class action fraud trial against Trump
University, saying the U.S.-born judge might not be able to be
fair to him because he is "Mexican."  After the election, U.S.
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego approved a $25 million
settlement of that case.

Sheriff Arpaio, 85, is to be sentenced on Oct. 5.  He faces up to
six months in jail.  He supported Trump during last year's
elections.

The American Civil Liberties Union vigorously denounced Trump's
suggested pardon on Aug. 14.

"President Trump would be literally pardoning Joe Arpaio's
flagrant violation of federal court orders that prohibited the
illegal detention of Latinos. He would undo a conviction secured
by his own career attorneys at the Justice Department," said ACLU
deputy legal director Cecilia Wang, who represented plaintiffs in
the racial profiling class action against Arpaio.

"Make no mistake: This would be an official presidential
endorsement of racism," Wang said in a statement.

Attorneys for Arpaio filed motions for a new trial and for
acquittal on Aug. 14.

They claim he was wrongfully denied a jury trial by Judge Bolton,
who convicted Arpaio in a bench trial.  They also claim the order
to stop traffic patrols targeting Latinos was not "clear and
definite," as Bolton found.

If Trump does issue the pardon, it will be the first of his
presidency. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Darien May Join Opioids Suit
-------------------------------------------
Justin Papp, writing for Darien News, reports that a new class
action suit is taking shape in Connecticut that would hold
accountable the makers of prescription opioids.

Headed by the Mayor of Waterbury and other local leaders, with the
help of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), the
suit would hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for
aggressive marketing and the permeation of false information
regarding the safety of prescription opioids and seek damages for
those that have fallen victim to the scourge of opioids.
In Fairfield County, leaders of municipalities like Danbury and
Ridgefield have stated their potential interest.  In Darien, First
Selectman Jayme Stevenson also suggested he was considering
joining the suit.

"We have expressed our interest from the beginning. Town Attorney
Wayne Fox and I are both information gathering," Ms. Stevenson
said.  "I'm not saying we're committed today, but we're definitely
interested in getting more information on the lawsuit and its
potential outcomes."

In July, Waterbury retained the New York law firm Simmons, Hanly,
and Conroy, who will make a presentation to CCM -- whose staff is
helping to find co-litigants -- in late August, after which point
municipalities can officially join the suit.  Simmons, Hanly and
Conroy filed similar suits earlier this year on behalf of several
New York counties.

Ms. Stevenson said she planned to attend the Aug. 31 informational
meeting between the lawyers and CCM members in Waterbury.

"I would look favorably on joining something like that," Mallozzi
said, though he added he'd been away for a week and needed to
better understand the details of the suit. "Just looking at the
opioid issue, what CCM is doing there is the right thing."
Mallozzi and the town of New Canaan rejoined the CCM in 2017 after
several years not holding membership. Efforts like this, Mallozzi
said, are why he encouraged the town to link back up with CCM.

Mallozzi also emphasized the impact of opioids on a town like New
Canaan.

"How many lives have been affected here by opioid addiction? How
many friends and family have lost children because of it?"
Mallozzi said.

He estimated that seven members of the community had died as a
result of opioids in the last six years.  The exact number,
Mallozzi said, is difficult to pin down because of the stigma
surrounding prescription opioids and heroin, a more potent and
less expensive opiate. In many cases, the parents of those
afflicted are hesitant to speak up and provide a cause of death,
Mallozzi said.

There were 917 overdose deaths in Connecticut, up 25 percent from
2015, many of which were the result of fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid more potent than heroin.  Fentanyl deaths rose by 155
percent in 2016.

Ms. Stevenson also suggested that the numbers may not accurately
represent the gravity of the situation, as many opioid and drug
related deaths are reported as "accidental poisonings."
"It would be more helpful to communities if alcohol, drug, opioid
information was reported as such," Ms. Stevenson said.  "We
consider the impact of opioids on our community to be
substantial." [GN]


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court's Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Ninth Circuit has
issued a decision reversing and remanding the District Court's
order on the Company's motion to dismiss the federal securities
class action.

The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company
other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and
recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which
is substantially similar to the litigation described above under
the caption "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that
statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial
condition and projected future performance were false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the individual defendants are liable for such statements because
they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on
January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 15-55173. Oral argument was held on December 5,
2016.

"On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing
and remanding the District Court's order on our motion to dismiss.
We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
continue to defend against them vigorously, including by
evaluating potential challenges to the Ninth Circuit decision. At
this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount
of liability, if any, related to this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc., known to its clients as NextGen Healthcare,
provides software, services and analytics solutions to the
ambulatory care market.


REGENCY CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in "Hollins"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the appeals case
captioned VENITIA HOLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENCY
CORPORATION and HAYES BATSON, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-3607
(7th Cir.).

Regency Corporation operated for profit cosmetology schools in 20
states.  Venitia Hollins was a Regency student, first at its
Merrillville, Indiana, location, and later at its Tinley Park,
Illinois, facility. In this case, Hollins asserts that the work
she performed in the Salon was compensable for purposes of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201.

Her complaint indicates that she wanted to bring her suit as a
collective action under the FLSA and a class action under the
state statutes, but the district court denied her motion to
conditionally to certify the FLSA action and never certified a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Instead, it
addressed the individual merits of her case on summary judgment
and ruled in Regency's favor.

The critical question for both is whether the existence of the
unnamed Rule 23 class members, or the aspiring members of the
collective action who have signaled their interest in
participating, defeats the finality of the district court's
judgment for purposes of appeal.

In other words, are those people additional parties whose claims
have not yet been resolved? The Seventh Circuit held that if so,
then it does not have a final judgment. If not, then it may
proceed.

The Seventh Circuit held that, looking first at the Rule 23 part
of the case, it sees a common situation: a person files an action
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, but the
district court dismisses the individual case before ruling on
class certification.  In such a case, the Supreme Court has said
that no one is willing to advance the novel and surely erroneous
argument that a nonnamed class member is a party to the class-
action litigation before the class is certified.

A plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind
members of the proposed class before the class is certified. And
if an unnamed member wants to appeal the denial of class
certification, the Supreme Court has said that she may do so
without first formally intervening in the district court.

"All of this persuades us that we do have a final judgment, and
that the unaccepted opt-in notices that the district court
received do not stand in the way of that conclusion. The
collective action was never conditionally certified, and those no-
tices did not, of their own force, make the filers parties whose
unresolved claims would defeat finality," the Seventh Circuit
held.

In this case, time on the Professional Floor was a state mandated
requirement for graduation from the cosmetology program. a
universal requirement for professional licensure. Hollins was
actually paying Regency for the opportunity to receive both
classroom instruction and supervised practical experience, both of
which were necessary for her degree. Regency was in the
educational business (indeed, for profit), not in the beauty salon
business. Hollins did not need to go out and find a place where
she could serve as an intern or an extern; Regency took care of
that.

The Seventh Circuit concludes that the fact that students pay not
just for the classroom time but also for the practical-training
time is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that during
their time on the Performance Floor the students were employees.
It is also notable that Regency structured things to minimize
competition with ordinary beauty salons: it forbade licensed
cosmetologists from working in the Regency Salon, and the students
received not money, but licensing hours and academic credit for
their time and effort.

The district court's careful opinion goes into more detail about
these and other considerations that demonstrate why Hollins was
not entitled to compensation for her time in the salon. On the
present record, however, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the
district court correctly granted summary judgment for Regency
Corporation, and the Seventh Circuit therefore affirms its
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 14, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydgu3z3sfrom Leagle.com.

Samuel S. Shaulson -- sam.shaulson@mortganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Sari M. Alamuddin -- sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher J. Boran -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Adam W. Hansen, 4600 IDS Center80 South Eighth StreetMinneapolis,
MN 55402 for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Leon Greenberg -- ljg@skm.ca -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Defendants' Appellate Brief Due September 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Defendants/Appellees' appellate brief is due on or before
September 12, 2017.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders
(collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the
September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On
February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015,
the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the
Defendants' reply was filed on July 13, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On May 23,
2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9,
2016, and the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016. On
January 27, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint and directed entry of
final judgment in favor of the Defendants. On January 30, 2017,
the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Defendants.

On March 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
Plaintiffs/Appellants' appellate brief was filed on June 13, 2017,
and the Defendants/Appellees' appellate brief is due on or before
September 12, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and will continue to defend against the litigation vigorously.
Because the lawsuit contains multiple 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act
Claims, each with varying probabilities of being overturned on
appeal and varying probabilities of loss and loss amounts, the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of reasonably possible loss arising from this matter.

The Company's primary insurance carrier during the applicable time
period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii)
acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the
1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the
terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The
parties are in the process of negotiating an allocation between
denied and acknowledged claims.

Regional Management is a diversified consumer finance company
providing a broad array of loan products primarily to customers
with limited access to consumer credit from banks, thrifts, credit
card companies, and other traditional lenders.


REMY INTERNATIONAL: Ct. Denies Approval of "Bushansky" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned STEPHEN BUSHANSKY Individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., JOHN H. WEBER, JOHN J. PITTAS, DOUGLAS
K. AMMERMAN, KARL G. GLASSMAN, LAWRENCE F. HAGENBUCH, CHARLES G.
MCCLURE, ARIK W. RUCHIM, GEORGE P. SCANLON, NoRMAN STOUT,
Defendants; MAXINE PHILLIPS Individually and on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, v. REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et
al. JASON GARCIA Individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Sean Griffith (Objector), Interested Party, Case Nos. 1:15-cv-
01361-TWP-TAB, 1:15-cv-01343-TWP-TAB, 1:15-cv-01385-TWP-TAB ( S.D.
Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
Class Certification, and Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses.

On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs sought preliminary approval of
the disclosure settlement agreement, and on July 27, 2016, the
Court granted their request.  In early October 2016, the
Plaintiffs requested final approval of the settlement, class
certification, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $409,844.50.  On Oct. 13, 2016, Objector asked the Court
to deny the Plaintiffs' request for final approval of the
settlement, class certification, and their attorneys' fees and
expenses, asserting the supplemental disclosures were not plainly
material, and they provided no benefit to Remy's stockholders,
among other things.  Thereafter, on Nov. 2, 2016, the Court
conducted a Settlement Hearing regarding the Plaintiffs' request
for final approval of class action settlement, class
certification, and award of attorney fees.

The Court to be proper found the non-opt-out class that includes
any and all record and beneficial holders of Remy common stock,
their respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors
in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and
remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or
claiming under, any of them, and each of them, together with their
predecessors and successors and assigns, who held Remy common
stock at any time between and including July 13, 2015 and Nov. 10,
2015, but excluding the Defendants, their subsidiaries or other
affiliates, their assigns, members of their immediate families,
officers of Remy, and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded person.

In addition, the Court concluded the Plaintiffs gave adequate
notice.  Thereafter, the Plaintiffs and the Objector submitted
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues
remaining before the Court -- specifically whether the proposed
settlement and Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees are adequate and fair.

Judge Pratt recognizes the costs stemming from a denial of final
approval and does not question the integrity of class counsel or
counsel for the Defendants.  Indeed, all have proven able and have
no doubt litigated in earnest.  Nonetheless, it should not be a
close call that the supplemental information is material as that
term is defined.  The Court of Chancery's decision in Trulia and
the Seventh Circuit's decision in Walgreen provide that
disclosure-only settlements should be entered into only in
circumstances involving plainly material supplemental disclosures.
Here, it is evident that the supplemental disclosures fail to
address a plainly material misrepresentation or omission and do
not benefit the proposed class.

For these reasons, Judge Pratt sustained the Objector's objection
and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, Class Certification, and Application for Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in Case No. 1:15-cv-01361-TWP-TAB.
She sustained the Objector's objection and denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class
Certification, and Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses in Case No. 1:15-cv-01343-TWP-TAB.  She further sustained
the Objector's objection and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Certification,
and Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in Case
No. 1:15-cv-01385-TWP-TAB.  Judge Pratt directed the Court Clerk
to docket her Order in Cases 1:15-cv-01361-TWP-TAB, 1:15-cv-01343-
TWP-TAB, and 1:15-cv-1385-TWP-TAB.

The Parties will confer to determine case management deadlines and
should contact the Magistrate Judge to schedule a status
conference regarding how the parties intend to proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ExXAl0 from Leagle.com.

STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Plaintiff, represented by A. Richard Blaiklock
-- rblaiklock@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER, LLP.

STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. Whybrew --
cwhybrew@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER LLP & Marc L. Ackerman --
mackerman@brodsky-smith.com -- Two Bala Plaza, pro hac vice.

REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez
-- anne.deprez@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP.

JOHN H. WEBER, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez, BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP.

JOHN J. PITTAS, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez, BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP.

DOUGLAS K. AMMERMAN, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez,
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP.

KARL G. GLASSMAN, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez, BARNES
& THORNBURG LLP.

LAWRENCE F. HAGENBUCH, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez,
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP.

CHARLES G. MCCLURE, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez,
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP.

ARIK W. RUCHIM, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez, BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP.

GEORGE P. SCANLON, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez,
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP.

J. NORMAN STOUT, Defendant, represented by Anne N. DePrez, BARNES
& THORNBURG LLP.

Sean Griffith, Interested Party, represented by Anthony A. Rickey
-- arickey@margravelaw.com -- MARGRAVE LAW LLC, Michael L.
Einterz, Jr. -- michael@einterzlaw.com -- EINTERZ & EINTERZ &
Michael L. Einterz, Sr. -- mike@einterzlaw.com -- EINTERZ &
EINTERZ.


ROCK-TENN CO: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on Aug. 15 granted preliminary approval to Rock-Tenn Co.'s
$8.5 million deal to resolve class action claims the paper and
packaging giant deprived more than 800 Golden State factory
workers of proper breaks, wages and overtime.

The Aug. 15 nod by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle
comes five years after the heavily litigated class action was
first filed by plaintiff Frederick Wilson.

During the Aug. 15 hearing, Judge Berle swiftly signed off on the
settlement, finding it "fair, reasonable and adequate."

According to the motion for approval, the parties also tried
several times over the years to reach a settlement, with a third
round of mediation that started in December 2016 being the charm.

"The parties went into mediation willing to explore the potential
for settlement but were prepared to litigate their position
through trial and appeal if a settlement had not been reached,"
the court filing states.

Mr. Wilson's wage-and-hour class action against Rock-Tenn, now
known as WestRock CP LLC, claimed that the company had policies
and practices in place that resulted in workers missing out on or
taking shortened meal and rest breaks without receiving state-
required compensation pay.  The suit also alleged that the company
shorted employees on overtime pay by making them work off the
clock, through breaks and "illegally and inaccurately" recording
their time worked.

Rock-Tenn maintains that they authorized and permitted rest breaks
and provided meal periods and paid for all hours worked, according
to the settlement.

Attorneys for the class are in line to receive up to one-third of
the settlement amount, more than $2.8 million, in attorneys' fees,
subject to the court's final approval.  Mr. Wilson and four other
named plaintiffs -- Robert Rivera, Silvano Navarro, Charles Jolly
and Faust Michel -- would each receive an additional service award
of $12,000, according to the settlement.

The class, made up of non-exempt hourly workers employed at one of
Rock-Tenn's five California factory facilities anytime between
July 16, 2008, and May 7, 2015, are estimated to receive
individual average settlements of about $6,332.  There are
approximately 812 class members, according to the plaintiffs.

According to the motion for approval filed with the court, Rock-
Tenn has relatively low employee turnover, reducing the risk that
class members will not receive their payments or be difficult to
locate.  For those whose settlement checks remain uncashed after
180 days, the deal calls for those monies to be deposited into
California's Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wages Fund, which
would allow class members who belatedly learn of the settlement to
still claim their portion of the award.

Prior to reaching the current settlement, Rock-Tenn's workers were
granted class certification in the case in May 2015.

WestRock is one of the world's largest paper and packaging
companies with $15 billion in annual revenue and 42,000 employees
in 30 countries, according to a 2015 company press release
announcing its formation as a result of Rock-Tenn's merger with
MeadWestvaco Corp.

Rock-Tenn is represented by Shagha Balali --
BalaliS@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis.

Frederick Wilson is represented by Tagore O. Subramaniam and Launa
Adolph of Matern Law Group.

The case is Frederick Wilson et al. vs. Rock-Tenn Company et al.,
case number BC488456, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. [GN]


SABRE CORP: To Defend Against Remaining Antitrust Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the remaining claims in a putative class
action lawsuit on antitrust claims.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law
claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with
their federal claim."

"In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking
an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may
appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a
final judgment. We believe that the losses associated with this
case are neither probable nor estimable and therefore have not
accrued any losses as of June 30, 2017. We may incur significant
fees, costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is
ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining
claims."

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.  Sabre operates through two business segments:
(i) Travel Network, its global business-to-business travel
marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, and (ii)
Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of leading
software solutions primarily for airlines and hoteliers.


SABRE CORP: Faces Class Action over Cybersecurity Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is facing a
putative class action lawsuit over a cybersecurity incident.

The Company said, "In July 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiffs are asserting
various claims under state law, including tort, contract and
statutory claims, on behalf of a putative class of individuals
residing in the United States and whose personally identifiable
information allegedly was disclosed, in connection with the
cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to payment
information contained in a subset of hotel reservations process
through the SHS Central Reservation System. The plaintiffs are
seeking equitable relief and an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their claims. We believe that the losses
associated with this case are neither probable nor estimable and
therefore have not accrued any losses as of June 30, 2017. We may
incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this
litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against this
matter."

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.  Sabre operates through two business segments:
(i) Travel Network, its global business-to-business travel
marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, and (ii)
Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of leading
software solutions primarily for airlines and hoteliers.


SABRE CORP: Faces Two Consumer Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that two consumer class
action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in which the
plaintiffs allege that the Company made misrepresentations
concerning the description of the fees received in relation to
facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims
relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to
consumers regarding the nature of the Company's fees and the
amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits is
pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently
considering the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and
the other is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending
the outcome of the Texas state court action.

"We believe the notice we provided was appropriate and therefore
have not accrued any losses related to these cases," the Company
said.

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.  Sabre operates through two business segments:
(i) Travel Network, its global business-to-business travel
marketplace for travel suppliers and travel buyers, and (ii)
Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of leading
software solutions primarily for airlines and hoteliers.


SAUL CHEVROLET: Must Produce Additional Docs in "Rivera" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered the Defendants to
produce additional documents in the case captioned MARCOS RIVERA,
Plaintiff, v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-05966-LHK (SVK)(N.D. Cal).

The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by automobile
dealership Cardinale Mazda (which is owned by Defendant Saul
Chevrolet) as a non-exempt parts and service counter salesperson
from March 4, 2015 until July 2016.  He alleges that he was paid
$3,000 per month while working for Cardinale Mazda and was
promised commissions based on sales.  He claims that the
commission structure was a mirage and that, as a result, he is
entitled to payment for each hour worked, as well as overtime.  On
Oct. 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the class action and Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action suit against the
Defendants.

On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion to conditionally
certify a FLSA collective action and send notice to the class.  In
his motion, he sought certification of the class described as all
non-managerial Employees at any of the Defendants' dealerships
from Oct. 11, 2013 to present who worked as parts salespeople,
counterpeople, or associates, auto salespeople or associates, or
maintenance employees or associates and who were paid an hourly
rate and/or by commission.

On July 31, 2017, the District Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification.  The District Judge's order denying
certification stated that the Plaintiff could file a new motion to
conditionally certify a FLSA collective action within 30 days in
an effort to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's
order.  The Plaintiff's motion is due in two weeks, on Aug. 30,
2017.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Statement Regarding
Discovery Dispute, in which the Plaintiff argues that certain of
the Defendants' discovery responses, as well as its production of
documents, are deficient.  At issue are discovery requests served
by the Plaintiff on the Defendants.  He argues that the
information and documents sought are relevant, particularly to his
upcoming renewed motion to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action under the FLSA.  The Defendants argue that
discovery at this stage should be limited to a narrower scope of
information about them and their employees.

Because the Plaintiff's renewed motion is due by Aug. 30, 2017,
Magistrate Judge van Keulen treats the parties' joint statement as
an expedited request.  Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), she
finds the matter suitable for determination without a hearing.
After consideration of the joint statement, relevant legal
authority, and good cause appearing, she ordered the Defendants to
produce these additional documents no later than Aug. 23, 2017:

     a. Documents responsive to the class-related requests in
Requests for Production Nos. 1-21 pertaining to all non-managerial
employees of any of the Defendants compensated at least in part
via salary during the relevant time period;

     b. Documents responsive to the class-related requests in
Request for Production Nos. 1-21 pertaining to a representative
sample of non-managerial employees of any of the Defendants that
were not compensated on a salary basis during the relevant time
period; and

     c. In response to Request for Production Nos. 22-40, the
articles of incorporation and related registration documents for
the Defendants, including the names of their owners/shareholders,
officers, and directors.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Ia8NDd from Leagle.com.

Marcos Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle James Todd --
kyle@kyletodd.com -- Law Offices of Kyle Todd.

Marcos Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob John Larsen --
jacob@kyletodd.com -- Law Offices of Kyle Todd & Zachary James
Ritter -- zachary@kyletodd.com -- Law Office of Kyle Todd.

Saul Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun Jordan Voigt
-- svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale Automotive Group of Tahoe, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Shaun Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Shaun Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale AG Motorbike, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun
Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale Nissan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun Jordan
Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale Protective Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Shaun Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinaleway Nevada AG Inc.., Defendant, represented by Shaun
Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinale Automotive Group-Arizona, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Shaun Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.

Cardinaleway Mazda at Peoria, Defendant, represented by Shaun
Jordan Voigt, Fisher and Phillips LLP.


SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reduces Attorney's Fee to $2.7-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing and vacating the judgment of the district court
in the appeals case captioned IN RE SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. FRONT-
LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, APPEALS OF SEARS,
ROEBUCK AND CO. and WHIRLPOOL CORP., No. 16-3554 (7th Cir.).

Sears, the principal defendant/appellant in this class action
suit, challenges the district court's decision to award the
plaintiffs' attorneys 1.75 times the fees they originally had
charged for their work on the case.

Class counsel agreed to seek no more than $6 million in attorneys'
fees.  They claimed to have incurred $3.16 million in fees but
asked the court to multiply this figure by 1.9 to account for what
they claimed to be their extraordinary effort in the case.  They
subsequently increased their base fee estimate to $3.25 million,
having discovered additional billable time, but at the same time
reduced their multiplier request from 1.9 to 1.85.

Under either calculation, class counsel were seeking approximately
$6 million.  The district court, however, concluded that they were
entitled to a base fee of only $2,726,191, which the court
multiplied by 1.75, making the total fee award $4,770,834.

The Seventh Circuit pointed out that it has said that a district
court should compare attorney fees to what is actually recovered
by the class and presume that fees that exceed the recovery to the
class are unreasonable.  The presumption is not irrebuttable,
however, and in this case the extensive time and effort that class
counsel had devoted to a difficult case against a powerful
corporation entitled them to a fee in excess of the benefits to
the class, the Seventh Circuit said.

But they failed to prove that a reasonable fee would exceed $2.7
million the pre-multiplier figure sought by class counsel and
already thrice the damages awarded the class, the Seventh Circuit
held.

The Seventh Circuit therefore reverses the judgment of the
district court and remands with directions to award $2.7 million
no more, no less in fees to the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 14, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yabpxarsfrom Leagle.com.

Philip S. Beck, Esq. -- philip.beck@bartlit-beck.com -- for
Intervenor-Appellant.

Timothy S. Bishop, Esq. -- tbishop@mayerbrown.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Timothy S. Bishop, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Richard J. Burke, Esq. -- rburke@whitecase.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Paul M. Weiss, 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 12201
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joshua D. Yount, Esq. -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Joshua D. Yount, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Jonathan D. Selbin, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James J. Rosemergy, 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100St. Louis,
Missouri 63105 for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joel S. Neckers, Esq. -- neckers@wtotrial.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Logan Ann Steiner, 71 S Wacker DrChicago, IL 60606 for Defendant-
Appellant.

Logan Ann Steiner, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Jason L. Lichtman, 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY
12201 for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael T. Williams, Esq. -- Williams@wtotrial.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Michael T. Williams, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Eric R. Olson, Esq. -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- for
Intervenor-Appellant.

Allison R. McLaughlin, Esq. -- mclaughlin@wtotrial.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Allison R. McLaughlin, for Intervenor-Appellant.

Steven A. Schwartz -- sas@joelhschwartz.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.


SEWERAGE & WATER: Class Actions Mulled Over Flooding
----------------------------------------------------
Jim Hanzo, writing for WWL, reports that former US Attorney in New
Orleans Harry Rosenberg told WWL's Dave Cohen, he would anticipate
there will be class action lawsuits or multiple class action
lawsuits filed against the Sewerage & Water Board and other
individuals in the wake of the flooding that happened just about 2
weeks ago.

"I'm almost certain that you're going to see a series of lawsuits
that are going to flow out of this, and I'm sorry to use that pun,
but, that are going to emanate from what we saw the Saturday
before last," Mr. Rosenberg said.

The former U.S. Attorney says there have been those filed against
the Sewerage & Water Board and the city when it came to repairing
streets or engaging in replacing pipes in the city.

"I think when you see this type of incident occur as we
experienced that Saturday, I believe, inevitably, whether those
folks have money or they believe that the insurance company's
behind those folks have money, that the class actions will be
filed," Mr. Rosenberg added.

And Mr. Rosenberg says while there certainly should be an internal
investigation, we could also see an outside agency whether it's
the Office of Inspector General, the State, or some federal
agency, that could examine exactly what occurred and why it
occurred. [GN]


SOUTHERN CHINA: November 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
This Notice may affect your rights. Please read it carefully.

ATTENTION: All persons or entities who purchased investment units
of Expedite 4, Inc. now known as Southern China Livestock Inc.

THE CLASS ACTION

A class proceeding has been certified by the Court of Appeal for
Ontario against the audit firm Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP on
behalf of the Class of all persons or entities who purchased
investment units ("Units") of Expedite 4, Inc. between March 29,
2010 and December 23, 2010, and who continued to hold any of the
shares or warrants comprising the Units as of December 23, 2010,
other than Excluded Parties where the Excluded Parties are:

  (i) Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP (the Defendant), including its
partners, employees, successors and assigns;

  (ii) the officers, directors, employees, agents, legal
representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors,
successors and assigns of Expedite 4, Inc., Southern China
Livestock International Inc., or Southern China Livestock Inc.,
and any entity in which any of the foregoing have or had any legal
or de facto controlling interest; and

  (iii) Rodman & Renshaw LLC and Newbridge Securities Corporation
(together the "Placement Agents"), including their officers,
directors, senior management employees, predecessors, successors
and assigns.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an order requiring the
Defendant to pay to the Class Members as damages the total amount
that each Class Member paid to acquire Units of Expedite 4, Inc.

The Defendant denies the allegations made in the action.  By
certifying this action as a class proceeding, the Court has made
no determination of the merits of the Plaintiff's claims or the
Defendant's denials.  The Plaintiff will be required to prove its
allegations at a trial in order to obtain the relief that it seeks
for the Class.

THE CERTIFICATION ORDER

The Court of Appeal for Ontario certified the action Excalibur
Special Opportunities LP v. Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP, Court
File No. CV-12-466694-00CP as a class proceeding (the "Class
Action") on December 6, 2016, with leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada denied on June 8, 2017.  Excalibur Special
Opportunities LP is appointed as the representative plaintiff on
behalf of the Class.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
this order.

Each member of the Class will be bound by the terms of any
judgment or settlement unless they exclude themselves from the
Class by "opting out", as explained below.  Each member of the
Class may be entitled to share in the amount of any judgment
awarded or settlement reached in the Class Action.

LEGAL FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS

Counsel for the Class ("Class counsel") have entered into a
contingency fee agreement with the representative Plaintiff with
respect to legal fees and disbursements.  The agreement provides
that Class counsel will not receive payment for their work unless
the Class Action is successful at trial, a settlement is achieved,
or costs are received from the Defendants.  The agreement, which
must be approved by the court to be effective, provides for Class
Counsel to be paid a contingency fee based upon a percentage of
the amount recovered in the Class Action. Class Members will not
be required to pay legal fees to Class Counsel, except as a
percentage of any amount recovered.  Class Members will not be
liable to pay any costs to the Defendant or its lawyers for the
class action.

CLASS MEMBERS MUST OPT OUT IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE CLASS ACTION

Class members who wish to participate in the Class Action need not
do anything at this time. They are automatically included in the
Class Action.

Class members who do not wish to participate in the Class Action
must opt out.

If you wish to opt out of the Class Action, you must say so in
writing by delivering a letter or notice, including your full name
and address on or before November 14, 2017 at 5:00 pm EST to Class
Counsel at the following address:

By prepaid mail or courier to:

Southern China Livestock Class Action
Paliare Roland LLP
155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

Fax: 416-646-4301

No Class Member will be permitted to opt out after November 14,
2017.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Any questions about the matters in this notice should be addressed
to Class Counsel.

The certification order and other information regarding the Class
Action is available on the website
www.southernchinalivestockclassaction.com.

or may be obtained by calling: 1-855-204-4946

Requests for information or questions for Class Counsel should be
directed to:

Southern China Livestock Class Action
Paliare Roland LLP
155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

Fax: 416-646-4301

e-mail: info@southernchinalivestockclassaction.com

INTERPRETATION

This notice is a summary of the terms of the certification order.
If there is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and
the terms of the certification order, the certification order
prevails.  The certification order can be viewed at the web
address referenced above.

This notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
[GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal over Class Certification Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeals of the
class certification and summary judgment orders are pending.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary
AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
"AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize
air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and
conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first
item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons or entities in the United States who
directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights
beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009
complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking
certification as class actions were filed in federal district
courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas,
Nevada.

All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal
district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint
was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which
broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran
conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise
prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
sought injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. On June 18, 2012, the
parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have
abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce
capacity.

On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment
on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On July 12, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of all persons
who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008
to November 1, 2014 (the date on which AirTran stopped charging
first bag fees).

Defendants have appealed that decision, and the appeal is pending.
On March 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment and dismissed all claims against AirTran.

On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the district court's judgment, and on April 24, 2017, AirTran
filed a conditional notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's
order certifying a class. The appeals of the class certification
and summary judgment orders are currently pending.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company") operates Southwest
Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air
transportation in the United States and near-international
markets.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Consumers Class Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties are
currently engaged in discovery in the class action lawsuit by
consumers.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court
denied this motion.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company denies
all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
these civil cases.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company") operates Southwest
Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air
transportation in the United States and near-international
markets.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Civil Case in Canada Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend a civil case in Canada.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and Canada.
Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court and British Columbia and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with
the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British
Columbia and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company
and to stay that proceeding against the other defendants.

On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company.

The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the
time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet
begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants
as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company") operates Southwest
Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air
transportation in the United States and near-international
markets.


SPOKEO INC: Appeals Court Revives Case Over False Online Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on Aug. 15 revived a California man's lawsuit
accusing Spokeo Inc. of publishing an online profile about him
that was filled with mistakes.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in favor of Thomas
Robins, 15 months after the U.S. Supreme Court asked it to more
closely assess whether he suffered the "concrete and
particularized" injury needed to justify a lawsuit.

Spokeo sells data aggregated from various databases to users
including employers and people seeking romantic partners.

Mr. Robins sued after learning that his profile, which carried
someone's else's photo, said he was married with children,
affluent, in his 50s and employed, and had a graduate degree.

He said all of this was wrong, and accused Pasadena, California-
based Spokeo of willfully violating the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, with potential damages of $1,000.

The case was significant because Robins tried to pursue a class
action, which if successful could expose Facebook Inc, Alphabet
Inc's Google and other online data providers to mass claims in
similar lawsuits.

In a 6-2 decision in May 2016, the Supreme Court set aside an
earlier 9th Circuit ruling favoring Robins, and asked the appeals
court to review the severity of Robins' injury.

Justice Samuel Alito concluded that not all inaccuracies, such as
a wrong postal code, could threaten real harm.

In the Aug. 15 decision, Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain said
"it does not take much imagination" to surmise how Mr. Robins
could have suffered real harm, given the importance of consumer
reports to getting jobs, obtaining loans and buying homes.

The alleged errors "do not strike us as the sort of mere technical
violations which are too insignificant to present a sincere risk
of harm to the real-world interests that Congress chose to protect
with FCRA," Judge O'Scannlain wrote.

Spokeo said it will vigorously defend itself in court, and it
believes the need to show individualized inaccuracies will make it
"very difficult" to win class certification.

The Supreme Court decision has prompted some uncertainty, with
lower courts dismissing some proposed class actions based only on
technical violations, while letting other cases continue even when
alleged harms were intangible.

"We're obviously very pleased," Jay Edelson, a lawyer for Robins,
said in a phone interview. "This lays out exactly what the Supreme
Court was getting at."

Robins' case drew support from the U.S. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which in a court brief said Spokeo fell short
of seeking "maximum possible accuracy" in its reports.

The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Robins v Spokeo Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 11-56843. [GN]


STANDARD INNOVATION: Judge Inks $3.75-Mil. We-Vibe Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, Ryan Boysen and Sophia Morris, writing for
Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge signed off on a
$3.75 million settlement in a class action involving web-enabled
vibrators on Aug. 15, ending claims the company that sold them
collected data on their customers' usage of the sex toys.

U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted final approval to
the deal, which closes the door on a class action filed by
customers of Canadian company Standard Innovation Corp. -- known
as We-Vibe -- just under a year after it was filed.

We-Vibe customers claimed the toy and its accompanying app,
We-Connect, collected information on the date and time of use, the
"vibration intensity level" and users' emails.  The data was then
sent back to Standard's servers in Canada, violating the Federal
Wiretap Act and Illinois privacy law in the process, the suit
claimed.

The deal is valued at $5 million Canadian dollars, which the
attorneys said came out to about $3 million U.S. dollars for users
of the app and $750,000 U.S. dollars to the vibrator owners,
according to court documents.

Counsel for the plaintiffs repeatedly called the deal "great," a
term Judge Kendall said she hadn't heard used to describe a
settlement before.

"We've given you a lot of briefing on why it's great," plaintiffs
counsel, Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC,
told Judge Kendall.

Around 300,000 customers have purchased the vibrators, and about
100,000 use it with the app, which can control the device
remotely, plaintiffs counsel said.  The payout translates to about
$20 per vibrator and $100 per app user, although it could change
as the Canadian dollar's value changes.

As part of the deal, the company has agreed to stop collecting
information from We-Vibe users and destroy any data it already
had.

The two lead plaintiffs, who filed the suit in September using
just their initials, will receive $5,000 apiece.

Judge Kendall's approval on Aug. 15 came after attorneys from
Edelson PC agreed to accept Magistrate Judge Michael Mason's
recommendation that they receive no more than 30 percent of the
$3.75 million payout.  The attorneys told Judge Kendall they
objected to the magistrate judge's reasoning but agreed to
decrease their fee request in line with his recommendation anyway.

Edelson PC will receive a third of the fund going to the app-users
and 30 percent of the fund going to the vibrator-owners,
collecting $1,011,522.89, according to a court filing.

The firm originally asked for $1,123,914.33, but Judge Mason said
the speed with which the case was resolved didn't warrant fees
amounting to a full third of the fund.  The parties never appeared
in court, there was no discovery, and it took only one day of
mediation to reach their agreement, the judge said.

The firm disputed Judge Mason's comments on how little work went
into reaching the settlement, submitting data showing several firm
attorneys and members of its team worked on the case for dozens of
hours.  Edelson PC's in-house computer forensics team spent over
100 hours testing several We-Vibe devices and the app, it told
Judge Kendall.

Judge Kendall noted the attorneys' comments but said if they had
no objection to the fee reduction she would accept Judge Mason's
recommendation.

After Judge Kendall's ruling, Jay Edelson of Edelson PC told
Law360 he was pleased the settlement had reached final approval.
Representatives for Standard Innovation did not respond to
requests for comment on Aug. 15.

The proposed class is represented by Eve-Lynn Rapp, Benjamin
Thomassen -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Ryan Andrews --
randrews@edelson.com -- and Jay Edelson of Edelson PC.

Standard Innovation is represented by Nathan T. Newman of Tucker
Ellis LLP and Neil K. Gilman -- ngilman@hunton.com -- and Thomas
R. Waskom -- twaskom@hunton.com -- of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The case is N.P. v. Standard Innovation (US) Corp., Case No. 1:16-
cv-08655 (N.D. Ill.)  The case is assigned to Judge Honorable
Virginia M. Kendall.  The case was filed September 2, 2016. [GN]


TING HSIN: Ordered to Pay NT$10.23MM in Oil Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Wu Jhe-hao and Elizabeth Hsu, writing for CNA, report that an oil
producing subsidiary of the Ting Hsin International Group, one of
Taiwan's largest enterprises in food production and distribution,
has been ordered to pay compensation totaling NT$10.23 million
(US$337,000) to 341 plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit,
according to a court ruling released on Aug. 16.

Each complainant will be entitled to NT$10,000 compensation for
property loss and NT$20,000 punitive compensation in the class
action suit brought by the Consumer Protection Association against
the Changhua County-based Ting Hsin Oil and Fat Industrial Co.,
according to the Changhua District Court ruling.

The Kaohsiung-based civil group had demanded a total of NT$90,000
per plaintiff in compensation for property loss and non-property
loss (mental anguish), as well as punitive compensation, said
court spokesman Wang Yi-min.

Originally, 16,500 teachers and students at over 30 schools around
Taiwan joined the class action suit in 2015, accusing Ting Hsin of
marketing substandard cooking oil products that caused them
property loss and psychological torment.

However, many of the plaintiffs later withdrew their claims, Wang
said.

Ting Hsin Oil was found in 2014 to have imported animal feed-grade
fat from Vietnamese trading company Dai Hanh Phuc Co. and used the
fat to make cooking oil that it sold around the country for human
consumption.

The prosecution said that despite knowing that Dai Hanh Phuc was
offering substandard lard, Ting Hsin Oil still kept purchasing it
and using it to produce cooking oil.

In its ruling on Aug. 15, the district court said the original
compensation demand in the class action was excessively high.  The
ruling can still be appealed. [GN]


TRINET GROUP: September 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court set September
2017 for a court hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported
stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit,
Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et. al., under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court (the
Court) for the Northern District of California. The complaint was
later amended in April 2016. The amended complaint generally
alleges that TriNet and the other defendants caused damage to
purchasers of our stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to
disclose facts generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting
health insurance and workers' compensation claims. The other
defendants include certain of our officers and directors, General
Atlantic, LLC, a former significant shareholder, and the
underwriters of our IPO. The court set September 2017 for a court
hearing on our motion to dismiss. We are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from this litigation."

TriNet Group is provider of human resources (HR) solutions for
small to midsize businesses (SMBs).


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Key Question Arises on Arbitration Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Myers, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Chicago
federal judge has added a new entry in the ongoing debate over
whether companies can force employees and contractors to sign
class-action waivers, stepping into a dispute in which an Uber
driver claims the company owes him wages and overtime under
federal law.

On July 18, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso ruled an arbitrator
should decide whether an Uber driver is an employee or independent
contractor before allowing driver Luis Olivares to continue his
class action suit against the ride-hailing company for allegedly
violating the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Uber contends its drivers are independent contractors, not
employees, allowing the question to be handled as a contract
dispute in arbitration.  Mr. Olivares, however, has argued he and
other drivers should be considered non-exempt, hourly employees
protected by the FLSA.

"In the broadest context, what is underlying this opinion is the
larger dispute over whether employers can force their employees to
sign waivers to go into arbitration alone rather than as a class,"
Patrick DePoy -- pmd@franczek.com -- an attorney at Franczek
Radfelt told the Cook Country Record.  "The National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) has recently found that class-action
waivers are a violation of the labor relations act.  The NLRB has
ruled that telling employees that they can't file a class action
lawsuit together, an important right to collective action, is
being violated."

The basis for Mr. Olivares' claim stems from a decision by the
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Lewis v. Epic Systems,
which found a mandatory arbitration agreement which prohibited
class-based arbitration or litigation violated employees' rights
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Uber countered by arguing that the NLRA only applies to
individuals who are classified as employees, not independent
contractors.

One of the points of contention in the dispute centers around a
provision in Uber's Software License and Online Services
Agreement, which all drivers sign in order to gain access to the
company's mobile application.  The provision stipulates that the
drivers agree to resolve all disputes through final and binding
arbitration on an individual basis, and not as a class, collective
action or on a representative basis.

However, this provision is not mandatory and a clause in the
agreement allows a driver to send Uber a written notification
within 30 days of signing the document an intent to opt out.

"[T]ypically the employee has no choice at all," Mr. Depoy said.
"They have to sign the waiver or not get a job. T he court said,
'We haven't seen this kind of thing in the past.'"

In the end, Alonso held that an arbitrator should resolve the
issue.

"In this case, the judge chose to let the arbitrator figure this
one out," Mr. Depoy said.  "It's a punt, but it's an important
punt. And while this doesn't establish a precedent, other courts
will look at Judge Alonso's decision when making their own
rulings."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the split among the
federal appellate courts on this issue, and oral arguments are
scheduled for October 2. For the time being, however, the Lewis v.
Epic Systems ruling is binding in all courts in the Seventh
Circuit, which includes federal district courts in Illinois,
Wisconsin and Indiana. [GN]


ULTA SALON: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Delk" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CAYLIN DELK, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON,
COSMETICS, AND FRAGRANCE, INC., a corporation, Defendant, No.
1:15-cv-01651-TLN-SKO(E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add
individual and class claims.

On June 13, 2016, the Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order,
which provides in relevant part that no amendments to pleadings
will be permitted without leave of court, good cause having been
shown.  Thus, the Order incorporates Rule 16(b)'s "good cause"
standard for any proposed amendment.

Delk filed the motion to amend over six months after the Pretrial
Scheduling Order issued.  She aims to add four new causes of
action for various wage-and-hour violations, primarily based upon
allegations that she was a piece-rate employee who was improperly
underpaid for non-productive time.  She also aims to bring nine of
her claims as a class action.  Delk argues she has shown good
cause for three reasons.

First, Delk argues that her proposed claims based on California
Labor Code Section 226.2 did not ripen until roughly a week before
she sought leave to amend.  Second, she argues she could not have
sought leave to amend any earlier because her counsel only
recently became aware of the facts supporting the claims she hopes
to add during the course of additional consultations with her.
Finally, Delk argues that Ulta will receive an ill-gotten windfall
if she is not able to convert this lawsuit into a class action.

Judge Nunley finds that none of these arguments is persuasive.
The Plaintiff has not shown good cause as required by the Pretrial
Scheduling Order to file an amended complaint.  Accordingly, he
denied her motion to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lbo2BY from Leagle.com.

Caylin Delk, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John Scardigli --
nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall, Hurley, Knutsen, Smith & Green.

Caylin Delk, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C., Vladimir Joseph
Kozina -- vjkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. & William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.c..

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented
by John C. Kloosterman -- jkloosterman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Jessica Lynn Marinelli, Littler Mendelson, P.C..


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Remands Injunction Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order
remanding to the district court the appeals case captioned JANE
DOES 1-10 and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated; Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON and PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at
the University of Washington, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees, v. DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, Defendant-
Appellant, No. 16-36038 (9th Cir.).

After David Daleiden requested public records from the University
of Washington under Washington's Public Records Act, a group of
individuals known as the Doe Plaintiffs brought this putative
class action against Daleiden and the University to compel
redaction of any personal identifying information in the records.

The Ninth Circuit held that although it agrees with the district
court that there may be a basis for redaction where disclosure
would likely result in threats, harassment, and violence, the
court's order did not address how the Doe Plaintiffs have made the
necessary clear showing with specificity as to the different
individuals or groups of individuals who could be identified in
the public records.

The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court also made no
finding that specific individuals or groups of individuals were
engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment and what that
activity was.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit remands the case for the district
court to address how disclosure of specific information would
violate the constitutional or statutory rights of particular
individuals or groups of individuals. The Ninth Circuit
temporarily leaves the preliminary injunction in place to allow
the court to clarify the basis for any injunction.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 14, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ydcd26nafrom Leagle.com.


US STEEL: Court Consolidates "Ortiz" and "Payne" PSLRA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned CARMELO ORTIZ, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
STEEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; KELLY PAYNE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
Nos. 15-579, 17-660( W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (i)
consolidated the cases 17-559 and 17-660, and any other
subsequently filed related actions, under Civil Action Number
17-559; (ii) appointed Christakis Vrakas to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff in the consolidated action; and (iii) approved Mr.
Vrakas's selection of Levi & Korsinsky LLP as the lead counsel and
O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, as the liaison counsel for the
proposed class.

On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff Ortiz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, filed a Complaint against U.S. Steel,
Mario Longhi Filho and David B. Burritt, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("17-559").  Then on May 17,
2017, Plaintiff Kelley Payne, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed a Complaint against U.S. Steel, Filho
and Burritt, also alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("17-660").  Both actions are brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of U.S. Steel between Nov. 1, 2016
and April 25, 2017.

Pursuant to stipulations filed by the parties, the Court entered a
separate Order at each civil action number extending the
Defendants' answer date pending the Court's appointment of a lead
plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA").  On May 4, 2017, the first notice that a class action
had been initiated against Defendants U.S. Steel, Longhi and
Burritt was published on PRNewswire, advising members of the
proposed class of their right to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff no later than 60 days after the issuance of the
PRNewswire notice.

Subsequent to the publication of the lawsuits, the Court received
seven motions across both dockets requesting various forms of
relief related to the appointment of a lead plaintiff.  All but
one Motion asks that the two separate civil actions be
consolidated into one.

Judge Bissoon finds that these two civil actions involve
sufficiently common questions of law and fact such that
consolidation is appropriate.  Both actions present substantially
similar factual and legal issues, stem from the same alleged
scheme by the Defendants, name the same or similar defendants and
allege violations of federal securities law.  Moreover, the
proposed class for each action is identical -- individuals who
purchased common stock of U.S. Steel between Nov.  1, 2016 and
April 25, 2017.

Accordingly, she consolidated the cases 17-559 and 17-660, and any
other subsequently filed related actions, under Civil Action
Number 17-559 ("Lead Case").  Until further notice, all filings in
these consolidated cases will be docketed under the Lead Case, and
the parties may abbreviate their captions to read, "In re U.S.
Steel Consolidated Cases, Civil Action No. 17-559," or a
reasonable equivalent.

Based on a thorough review of the filings in both civil actions,
Judge Bissoon finds that Mr. Vrakas has stated a prima facie case
of typicality and adequacy.  She also finds that Mr. Vrakas will
adequately represent the proposed class.  Additionally, Mr. Vrakas
has demonstrated willingness and an ability to select competent
class counsel.  Accordingly, Judge Bissoon appointed Mr. Vrakas as
the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated matter.

Mr. Vrakas has selected Levi & Korinsky LLP as the lead counsel
and O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC as the liaison counsel.  Judge
Bissoon sees no reason to interfere with that selection.  Nothing
in the record suggests that this selection of counsel would fail
to protect the interests of the proposed class.  Accordingly, she
approved Mr. Vrakas's selection of the lead and the liaison
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/awlnBa from Leagle.com.

ARMELO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G. Yates, Jr. --
yateslaw@aol.com -- Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr..

CARMELO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, represented by Michael I. Fistel, Jr. --
michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, pro hac
vice.

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Leon F.
DeJulius -- lfdejulius@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Margaret C.
Gleason -- mcgleason@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

MARIO LONGHI, Defendant, represented by Leon F. DeJulius, Jones
Day & Margaret C. Gleason, Jones Day.

DAVID B. BURRITT, Defendant, represented by Leon F. DeJulius,
Jones Day & Margaret C. Gleason, Jones Day.

RICHARD SOUSA, Movant, represented by Brian P. Gabriel --
bgabriel@cdblaw.com -- Campbell Durrant Beatty Palombo & Miller,
P.C..

DENNIS COLEMAN, Movant, represented by Brian P. Gabriel, Campbell
Durrant Beatty Palombo & Miller, P.C..

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 ADDITIONAL SECURITY BENEFIT FUND, SUPPLEMENTAL
FUND FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES, WELFARE FUND, AND WELFARE
FUND PENSION PLAN, Movant, represented by Alfred G. Yates, Jr.,
Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr..

PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION PLAN, Movant,
represented by Christopher D. Barraza -- cbarraza@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J.
Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Francis P.
McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro
hac vice & Patrick J. Loughren -- patrick@loughren.com --
Loughren, Loughren & Loughren.

OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, Movant,
represented by Christopher D. Barraza, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro
hac vice, Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Francis P. McConville,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Loughren,
Loughren, Loughren & Loughren.

PENSIONED OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND,
Movant, represented by Christopher D. Barraza, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Francis P.
McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J.
Loughren, Loughren, Loughren & Loughren.


WAL-MART STORES: Del. Chancery Court Responds to Remand Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on July 25, 2017,
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery
issued a supplemental opinion, responding to a remand order from
the Delaware Supreme Court, in which Chancellor Bouchard
recommended that the Delaware Supreme Court adopt a new preclusion
threshold to determine whether collateral estoppel precludes a new
plaintiff from pursuing derivative claims that have already been
dismissed.  In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Del. Deriv. Litig., C.A.
No. 7455-CB (Del. Ch. July 25, 2017). Chancellor Bouchard
originally dismissed the Delaware suit ("Wal-Mart I") after
finding that the plaintiff was barred from relitigating demand
futility, which the federal court in the District of Arkansas
found was inadequately pleaded in an earlier-filed federal suit.
While the Delaware plaintiffs spent the three years litigating a
books and records demand under 8 Del. C. Sec. 220, the plaintiffs
in the federal suit filed suit (in what Chancellor Bouchard
described as a race to the courthouse) without making a Section
220 demand.

The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case to ask Chancellor
Bouchard to evaluate whether applying issue preclusion to demand
futility violated the due process rights of stockholders.  On
remand, Chancellor Bouchard found that although the analysis in
Wal-Mart I followed the precedent adopted in most jurisdictions,
the issue warranted further consideration.  Chancellor Bouchard's
supplemental opinion drew a parallel between derivative suits and
class actions, noting that denial of class certification in
federal court does not preclude a state court from considering a
different plaintiff's request to certify a class under state law.
Bouchard suggested that a similar standard should apply to
dismissal of derivative suits for lack of standing, noting that
when a stockholder is denied authority to sue on behalf of the
corporation by granting a Rule 23.1 motion to dismiss, the
purported derivative action is no more a representative action
than a proposed class action that was denied certification.  In
drawing this analogy, Chancellor Bouchard advocated that
preclusive effect should not be given to demand futility suits
unless the corporation's board has authorized the suit or the suit
has survived a motion to dismiss.

If the Delaware Supreme Court adopts Chancellor Bouchard's
suggested new approach, the decision is unlikely to stem the
current tide of M&A-related cases being filed in federal courts in
the wake of Trulia or to drive an increase in Section 220 demands.
If anything, a ruling that dismissal for demand futility (or lack
of standing) does not preclude relitigation of the issue by
another plaintiff could potentially lead to an increase in filings
of derivative suits. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Settlement in "Corvello" Suit Get Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PHILLIP R. CORVELLO, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK
N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE d/b/a AMERICA'S SERVICING
COMPANY, Defendant; AMIRA JACKMON, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA'S SERVICING
COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case Nos. 3:10-CV-
05072-VC, 3:11-cv-03884-VC(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, preliminarily approved the Parties'
Stipulation and Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Parties have entered into the Settlement after substantial
discovery and extended arms-length settlement discussions.  The
Plaintiffs have made an application, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure, Rule 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving
the Settlement of the Action, and for its dismissal with prejudice
upon the terms and conditions set forth therein.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' application for such order, Judge
Chhabria has found good cause for the same.  He preliminarily
approved the Settlement and the terms and conditions of settlement
set forth therein, subject to further consideration at the
Fairness Hearing set for Nov. 30, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

Judge Chhabria approved, as to form and content, the proposed
forms of the Class Notice.  He also approved the designation of
Garden City Group, Inc. to serve as the Court-appointed Settlement
Administrator for the Settlement.  The Settlement Administrator
will disseminate Class Notice and supervise and carry out the
Class Notice procedure, the payment of Settlement Payments, and
other administrative functions, and will respond to Class Member
inquiries, as set forth in the Settlement and the Order under the
direction and supervision of the Court.

Within 15 days of the Order, the Settlement Administrator will
establish a Class Website, making available copies of the Order,
the Class Notice, the Settlement and all exhibits thereto, the
Motions for Preliminary Approval and Final Approval, the Class
Counsel's petition for approval of a Fee Award and Case
Contribution Award, the First Amended Complaint in the Corvello
Action, the Amended Complaint in the Jackmon Action, answers to
frequently asked questions, the number for the toll-free hotline
maintained by the Settlement Administrator for this Settlement,
Settlement-related deadlines, and such other information as may be
of assistance to Class Members or required under the Settlement.

Within 20 days of the order, the Settlement Administrator is
ordered to send the Mail Notice by U.S. mail to each member of the
Class after first updating the Class List through the National
Change of Address Database.  For Class loans associated with more
than one Class Member and where such Class Members have the same
last-known mailing address, the Settlement Administrator will mail
a single Mail Notice to all such Class Members.  After posting of
the Mail Notice by the Settlement Administrator with the United
States Postal Service, for any Mail Notices returned as
undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator will utilize the
National Change of Address registry in an attempt to obtain better
addresses for such returned Notices, and should that registry show
a more current address, the Settlement Administrator will post the
returned Mail Notice to the more current address; provided
however, if a determination is made in good faith by the
Settlement Administrator that it is not possible to further update
any particular Settlement Class Member's address(es) in sufficient
time to repost the Class Notice(s) at least 20 days before the
scheduled Fairness Hearing, then the Settlement Administrator need
make no further efforts to provide further Mail Notice to such
person(s).  The Settlement Administrator will promptly re-mail any
Mail Notices that are returned as non-deliverable with a
forwarding address to such forwarding address.

The reasonable costs of the Class Notice, administering the
Settlement Payments portion of the Settlement, creating and
maintaining the Class Website, and all other Settlement
administration expenses will be paid by the Defendant in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Settlement.

Any person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
his or her request, be excluded from the Class.  Any such person
must submit a completed Request for Exclusion to the Settlement
Administrator postmarked or delivered no later than 30 days before
the Fairness Hearing, as set forth in the Order and the Class
Notice.  When a Class loan is associated with more than one Class
Member, a Request for Exclusion signed by one Class Member will
serve to opt-out any other Class Member who is an obligor on the
same loan.

The Settlement Administrator will provide copies of any Requests
for Exclusion to Class Counsel and Wells Fargo's Counsel as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.  A list reflecting all
Requests for Exclusions will be filed with the Court by Class
Counsel at or before the Fairness Hearing.

Any Class Member who desires to object either to the Settlement,
the Fee Award, or the Plaintiffs' Case Contribution Awards must
timely file with the Clerk of this Court a notice of the
objection(s) and proof of membership in the Class and the grounds
for such objections, together with all papers that the Class
Member desires to submit to the Court no later than 30 days prior
to the Fairness Hearing.

Any Class Member who files a written objection may appear at the
Fairness Hearing, either in person or through counsel hired at the
Class Member's expense, to object to any aspect of the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, including
attorneys' fees.  The Class Members or their attorneys who intend
to make an appearance at the Fairness Hearing must file a notice
of appearance with the Court, no later than 10 days before the
Fairness Hearing.  The Court may excuse a Class Member's failure
to file a written objection upon a showing of good cause, which,
if granted, would permit the Class Member to still appear at the
Fairness Hearing and object to the Settlement.

Pending the Fairness Hearing and the Court's decision whether to
finally approve the Settlement Agreement, all proceedings in the
Action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce
the Settlement Agreement or the Order, are stayed and suspended,
until further order from the Court.

The deadlines set forth in the Order, including, but not limited
to, adjourning the Fairness Hearing, may be extended by Order of
the Court, for good cause shown, without further notice to the
Class Members -- except that notice of any such extensions will be
posted to the Class Website.

Judge Chhabria authorized the Counsel for the Parties to utilize
all reasonable procedures in connection with the approval and
administration of the Settlement that are not materially
inconsistent with either the Order or the terms of the Settlement.

The Court will maintain continuing jurisdiction over these
Settlement proceedings to assure the effectuation thereof for the
benefit of the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RcK1qB from Leagle.com.

Phillip R. Corvello, Plaintiff, represented by Alisa Ann Martin --
info@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC.

Phillip R. Corvello, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard
Patterson, Patterson Law Group, APC, Leslie E. Hurst --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Patricia Nicole
Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn et al, Paula
R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman, Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -
- Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP & Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A, Defendant, represented by Matthew Gordon
Ball -- matthew.ball@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, David D.
Christensen -- david.christensen@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, pro
hac vice, Jennifer Janeira Nagle -- jennifer.nagle@klgates.com --
KL Gates LLP & Matthew N. Lowe -- matthew.lowe@klgates.com -- KL
Gates LLP, pro hac vice.


WEST MARINE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Aug. 16 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case No. 1:17-cv-01036, on behalf of
shareholders of West Marine, Inc. ("West Marine" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: WMAR) who have been harmed by West Marine's and its board
of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with
Monomoy Capital Partners ("Monomoy").

On June 29, 2017, West Marine and Monomoy jointly announced they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed
Transaction") under which each outstanding share of West Marine
common stock will be exchanged for $12.97 in cash (the "Merger
Consideration").  The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on September 12, 2017.

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

The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on a
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on July 24, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to West
Marine shareholders.

Take Action

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 16, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


WILD PLANET: Aug. 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
FOX19 reports that if you want to get in on some big class action
settlements, you're running out of time.

Big companies frequently settle class action lawsuits over
defective products or misleading claims, but if you've bought
products involved in a few big settlements you need to apply for
your refund fast.

If you bought Wild Planet and Sustainable Seas canned tuna, you
could get up to $29 back, courtesy of a class action lawsuit.  The
suit came because of consumer claims that the tuna cans were
underfilled.  If you bought that tuna, you can file a claim for
your cash, but you have to do it by next Friday, Aug. 25.

Another big settlement right now involves NatureMade Triple Flex
Supplements.  Consumers sued Nature Made saying that supplement
didn't deliver the benefits claimed on the labels.  Nature Made
isn't admitting anything, but will refund up to $100 in cash to
people who bought those supplements between May 2007 and this past
June. [GN]


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Bid to Replace Lead Plaintiff in "Brenner" Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACQUELINE BRENNER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WILLIAMS-
SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Appellee, No. 16-2313(1st Cir.), Judge
Juan R. Torruella of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit dismissed Ronald Brenner's bid to appeal the district
court's order denying him to amend his late-wife's putative class
action complaint in order to name himself as the Lead Plaintiff.

On April 15, 2013, Mrs. Brenner filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that Williams-Sonoma's practice of collecting
customers' zip codes constituted unjust enrichment, and violated
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, Section 105(a).  Following the filing of
the complaint, the case proceeded in the regular course until Oct.
15, 2015, when Mrs. Brenner's counsel filed a Suggestion of Death
and Mr. Brenner, Mrs. Brenner's husband, moved pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 25(a)(1) ("Rule 25") to substitute himself for Mrs.
Brenner in his capacity as executor of her estate, and under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("Rule 15") for leave to amend the complaint
to add himself as a plaintiff in his individual capacity.

Mr. Brenner's motions were referred to a magistrate judge for a
Report and Recommendation ("R & R").  On Jan. 27, 2016, the
magistrate issued her R & R in which she recommended to the
district court that both of Mr. Brenner's motions be denied, and
the case dismissed.

The magistrate recommended denying Mr. Brenner's motion to
substitute because both of Mrs. Brenner's claims against Williams-
Sonoma were extinguished upon her death.

The magistrate further recommended denying Mr. Brenner's motion
for leave to amend the complaint to add himself as a Plaintiff
under Rule 15 because such an amendment would be futile given that
Mr. Brenner was not a member of the class as alleged in the
complaint, and because his claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93,
Section 105(a) did not comply with the relevant statute of
limitations, which sets a four-year window.

Although Mr. Brenner did not file a motion to intervene in the
case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) ("Rule 24"), the
magistrate did address Mr. Brenner's suggestion, made in a reply
memorandum, that Rule 24 gave him the right to intervene.  The
magistrate found that, even if Mr. Brenner had filed a motion
under Rule 24, it would not have succeeded because he was not a
member of the class identified by the complaint.

Mr. Brenner filed an objection to the R & R but he did not object
to the magistrate's recommendation that the district court denied
his motion to substitute, so the district court adopted it.  Mr.
Brenner did object to the magistrate's recommendation that his
motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15 be denied, but the
district court determined that amendment would be futile.  The
district court adopted the magistrate's reasoning that Mr.
Brenner's own claim against Williams-Sonoma was barred by the
statute of limitations.  On Oct. 28, 2016, Mr. Brenner appealed
the district court's order.

Because Mr. Brenner did not become a party below and Judge
Torruella finds no equitable reason to allow the appeal, the
Judge's only role in the case is to memorialize the fact that
because Mr. Brenner is not a member to this action he lacks
standing to appeal.  He therefore dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zT2Vsk from Leagle.com.

Douglas Greg Blankinship -- gblankinship@mpnsb.com -- and Todd S.
Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP on brief for appellant.

P. Craig Cardon, Dylan J. Price -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Nicholas C. Theodorou --
ntheodorou@foleyhoag.com -- and Creighton K. Page --
cpage@foleyhoag.com -- Foley Hoag LLP on brief for appellee.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ESOP Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, JD, in an article for NAPA, reports that the
trustee of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) accused of
allowing a plan to pay $98 million for stock that was
independently appraised at $39 million less than two weeks after
the sale has persuaded a judge on the merits of its arguments.

The two plaintiffs in the case "are and have been participants" in
the ISCO Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan.  The firm
was a family-owned and operated company when the ESOP purchased it
in 2012 - 4 million shares of common stock in the company to the
ESOP in exchange for a 25-year note of $98 million, accruing 2.4%
annual interest.

Wilmington Trust represented the ESOP and its participants as
trustee.  The plaintiffs alleged that the sale allowed the seller
to "unload its interests in ISCO at an inflated price and "saddle
ESOP participants with millions of dollars of debt, payable to
ISCO, to finance the transaction."  In fact, plaintiffs assert
that, as of December 31, 2012, the ISCO shares purchased by the
ESOP were revalued by an independent appraiser at $39 million -- a
decrease of more than 60%.

However, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware ruled (Swain v.
Wilmington Tr., N.A., 2017 BL 283031, D. Del., No. 1:17-cv-00071-
RGA, report and recommendation 8/14/17) that the plaintiffs here
had no injury upon with to base a claim because their stock wasn't
actually sold at a loss.  She further noted that " . . . stock
must be purchased at an inflated price and sold at a loss for an
economic injury to occur," going on to explain that ". . . no
injury-in-fact can be identified and plaintiffs lack standing
necessary for subject matter jurisdiction." She also noted that,
although plaintiffs alleged injury due to overpayment for the
stock, ". . .  plaintiffs have not alleged or shown how harm to
the ESOP by overpaying for the stocks affected them individually
and overpayment alone is not sufficient to prove injury-in-fact,"
and that, "absent an injury-in-fact to plaintiffs, they lack
standing to sue for harm to the ESOP."

However, the decision favoring Wilmington isn't binding and can be
accepted, rejected, or modified by the district judge hearing the
case, according to Bloomberg BNA. [GN]


ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Bernal" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALEXANDRA BERNAL and ALEXIA HERRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ZUMIEZ, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-01802-SB(E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley A.
Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento, denied the Defendant's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleading and its motion to dismiss multiple claims that
derive from the reporting time pay claim.

Plaintiff Bernal filed a class action complaint in the Court on
Aug.t 1, 2016 alleging claims under California law for (i) Failure
to Pay Reporting Time Earnings; (ii) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage;
(iii) Failure to Maintain Required Business Records; (iv) Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (v) Failure to Pay
All Wages at Termination; (vi) Failure to Reimburse Business
Expenses; (vii) Unlawful Business Practices; (viii) Unfair
Business Practices; and (ix) civil penalties under the California
Private Attorney General Act.

Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and others who used a
cellphone to check with their employer to see if they were
scheduled to work and who called in around an hour before they
would have to physically go to work.  These calls are estimated to
last between five to ten minutes.  The Plaintiff and members of
the proposed class were required to call in prior to regularly
scheduled shifts three or four times a week throughout the class
period.  These phone calls are required by the Defendant's
mandatory policy.  Around 50% of the time, the Plaintiffs allege
the Defendant did not furnish any scheduled work nor pay them for
any portion of their scheduled shift.  Some putative class members
are alleged to live up to an hour away from the required work
site.

The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Oct. 20,
2016 and added Alexia Herrera as a Named Plaintiff.  The original
Named Plaintiff, Bernal, left the case.  The Court initially
decided that it would entertain a motion for class certification
before setting a trial schedule, but the Defendant filed the
instant motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 9, 2017 and
the parties stipulated that the Defendant's motion should be heard
prior to determination of class status.

Because the motion is based on a legal question presented by the
pleadings, and because the Court must take the alleged facts as
true and view them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
there is a relatively small number of material facts to consider.

Judge Bastian held that the Defendant has not shown, as a matter
of law, that telephone calls on cellphones were not necessary, and
the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient constructive knowledge.
Using a cellphone to telephonically report to work is reasonable
under the circumstances pleaded by the Plaintiff. Therefore, he
denied the motion to dismiss the claim.  The Plaintiff's claims
survive.  Accordingly, Judge Bastian denied the Defendant's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The parties will submit a
stipulated briefing schedule for any motion to certify a class by
Sept. 5, 2017.  He ordered the Clerk of Court to enter the Order
and forward copies to counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0nUKX1 from Leagle.com.

Alexia Herrera, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Kennedy --
info@marlinandsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Alexia Herrera, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Zumiez, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan Wade Austin --
AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Evan Donald
Beecher -- an.Beecher@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.


* DOL Fiduciary Rule Delay May Impact Best-Interest Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schoeff Jr., writing for Investment News, reports that the
part of the Labor Department's fiduciary rule that has heartened
supporters and caused heartburn for opponents, the best-interest
contract, could become a casualty of the ongoing reassessment of
the rule.

The DOL said in a court filing in a lawsuit over the regulation
that it is seeking an 18-month delay in the implementation of the
remaining parts of the rule.  Two provisions became applicable in
June.

The time-out will give the agency plenty of opportunity to undo
the contract, which backers of the rule say gives it bite. Critics
say it is too complicated and raises liability costs.

Under the legally binding agreement, brokers can earn variable
compensation on products they sell to retirement investors as long
as they act in investors' best interests.  The regulation allows
investors to file class-action lawsuits over violations, a
provision that financial industry opponents are targeting.

"I don't think we're going to see that BIC signed by a financial
institution," said Jamie Hopkins, associate professor at The
American College of Financial Services. "It's unclear whether you
need the contract, if you're not going to have the class-action
lawsuits."

Even if it survives, the contract obligates brokers to many
disclosures that may be simplified.

"The BIC exemption has got to be an area that DOL will look at and
make significant changes to," said David Tittsworth, counsel at
the law firm Ropes & Gray.

The request for information that will guide DOL's review of the
rule, which was mandated by President Donald J. Trump, includes
questions about the best-interest contract, providing a hint about
DOL's intention to eliminate or change it.

Paul Ellenbogen, head of global regulatory solutions at
Morningstar Inc., predicted the BIC will survive in some form
because it's central to ensuring the rule works.

"I don't think that toothpaste can be put back into the tube," Mr.
Ellenbogen said.  "I see BIC as part of the process for discerning
best interest.  The proof will be consistency across clients in
how you build a shelf of investments, how you put together
portfolios, how you charge for services. The BIC becomes the
promissory instrument."

The DOL's request for information also shows that exemptions may
be added to the rule for the sales of products, such as clean
shares, that are designed to comply.

The length of the delay the DOL is seeking, which has brought
howls from supporters of the rule, foreshadows other regulators
getting involved in setting investment advice standards, according
to Fred Reish -- fred.reish@drinkerbiddle.com -- partner at
Drinker Biddle & Reath.  The Securities and Exchange Commission
has put out a request for comment on fiduciary duty.

"It is an indication that DOL wants to collaborate with the SEC,
Finra and the state insurance regulators and come up with a set of
rules that are compatible across all of those agencies,"
Mr. Reish said.

That could be a heavy lift.

"It's easy for everyone to call for a harmonized standard, but
when it comes down to it, that's an extremely difficult and
complex issue to deal with," Mr. Tittsworth said. "It's not for
the faint of heart."

The delay request has made one thing certain: Work on the rule
will continue for another couple years.

"There's no end in sight for this, which is causing a lot of
frustration for compliance departments," Mr. Hopkins said. [GN]


* Moore & Van Attorney Discusses CFPB Final Arbitration Rule
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- of Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced the release
of its final rule prohibiting the use of class action waivers in
certain consumer finance arbitration agreements.  The rule has
been several years in the making, and has been widely followed and
hotly contested. The final rule was announced on July 10, 2017 and
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2017.  Accordingly,
it is set to take effect on September 18, 2017 (60 days following
publication) and to apply to contracts entered into on or after
March 19, 2018 (180 days after the effective date).  Opposition by
members of Congress and concerns raised by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), however, have threatened the
viability of final rule.

What is Prohibited/Required?

The final CFPB arbitration rule imposes two main requirements on
affected providers: (1) that they refrain from the use of waivers
in consumer finance arbitration agreements that prevent consumers
from participating in class actions and (2) that they submit data
to the CFPB so the agency can monitor and assess the effectiveness
and fairness of arbitration moving forward.  You can read our
previous posts for a review of the progression of the rule's
development.  Ultimately, Section 1040.4 of the final rule
prohibits providers from relying on arbitration agreements for
seeking to stay or to dismiss any class action, or for any other
aspect of a class action, unless and until the trial court and/or
appellate court have determined that the case cannot proceed as a
class action. Providers will need to include the following
language in their arbitration agreements:

We agree that neither we nor anyone else will rely on this
agreement to stop you from being part of a class action case in
court.  You may file a class action in court or you may be a
member of a class action filed by someone else.

Or in the alternative:

We are providing you with more than one product or service, only
some of which are covered by the Arbitration Agreements Rule
issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The following
provision applies only to class action claims concerning the
products or services covered by that Rule: We agree that neither
we nor anyone else will rely on this agreement to stop you from
being part of a class action case in court. You may file a class
action in court or you may be a member of a class action filed by
someone else.

Under Section 1040.4, providers also must submit to the CFPB
certain records regarding their arbitrations, including pleadings,
any judgments/awards by an arbitrator, communications regarding an
arbitrator's perceived lack of fairness of any arbitration
agreement, communications regarding a provider's failure to pay
arbitrations fees, and filings in which a provider relies upon an
arbitration agreement in any court cases involving the products
subject to the rule.  The rule specifies information to be
redacted from these records prior to submission, as the CFPB
intends to make records publicly available by July 1, 2019 and
annually each year thereafter.

To Whom Does the Rule Apply?
Section 1040.3 of the final rule sets forth the providers who are
subject to the rule, which fall largely into the broader
categories of those that "lend money, store money, and move or
exchange money."  The activities and products covered by the rule
include:

Extending credit: Providing an "extension of credit" that is
"consumer credit" when performed by a "creditor" as defined in
Regulation B, 12 CFR 1002.2, issued pursuant to the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act;

Credit Decisions: Participating in credit decisions, within the
meaning of 12 CFR 1002.2(l), when performed by a "creditor" with
regard to "consumer credit" as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2;

Referring/Selecting Creditors: Referring applicants or prospective
applicants for "consumer credit" to creditors when performed by a
"creditor" as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2; or Selecting or offering
to select creditors to whom requests for "consumer credit" may be
made when done by a "creditor" as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2; Except
that this does not apply when the referral or selection activity
by the creditor described is incidental to a business activity of
that creditor that is not covered by this section;

Acquiring/Selling/Servicing Extension of Credit: Acquiring,
purchasing, or selling an extension of consumer credit covered by
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section; or Servicing an extension of
consumer credit covered by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section;
Automobile Leases: Extending automobile leases as defined by 12
CFR 1090.108 or brokering such leases;

Debt Management/Settlement: Providing services to assist with debt
management or debt settlement, modify the terms of any extension
of consumer credit covered by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section,
or avoid foreclosure;

Credit History Repair: Providing products or services represented
to remove derogatory information from, or improve, a person's
credit history, credit record, or credit rating;

Consumer Report/Credit Score: Providing directly to a consumer a
consumer report, as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. 1681a(d), a credit score, as defined by 15 U.S.C.
1681g(f)(2)(A), or other information specific to a consumer
derived from a consumer file, as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a(g), in
each case except for a consumer report provided solely in
connection with an adverse action as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681a(k)
with respect to a product or service that is not covered by this
section;

TISA: Providing accounts subject to the Truth in Savings Act, 12
U.S.C. 4301 et seq., as implemented by 12 CFR part 707 and
Regulation DD, 12 CFR part 1030;

EFTA: Providing accounts or remittance transfers subject to the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., as
implemented by Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005;

Transmitting/Exchanging Funds: Transmitting or exchanging funds as
defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481(29) except when necessary to another
product or service if that product or service is offered or
provided by the person transmitting or exchanging funds and is not
covered by this section;

Accepting Financial/Banking Data: Accepting financial or banking
data or providing a product or service to accept such data
directly from a consumer for the purpose of initiating a payment
by a consumer via any payment instrument as defined by 12 U.S.C.
5481(18) or initiating a credit card or charge card transaction
for the consumer, except by a person selling or marketing a good
or service that is not covered by this section, for which the
payment or credit card or charge card transaction is being made;
Check Services: Providing check cashing, check collection, or
check guaranty services; or

Debt Collection: Collecting debt arising from any of the consumer
financial products or services described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section when performed by a person offering or
providing the product or service giving rise to the debt being
collected, an affiliate of such person, or a person acting on
behalf of such person or affiliate, or by a person purchasing or
acquiring an extension of consumer credit covered by paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section, an affiliate of such person, or a
person acting on behalf of such person or affiliate; or a debt
collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).

There are several entities not covered by the Rule, including but
not limited to, certain government entities, certain merchants and
retailers, certain employers providing benefits to employees, and
persons who provided an otherwise covered product to no more than
25 consumers in the current and preceding calendar years. The
final rule makes provisions for providers of prepaid cards to sell
old packages that have arbitration agreements that do not conform
to the rule's requirements, as long as consumers are provided a
copy of an agreement containing the required language once their
card is registered.

Companies that may be affected should consult with counsel to
assess the impact of the rule on their business operations and
dispute resolution strategy, and to determine the best course of
action to ensure compliance if the rule survives. [GN]


* Senator Warren Wants Bank CEOs to Go on Record on CFPB Stance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Eidelman, writing for insideARM, reports that
on Aug. 10 Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent letters to the
CEOs of sixteen of the top U.S. banks, asking them to go on record
with their position on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
(CFPB) arbitration rule.

The CFPB issued a rule on July 10 which prohibits banks and other
creditors from including a clause in their agreements that
prohibits the use of class action bans in certain financial
contracts.  The CFPB's blog post -- which also contains an
animated video explaining the rule -- stated,

"Our new rule will restore the ability of groups of people to file
or join group lawsuits.  In some cases, not only will companies
have to provide relief, they will also have to change their
behavior moving forward."

Opponents of the rule claim that this is an example of regulatory
overreach, and that it really only supports wealthy trial lawyers,
who often walk away with hundreds of thousands -- or millions --
of dollars from class action lawsuits, while consumers receive a
check for something like $23 (Warren's letter cites a figure of
about $64, from the CFPB's Arbitration Study). House Financial
Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said,

"Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
but instead they obviously got a Trial Lawyer Enrichment Bureau."
Within two weeks, the U.S. House of Representatives invoked the
rarely used Congressional Review Act to begin the process of
overturning the rule.  The Congressional Review Act allows
Congress to revoke a rule issued by a federal agency by enacting a
joint resolution of disapproval within 60 days of the announcement
of the rule.  On July 25, the House voted 231-190 against the
CFPB's arbitration rule.  The Senate, now in recess until
September 5, needs to do the same shortly after its return. If
they do, it is widely assumed President Trump will follow suit.

Senator Warren's letters, which also request data on the financial
institutions' use of arbitration clauses in consumer agreements
and the outcomes of arbitration proceedings, were sent to JP
Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup
Inc., U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., TD Group
US Holdings, Capital One Financial Corporation, HSBC North America
Holdings, Charles Schwab Corporation, BB&T Corporation, Suntrust
Bank, Barclays US, Ally Financial Inc., American Express Company,
and Citizens Financial Group.

Senator Warren requested a response by September 1, 2017.

insideARM Perspective

Many rules associated with financial services -- like debt
collection -- can be nuanced and complicated, and walking the fine
line between public relations, advocacy, and duties to
shareholders can be tricky.  Associations typically do the work of
representing their members in matters like this.  Indeed, Warren's
letter specifically mentions the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
American Bankers Association, and the Financial Services
Roundtable.

It is notable that a lawmaker would call out the leaders of
affected firms -- essentially daring them to publicly support a
position some deem to be "anti-consumer."

It will be interesting to see whether the CFPB's proposed debt
collection rule (anticipated perhaps later this year) will draw
similar passion from lawmakers and industry. [GN]


* Unions, Rights Group Claim Class-Action Waivers Are Invalid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a coalition of
unions and workers' rights advocates on Aug. 16 told the U.S.
Supreme Court that class-action waivers unlawfully bar workers
from banding together to improve working conditions and are not
valid just because they appear in arbitration agreements.

Ten unions, the National Employment Law Project and National
Employment Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief with the
court arguing that employers should have no greater power to take
away a worker's ability to file or join a class action then they
can to forbid boycotts, strikes or pickets. [GN]




                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *