CAR_Public/170829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, August 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 170



                            Headlines

AMERICAN WATER: Chemical Spill Proceedings Stayed until Oct. 23
AMERICAN WATER: Water Main Break Class Action Pending
ARCONIC INC: 3 Class Suits Filed over Grenfell Tower Fire
ARES CAPITAL: Settlement of Shareholders Suit Pending
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Elsayed Seeks to Recover Overtime for SMs

CALIFORNIA FAIR: Sued in Cal. Over Insurance Claim Sublimit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: To Fund "Lopez" Case Settlement in 3rd Quarter
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Shareholder Suit Underway
CRAFT BREW: Motion to Dismiss California Class Suit Underway
CYPRESS SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

DIGITAL REALTY: DFT Merger Litigation Underway
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Brower Piven Named Lead Atty in Securities Suit
DISANO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Briefing Now Complete
FARMLAND MUTUAL: Nov. 30 Discovery Date in "Mejia" Vacated

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Paid $6M in Legal Costs in "Cressy" Suit
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
GLOBAL FITNESS: Pulliam Appeals "Gascho" Suit Ruling to 6th Cir.
GOLD'S GYM: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Hofstetter"
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Plaintiffs to Seek Dismissal of Maryland Suit

HALYARD HEALTH: Bahamas Center's Suit over Surgical Gown Underway
HALYARD HEALTH: Still Defends Against "Jackson" Case
HEALTHCARE IQ: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Wages Under FLSA
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Not Yet Set in "Nichols" Appeal
HOLOGIC INC: $8.5M Settlement of ARcare Suit Underway

HPT SUITE: Accused by "Brito" Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
IAC/INTERACTIVE CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Shareholder Suit
INDEPENDENT HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Aides Overtime Wages
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Faces "Braverman" Securities Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Cert. Bid in LIBOR-Related Actions Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Supreme Court Petition in Madoff Case Due Sept.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Proprietary Products Litigation Pending
KBR INC: Patels' Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Underway
KONA GRILL: Faces "Boots" Class Suit in Minnesota
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Suit Dismissed

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Suit Remains Pending
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal in "Davis" Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Sequenom Case Pending
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Bloomquist" Suit Remains Pending
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss "Bouffard" Suit Underway

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in "Gonzalez" Suit
LAKELAND REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Amiel" Suit Alleges
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in California Over Excessive Sewer Use Fees
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Mason" Suit Says
LYFT INC: Faces "Nieves" Suit Over Breach of Service Contract

MASIMO CORP: Suit by Physicians Healthsource Inc. Underway
MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Seeks Guidance from Alabama Supreme Court
MDL 2262: Cal. Direct Plaintiffs Appeal Order in Libor MDL
MDL 2672: Executive VW Not Class Member, Court Rules
MEADWESTVACO CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Stockholders' Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Hearing to Begin Sept. in British Columbia Case
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Remains Dormant
MOLSON COORS: Still Faces "Hughes" Suit in Canada
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit in Discovery
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Lamders"

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defending "Vo" Class Action in Calif.
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Kachelmyer" Class Action
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Allia" Class Action
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Chelvaratnam" Class Action
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Scarantino" Class Action

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Trottier" Class Action
NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court OKs 15 Trusts' Bid to Dismiss "Winne"
NATURAL HEALTH: Securities Class Action Stayed until Sept. 25
OMEGA PROTEIN: Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint Filed

ONEOK INC: Dismissed from Gas Index Pricing Litigation
ONEOK INC: Deal Reached Over Attorney's Fees
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Join Micholle & Wasson Suits Pending
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Gauzza Sues Over Unpaid Interrupted Meal Breaks
R1 RCM INC: Class Action Fairness Act Hearing Set for Oct. 4

RAGAN & RAGAN: Court Denies "Napolitano" FDCPA Suit
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Name Lead Plaintiff under Submission
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: $6.4M Settlement Granted Final Approval
RIVERSIDE MOTORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farrar" Suit Says
ROCKET FUEL: "Debnath" Suit Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Sizmek

SABRA HEALTH: Care Capital Shareholder Suit in Preliminary Stage
SALOV NORTH: Sweeney Appeals Order in "Kumar" Suit to 9th Circuit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Lawsuit Stayed Pending Appeal
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Parmelee Suit Remains Pending
SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Court Approves $700K Class Settlement

SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Court Awards $175K Atty's Fees in "Allen"
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Underway
SOUTHERN COPPER: Lacey-Siegfried Suit in Discovery Process
SQUARE INC: Still Faces Independent Contractors' Suit
STAAR SURGICAL: Oct. 16 Hearing on "Todd" Case Settlement

SUNPOWER CORP: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bids Set for Aug. 31
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Appeal Underway
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Sued by Firefighters Fund for Defrauding Gov't
TRANSENTERIX INC: Motions to Dismiss "Bankley" Case Underway
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Dismissal of Federal Securities Claims Now Final
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Denial of Arbitration in 2 Cases Vacated
UNITED STATES: Approval of $100MM Deal in Takings Suit Upheld
U.S. BANCORP: Court Orders "Hopkins" Case Closed
US XPRESS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Ayala" Suit

VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval Hearing Reset to October 18
VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement of Interthinx Litigation Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: 10th Cir. Declined to Reverse Case Dismissal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Group 1 Has Payment from Emissions Scandal Case
VOYA FINANCIAL: "Dezelan" Plaintiffs May File Amended Suit

VOYA FINANCIAL: "Patrico" Plaintiffs Filed Amended Suit
WD SERVICES: Accused by "Gray-Lingle" Suit of Violating TCPA
WELLS FARGO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Singh"
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Accrued $0.8M Jury Award in Short Break Case
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Faces "Gladden" Adversary Proceeding in NY

WESTSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Faces "Koppers" Suit Over Defective Joists
WILLBROS GROUP: Lead Plaintiffs' Bid to Reinstate Case Pending
XPO LOGISTICS-SC: "Lo" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages


                            *********


AMERICAN WATER: Chemical Spill Proceedings Stayed until Oct. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Mass
Litigation Panel has stayed its proceedings in the West Virginia
Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill until October 23,
2017.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into
the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia.
After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), WVAWC took
immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its
treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with
federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as
possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment
process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was
reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public
Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of its approximately
93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties
served by the Charleston treatment plant. By January 18, 2014,
none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the Do Not Use order.

Following the Freedom Industries chemical spill, numerous lawsuits
were filed against WVAWC and certain other Company affiliated
entities (collectively, the "American Water Defendants") with
respect to this matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in
Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties, and to date, 74 cases remain
pending. Four of the cases pending before the U.S. district court
were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal
action") was filed in December 2014 by several plaintiffs. On
January 28, 2016, all of the then-filed state court cases were
referred to West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further
proceedings, which have been stayed pending the negotiation by the
parties and approval by the court in the Federal action of a
global agreement to settle all of such cases.

On July 7, 2016, the court in the Federal action scheduled trial
to begin on October 25, 2016, but the court has granted several
continuances of the trial, which is currently postponed
indefinitely in light of the binding global agreement in
principle.  The Mass Litigation Panel has also stayed its
proceedings until October 23, 2017.

            WVAWC Binding Global Agreement in Principle
                         to Settle Claims

On October 31, 2016, the court in the Federal action approved the
preliminary principles, terms and conditions of a binding global
agreement in principle to settle claims (the "Settlement") among
the American Water Defendants, and all class members, putative
class members, claimants and potential claimants (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs"), arising out of the Freedom Industries chemical
spill. The terms of the Settlement propose a global federal and
state resolution of all litigation and potential claims against
the American Water Defendants and their insurers. A claimant may
elect to opt out of any final settlement agreement, in which case
such claimant will not receive any benefit from or be bound by the
terms of the Settlement. Under the terms and conditions of the
Settlement and any subsequent final settlement agreement, the
American Water Defendants have not admitted, and will not admit,
any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the
Plaintiffs in any of the actions to be resolved.

The proposed aggregate pre-tax amount of the Settlement is $126
million, of which $65 million would be contributed by WVAWC, and
the remainder would be contributed by certain of the Company's
general liability insurance carriers. The Company has general
liability insurance under a series of policies underwritten by a
number of individual carriers.

Two of these insurance carriers, which provide an aggregate of $50
million in insurance coverage to the Company under these policies,
were requested, but presently have not agreed, to participate in
the Settlement. The Company and WVAWC are vigorously pursuing
their rights to insurance coverage from these non-participating
carriers for any contributions by WVAWC to the Settlement. In this
regard, WVAWC filed a lawsuit against one of these carriers
alleging that the carrier's failure to agree to participate in the
Settlement constitutes a breach of contract, and the Company is
pursuing mandatory arbitration against the other non-participating
carrier.

The preliminary terms of the Settlement intend to establish a two-
tier settlement fund for the payment of claims, comprised of (i) a
simple claim fund, which is also referred to as the "guaranteed
fund," of $76 million, of which $51 million will be contributed by
WVAWC, including insurance deductibles, and $25 million would be
contributed by one of the Company's general liability insurance
carriers, and (ii) an individual review claim fund of up to $50
million, of which up to $14 million would be contributed by WVAWC
and $36 million would be contributed by a number of the Company's
general liability insurance carriers. Separately, up to $25
million would be contributed to the guaranteed fund by another
defendant to the Settlement.

As a result of these events, the Company recorded a charge to
earnings, net of insurance receivables, of $65 million ($39
million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2016. The settlement
amount of $126 million is reflected in Accrued Liabilities and the
offsetting insurance receivable is reflected in Other Current
Assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017. The
Company intends to fund WVAWC's contributions to the Settlement
through existing sources of liquidity, although no contribution by
WVAWC will be required unless and until the terms of the
Settlement are finally approved by the court in the Federal
action. Furthermore, under the terms of the Settlement, WVAWC has
agreed that it will not seek rate recovery from the Public Service
Commission of West Virginia for approximately $4 million in direct
response costs expensed in 2014 by WVAWC relating to the Freedom
Industries chemical spill as well as for amounts paid by WVAWC
under the Settlement.

The Company's insurance policies operate under a layered structure
where coverage is generally provided in the upper layers after
claims have exhausted lower layers of coverage. The $36 million to
be contributed by a number of the Company's general liability
insurance carriers to the individual review claim fund, as noted
above, is from higher layers of the insurance structure than the
two insurance carriers that were requested, but presently have not
agreed, to participate in the Settlement. Any recovery by WVAWC or
the Company from the non-participating carriers would reimburse
WVAWC for its contributions to the guaranteed fund.

On April 27, 2017, the parties filed with the court in the Federal
action a proposed settlement agreement providing details of the
terms of the Settlement. The parties also requested that the court
in the Federal action grant preliminary approval of the
Settlement.

On July 6, 2017, the court in the Federal action issued an opinion
denying without prejudice the joint motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement. The court in the Federal action found
the overall amount and structure of the Settlement to be fair,
adequate and reasonable, but it declined to preliminarily approve
the Settlement on several grounds, including the fairness of the
methodology for allocating payments among members of the business
class, the nature of the claims appeal process and the timing of
the payment of claims that are subject to appeal, and the fairness
of setting of fixed payments for the medical claims class.

The American Water Defendants intend to work with the Plaintiffs
to propose acceptable alternative provisions to the Settlement
Agreement to satisfy the concerns of the court in the Federal
action. If and when preliminary approval of the Settlement is
obtained, notice of the terms of the Settlement would then be
provided to members of the settlement class. Following the notice
period, the court in the Federal action would hold a fairness
hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement.

Through its subsidiaries, American Water Works Company, Inc. is
the largest and most geographically diverse investor-owned
publicly-traded water and wastewater utility company in the United
States, as measured by both operating revenue and population
served.


AMERICAN WATER: Water Main Break Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action Litigation
remains pending.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf
of a purported class of residents and business owners who lost
water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break.
The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class
for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as
well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior
in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint.
WVAWC intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any reasonably
possible losses or a range of such losses related to this
proceeding.

Through its subsidiaries, American Water Works Company, Inc. is
the largest and most geographically diverse investor-owned
publicly-traded water and wastewater utility company in the United
States, as measured by both operating revenue and population
served.


ARCONIC INC: 3 Class Suits Filed over Grenfell Tower Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that three purported class
action complaints were filed in July 2017 against Arconic and
certain officers, directors and/or other parties, alleging that,
in light of the Grenfell Tower fire, certain Company filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission contained false and
misleading disclosures and omissions in violation of the federal
securities laws.

While the Company believes that these cases are without merit and
intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances
regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters. Given the
preliminary nature of these matters and the uncertainty of
litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or
range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome.

The separation of Alcoa Inc. into two standalone, publicly-traded
companies, Arconic Inc. (the new name for Alcoa Inc.) and Alcoa
Corporation, became effective on November 1, 2016.


ARES CAPITAL: Settlement of Shareholders Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Ares Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit by shareholders of American Capital remains
pending.

On or about February 10, 2017, shareholders of American Capital
filed a second consolidated amended putative shareholder class
action complaint allegedly on behalf of holders of the common
stock of American Capital against the former members of American
Capital's board of directors and certain former American Capital
officers (collectively, the "American Capital defendants"), as
well as Elliott Management Corporation, Elliott Associates, L.P.,
Elliott International, L.P. and Elliott International Capital
Advisors Inc. (collectively "Elliott") in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland challenging the American Capital
Acquisition. This action is a consolidation of putative
shareholder complaints filed against the directors of American
Capital on June 24, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016 and July
27, 2016, which were consolidated and in which an amended
consolidated putative shareholder class action complaint was filed
on August 18, 2016. The action alleges that the directors,
officers and Elliott failed to adequately discharge their
fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by
hastily commencing a sales process due to the board's manipulation
by Elliott.

In the alternative, the complaint alleges Elliott aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the American Capital
directors and officers. The complaint also alleges that the
directors and officers failed to obtain for the shareholders the
highest value available in the marketplace for their shares in the
American Capital Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that
the merger was the product of a flawed process due to Elliott's
continued manipulation, the use of deal protection devices in the
American Capital Acquisition that precluded other bidders from
making a higher offer to American Capital and the directors'
conflicts of interest due to special benefits, including the full
vesting of American Capital stock options and incentive awards or
golden parachutes the directors received upon consummation of the
proposed merger.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the registration
statement, which was filed with the SEC on July 20, 2016 and
included a joint proxy statement to American Capital's
shareholders, is materially false and misleading because it omits
material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the American Capital Acquisition. The complaint seeks
to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and waste.

The American Capital defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint on March 3, 2017. Elliott
filed its motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint on April 14, 2017. Briefing on defendants' motions was
completed on May 26, 2017.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss was scheduled for June 9, 2017
before Judge Ronald Rubin of the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland (the "Court"); however, that hearing was stayed
as to the American Capital defendants in light of a settlement.

On June 9, 2017, the American Capital defendants reached an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs regarding the proposed
settlement of claims asserted against them in this action, and the
American Capital defendants and plaintiffs subsequently executed a
settlement term sheet (the "Term Sheet") on June 19, 2017. As set
forth in the Term Sheet, the American Capital defendants have
agreed to the proposed settlement solely to eliminate the burden,
expense, distraction and uncertainties inherent in further
litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The
plaintiffs and American Capital defendants will seek preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement from the Court by August 3,
2017; however, there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. The proposed settlement is not, and
should not be construed as, as admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any American Capital defendant.

Ares Capital Corporation is a specialty finance company that is a
closed-end, non-diversified management investment company
incorporated in Maryland. The Company has elected to be regulated
as a BDC under the Investment Company Act. The Company has elected
to be treated as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and
operates in a manner so as to qualify for the tax treatment
applicable to RICs.


BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Elsayed Seeks to Recover Overtime for SMs
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ELSAYED, On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC., Case No. 5:17-
cv-03579-JLS (E.D. Pa., August 10, 2017), is brought to recover
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated store managers.

Build-A-Bear is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Louis, Missouri.  The Company operates retail
stores selling teddy bears and other stuffed animals, which are
built by an interactive process through which customers assemble
and customize the stuffed animal of their choice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.oom
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com


CALIFORNIA FAIR: Sued in Cal. Over Insurance Claim Sublimit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anna Segovia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. California Fair Plan Association and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC672505 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 15, 2017),
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful conduct of imposing a
$1,500.00 sublimit for claims for "smoke damages from fire or
flames" that resulted to the drastic reduction of the coverage
limits available to its insureds.

California Fair Plan Association operates an insurance company
located at 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200, Los Angeles,
California 90010. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Haffher, Esq.
      Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
      HAFFNER LAW PC
      445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 514-5681
      Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
      E-mail: jhh@haffherlawyers.com
              lp@haffiierlawyers.com

         - and -

      Neil R. Anapol, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL
      2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 202
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818) 566-7355
      Facsimile: (818) 566-7875


COMMUNITY HEALTH: To Fund "Lopez" Case Settlement in 3rd Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company expects
to fund the settlement in the case, Lopez v. Yakima Regional
Medical & Cardiac Center and Toppenish Community Hospital, in the
third quarter of 2017.

This class action lawsuit arose out of alleged conduct at these
hospitals prior to the HMA acquisition. The suit alleges the
hospitals' charity care policies did not comply with Washington
state law. The trial court has certified a class and granted
partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This matter
has now been settled, and the trial court has approved the
settlement. The Company expects to fund the settlement in the
third quarter of 2017. The Company recorded an estimate of the
probable liability at December 31, 2016 based on the settlement of
this matter.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Shareholder Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that an appeal in the
shareholders' securities class action cases remains pending.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which
was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was
filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument was held on April 11,
2016.

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and
on June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter is fully briefed, and
oral argument was heard on May 3, 2017. The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country.


CRAFT BREW: Motion to Dismiss California Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending.

On February 28, 2017 and March 6, 2017, respectively, two
lawsuits, Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer v. Craft Brew Alliance,
Inc., and Theodore Broomfield v. Kona Brewing Co. LLC, Kona Brew
Enterprises, LLP, Kona Brewery LLC, and Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.,
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
Division of California.

On April 7, 2017, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
complaint under the Broomfield case. The consolidated lawsuit
purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Kona Brewing Company beer within the relevant statute of
limitations period. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled
customers regarding the state in which Kona Brewing Company beers
are manufactured and in describing Kona Brewing Company beer as
"craft beer."

"We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing action and,
on April 28, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We
have not recorded any liabilities with respect to the claims," the
Company said.

Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. ("CBA") is the sixth largest craft
brewing company in the U.S. and a leader in brewing, branding, and
bringing to market world-class American craft beers.


CYPRESS SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Blatcher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cypress Security LLC and Does 1 through 25,
Case No. BC672405 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 15, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate, itemized
wage statements, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks,
and failure to compensate Plaintiff and the rest of the Class for
all amounts due at the time of discharge.

Cypress Security LLC operates a security guard service company in
Los Angeles, State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
      Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
      GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
      15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (213) 542-2100
      Facsimile: (213)542-2101
      E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com
              rgundzik@gghslaw.com

         - and -

      Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
      Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
      N. Cory Barari, Esq.
      CASKEY & HOLZMAN
      24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 657-1070
      Facsimile: (818) 297-1775


DIGITAL REALTY: DFT Merger Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2017, that the Company is defending the DFT Merger Litigation.

The Company said, "On June 8, 2017, we entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "DFT Merger Agreement") with DuPont Fabros
Technology, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("DFT"), and DuPont
Fabros Technology, L.P., a Maryland limited partnership (the "DFT
OP" and, together with DuPont, the "DFT Parties") pursuant to
which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain
conditions, the DFT Parties will be merged with and into our
wholly owned subsidiaries (the "DFT Merger")."

"Following the announcement of the DFT Merger, three purported
stockholder class actions were filed in United States District
Court for the District of Columbia captioned Scarantino v. DuPont
Fabros Technology, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01428 (D.D.C.) (filed
July 18, 2017); Canchola v. DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., et
al., No. 1:17-cv-01481 (D.D.C.) (filed July 24, 2017); and
Lawrence v. DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-
01465 (D.D.C.) (filed July 24, 2017). All three complaints allege
purported violations of the federal securities laws and name as
defendants DFT and the members of the DFT Board. The Scarantino
complaint also names as defendants DFT OP, the company, our
operating partnership and certain of our affiliates. Plaintiffs in
each of the three actions allege primarily that the disclosures
regarding the proposed merger in the Proxy Statement were
inadequate in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9. Plaintiffs seek
to enjoin the merger, or damages in the event that it is
consummated, along with costs and attorneys' fees.

"While we believe that the allegations in the Scarantino complaint
are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these
allegations, we cannot assure you as to the outcome of these, or
any similar future lawsuits, including the costs associated with
defending these claims or any other liabilities that may be
incurred in connection with the litigation or settlement of these
claims.

DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., or DFT, through its controlling
interest in DuPont Fabros Technology, L.P., is a fully integrated,
self-administered and self-managed company that owns, acquires,
develops and operates wholesale data centers. DFT is a real estate
investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes and is
the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, and as of
June 30, 2017, owned 87.0% of the common economic interest in the
Operating Partnership, of which 0.9% is held as general
partnership units.


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Brower Piven Named Lead Atty in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Colorado, issued an
Order granting Plaintiff Dane Gussin's Motion to be Appointed Lead
Plaintiff and to Approve Proposed Lead Plaintiff's Choice of
Counsel in the cases captioned GEORGE ASSAD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al., Defendants. JEWELTEX MANUFACTURING
INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al., Defendants.
ROYCE BUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al., Defendants.
DANE GUSSIN, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al., Defendants.
STUART ZAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al., Defendants.
Matthew Machion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 17-cv-01097-PAB, 17-cv-01140-PAB,
17-cv-01159-PAB, 17-cv-01190-PAB, 17-cv-01570-PAB, 17-cv-01692-
PAB-NYW (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff Matthew Machion's Motion is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Matthew Machion's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead
Counsel and Plaintiff Dane Gussin's (Mr. Gussin) Motion to be
Appointed Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Proposed Lead Plaintiff's
Choice of Counsel.

This consolidated action (six actions in total) arises out of the
proposed merger of Defendant DigitalGlobe, Inc. (DigitalGlobe) and
a subsidiary of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA).
All six actions assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) challenging the
proposed merger of DigitalGlobe and MDA.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)

In assigning a lead plaintiff, the PSLRA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that the most adequate plaintiff' is a person or group
of persons that (1) either filed the complaint or made a motion in
response to a notice, (2) has the largest financial interest in
the relief sought, and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The PSLRA also provides that the lead plaintiff shall, subject to
the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent
the class.

Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Gussin timely moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and that he has the largest known
financial interest in the relief sought.

First, Mr. Gussin's claims arise out of the same course of conduct
and are based on the same theories as those of the absent class
members and thus their interests are coextensive with and typical
of those of all class members.

Second, as to adequacy, because Mr. Machion withdrew his competing
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and no other Plaintiff
has contended that Mr. Gussin will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class, this court concludes that Mr.
Gussin will be most capable of adequately representing the
interests of class members.

Lastly, Mr. Gussin seeks court approval of his selection of lead
counsel Brower Piven, A Profession Corporation (Brower Piven). In
approving Brower Piven, Mr. Gussin must demonstrate that Brower
Piven is qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct
the proposed litigation.

Plaintiff Dane Gussin's Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and
to Approve Proposed Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybouluvsfrom Leagle.com.

George Assad, Plaintiff, represented by Rusty Evan Glenn -
rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - Shuman Law Firm.

Dane Gussin, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark
Villanueva, Jeffrey M. Villanueva, P.C., 180 N Cook St Apt 208,
Denver, Denver County, Colorado,  Rusty Evan Glenn, Shuman Law
Firm & Daniel Kuznicki - kuznicki@browerpiven.com - Brower Piven,
P.C..

Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc. Retirement Plan, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Richard Adam Acocelli -  racocelli@weisslawllp.com
- Weiss Law LLP.

Royce Bussey, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard Adam
Acocelli, Weiss Law LLP.

Stuart Zand, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James Milligan
Wilson, Jr. -jwilson@faruqilaw.com - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP &
Michael Van Gorder - mvangorder@faruqi.com - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.
Matthew Machion, Consol Plaintiff, represented by M. Gabriel
McFarland, Evans & McFarland, LLC, 910 13th Street, Suite 200,
Golden, CO 80401 & Danielle S. Myers denim@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, L Danielle S. Myers, Robbins LP.

DigitalGlobe, Inc, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett
- egarnett@bhfs.com -Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V.
McDermott - jmcdermott@bhfs.com - Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP, Matthew W. Close - mclose@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers, LLP &
William K. Pao - wpao@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Howell M. Estes, III, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick
Garnett, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Nick S. Cyprus, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Roxanne Decyk, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Lawrence A. Hough, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick
Garnett, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Warren C. Jenson, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

L. Roger Mason, Jr., Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick
Garnett, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Jeffrey R. Tarr, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Kimberly Till, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

Eddy Zervigon, Defendant, represented by Emily Renwick Garnett,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, John V. McDermott,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP & William K. Pao, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.

MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, Ltd., Defendant, represented
by Caitlin C. McHugh - cmchugh@lrrc.com - Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP & Michael D. Plachy - mplachy@lrrc.com - Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP.

SSL MDA Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin C.
McHugh, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP & Michael D. Plachy,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.

Merlin Merger Sub, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin C.
McHugh, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP & Michael D. Plachy,
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.


DISANO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Mena, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Disano Construction Co., Inc., and Pietro Oppedisano,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04777 (E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of providing
construction services and repairs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Briefing Now Complete
----------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that appellate briefing is
now complete in the appeal in a class action lawsuit.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On July
20, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, on
July 21, 2015, entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order
granting summary judgment for the Company, the judgment in favor
of the company, and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider. Appellate briefing is now complete.

Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable appellate decision nor
the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be
determined at this time, and the Company is currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC
450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary, for this
litigation. The Company believes that the Plaintiff's claims in
the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

Enova operates an internet-based lending platform to serve
customers in need of cash to fulfill their financial
responsibilities.


FARMLAND MUTUAL: Nov. 30 Discovery Date in "Mejia" Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
issued an Order for pre-trial schedule in the case captioned
SCARLETTE MEJIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, an
unincorporated association; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-CV-00570-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

This Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between
Plaintiff SCARLETTE MEJIA and Defendants FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, which was sued by its correct name and also as FARMLAND
MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

The parties stipulate that the November 30, 2017 discovery
deadline, the December 28, 2017 expert witness disclosure
deadline, and the February 22, 2018 filing deadline for a motion
for class certification is vacated.

If the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike class
allegations, the Parties will meet and confer and submit new
proposed deadlines for discovery, expert witness disclosures, and
certification motion filing within 14 days thereafter for the
Court's consideration.

The Court's May 19, 2017 Pre-trial Scheduling Order will remain in
effect in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/yad8ndzqfrom Leagle.com.

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda -
attorney@shimodalaw.com - Shimoda Law Corp.

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Paul Rodriguez -
justinatlaw@yahoo.com - Shimoda Law Corp.

Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Allyn Blackburn - bblackburn@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres - btorres@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Allyn Blackburn,  Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle
Torres, Littler Mendelson, P.C.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Paid $6M in Legal Costs in "Cressy" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company has
incurred and paid $6 million related to legal fees and other costs
and $3 million related to settlement costs as of June 30, 2017, in
the case, Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance
Company, et al.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The
Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an
action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on
Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the
Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a
claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement
feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement,
which enhancement began on October 12, 2015.

On October 24, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the
January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline
for settlement completion from October 24, 2016 to December 5,
2016. On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff Cressy filed a Notice of
Filing Declaration of Settlement Administrator and Status of
Completion of Settlement; the Declaration of Settlement
Administrator included a certification by the Settlement
Administrator that the Company had complied in all respects with
the class settlement and that all eligible claims had been paid
and the interest enhancement had been implemented pursuant to the
terms of the class settlement.

On March 24, 2017, the Court entered a Minute Order indicating
that it was satisfied that the parties had fully and finally
performed all of the terms of the settlement and recorded the
matter as complete without the need for any further hearings.
At June 30, 2017, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9 million, with no liability remaining for the unpaid portion of
the estimate. The Company has incurred and paid $6 million related
to legal fees and other costs and $3 million related to settlement
costs as of June 30, 2017. Based on the information currently
available the Company does not expect the actual cost for
settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ
materially from the amount accrued.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life is a subsidiary of HRG Group, Inc.
(formerly, Harbinger Group Inc. ("HRG")).  FGL markets products
through its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company ("FGL Insurance") and Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"),
which together is licensed in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Dale R. Ludwick's time
to seek discretionary review of this matter expired on July 12,
2017.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc.,
Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance
Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other
relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid $0 for her annuity.

On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals").
On April 13, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
has no appeal as of right from the Court of Appeals' decision but
may seek discretionary review by the Court of Appeals en banc or
by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff's time to seek
discretionary review of this matter expired on July 12, 2017.

The Company said, "We do not believe that the Plaintiff has sought
a discretionary review of this matter prior to such date. As of
the date of this report, FGL does not have sufficient information
to determine whether it has exposure to any losses that would be
either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense
contingency estimate of $2 million, which was accrued during the
year ended September 30, 2016."

Fidelity & Guaranty Life is a subsidiary of HRG Group, Inc.
(formerly, Harbinger Group Inc. ("HRG")).  FGL markets products
through its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company ("FGL Insurance") and Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"),
which together is licensed in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.


GLOBAL FITNESS: Pulliam Appeals "Gascho" Suit Ruling to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Royce G. Pulliam filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Amber Gascho, et al. v.
Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00436, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at
Columbus.

The appellate case is captioned as Amber Gascho, et al. v. Global
Fitness Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3825, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
interested parties have filed separate appeals in the lawsuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees AMBER GASCHO, ASHLEY BUCKENMEYER, MICHAEL J
HOGAN, JULIA CAY, fka Julia Snyder, ANTHONY MEYER, TERRY E
TROUTMAN, RITA ROSE, EDWARD LUNDBERG, ALBERT TARTAGLIA, MICHAEL
BELL, MATT VOLKERDING and PATRICK CARY, on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
          P.O. Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          E-mail: wgporter@vorys.com

Interested Party-Appellant ROYCE G. PULLIAM is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hogan, Esq.
          ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
          41 S. High Street, Suite 3500
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-9900
          Facsimile: (614) 365-7900
          E-mail: hogan@litohio.com


GOLD'S GYM: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Hofstetter"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Central District of California,
issued an Order granting parties' Joint Stipulation for an Order
dismissing Plaintiff Wayne Hofstetter's individual claims with
prejudice in case captioned  WAYNE HOFSTETTER, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOLD'S
GYM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUP, Defendant, Case No. CV 17-361-
GW(JPRx) (C.D. Cal.).

Having read and considered the Joint Stipulation filed by
Plaintiff Wayne Hofstetter and Defendant Gold's Gym Southern
California Group for an Order dismissing Plaintiff's individual
action, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court grants the
parties' Joint Stipulation for an Order dismissing Plaintiff Wayne
Hofstetter's individual claims with prejudice.  Each party is to
bear its own fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ozts8rfrom
Leagle.com.

Wayne Hofstetter, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Marron -
admin@consumersadvocates.com - Law Offices of Ronald A Marron
APLC.

Wayne Hofstetter, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood -
Wood@asu.edu -. Law Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC & Kas L.
Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC.

Golds Gym Southern California Group, Defendant, represented by
Anthony J. Ellrod - aje@manningllp.com - Manning and Kass Ellrod
Ramirez Trester LLP & Paul D. Harshaw - pdh@manningllp.com -
Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez & Trester LLP.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Plaintiffs to Seek Dismissal of Maryland Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust and GPT Operating Partnership LP said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2017, that plaintiffs in a Maryland class action have filed a
notice of dismissal with prejudice with the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland.

Prior to December 17, 2015, the Company was known as Chambers
Street Properties, or Chambers. On December 17, 2015, Chambers
completed a merger, or the Merger, with Gramercy Property Trust
Inc., or Legacy Gramercy. While Chambers was the surviving legal
entity, immediately following consummation of the Merger, the
Company changed its name to "Gramercy Property Trust" and its New
York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, trading symbol to "GPT."

Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, and Chambers were named
as defendants in various putative class action lawsuits brought by
purported Legacy Gramercy stockholders challenging the Merger. The
lawsuits were consolidated into a New York state court action, or
the New York Action, and a Maryland state court action, or the
Maryland Action.

On March 1, 2017, the court entered a Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement, awarding plaintiffs' attorney fees and
expenses, and dismissing the New York Action with prejudice. On
March 22, 2017, pursuant to the stipulation of settlement,
plaintiffs in the Maryland Action filed a notice of dismissal with
prejudice with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland,
which the court entered on April 11, 2017.

Gramercy Property Trust, or the Company or Gramercy, a Maryland
real estate investment trust, or REIT, together with its
subsidiary, GPT Operating Partnership LP, or the Operating
Partnership, is a leading global investor and asset manager of
commercial real estate. Gramercy specializes in acquiring and
managing high quality, income producing commercial real estate
leased to high quality tenants in major markets in the United
States and Europe.


HALYARD HEALTH: Bahamas Center's Suit over Surgical Gown Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company continues
to defend against the Bahamas Surgery Center surgical gown
litigation.

The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and
have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery
Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health,
Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on
October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative
class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with our
marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns."

"On April 7, 2017, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable
for $4 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $350 million in punitive damages, and that Halyard
was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including
prejudgment interest) and $100 million in punitive damages.
Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim
and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief.

"On May 25, we filed three post-trial motions: a renewed motion
for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to decertify the class;
and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or amendment of the
judgment. The renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law seeks
to have the court reverse the jury's verdict in whole or in part
because it was based on insufficient facts and/or did not
correctly apply the law. The motion to decertify the class seeks
to have the court decertify the class on the basis that the
evidence at trial did not support the Court's initial class
certification order and therefore the case should not have
proceeded as a class action. The motion for new trial, remittitur
or amendment of the judgment seeks, among other relief, to have
the court reduce the jury's punitive damages award because it was
not supported by the facts and was excessive in violation of due
process under the U.S. Constitution.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Constitutional outer
limit for the ratio between punitive damages and compensatory
damages in cases such as ours is approximately 9 to 1 or lower,
and we believe that in a case such as ours that, if there is any
award of punitive damages (a premise we dispute), the ratio should
be 1 to 1. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
Bahamas matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for
healthcare providers and patients.


HALYARD HEALTH: Still Defends Against "Jackson" Case
----------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company continues
to defend against the case, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc.,
Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter
styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy,
Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative
class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information
about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and
thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during
the respective class periods. The alleged class period for
purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received
Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21,
2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard
Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016."

"On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. We intend to
continue our vigorous defense of this matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for
healthcare providers and patients.


HEALTHCARE IQ: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK BROOKS, And all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE
IQ, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01897-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 10,
2017), is brought for alleged unpaid wages, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid overtime for all of the
hours he worked beyond 40 in a single workweek.

Healthcare IQ, Inc., provides state-of-the-art health insurance,
hospital, and financial data management solutions.  The Company
operates and conducts business in, among others, Manatee County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          PO. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Not Yet Set in "Nichols" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Supreme Court of
Alabama has not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal in the
Nichols Litigation.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8,
2005."

"The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to
which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22,
2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

"On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of the
former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to
remove the case to federal district court, most recently on
December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case
back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013,
the federal court remanded the case back to state court.

"On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of
1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims
are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the
statute of limitations.

"On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court
of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The Supreme Court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."

HealthSouth is one of the nation's largest providers of post-acute
healthcare services, offering both facility-based and home-based
patient services in 36 states and Puerto Rico through its network
of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, and
hospice agencies.


HOLOGIC INC: $8.5M Settlement of ARcare Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Hologic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement of a
class action lawsuit between ARcare and Cynosure remains pending.

On July 27, 2016, plaintiff ARcare, Inc., individually and as
putative representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a
complaint against Cynosure.  The plaintiff alleges that Cynosure
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (i) sending fax
advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal
Communications Commission requirements that senders provide
recipients with certain information about how to opt out from
receiving faxed advertisements in the future; and (ii) sending
unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint sought damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf
of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax
advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an
adequate opt-out notice.

On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied
liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a demand
letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages under
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A Sec. 9 ("Chapter 93A"). On
October 7, 2016, Cynosure responded denying any liability under
Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages of $25
on an individual basis.

In March 2017, Cynosure and ARcare entered into a settlement
agreement, subject to court approval, which requires Cynosure to
pay settlement compensation of $8.5 million notwithstanding the
number of claims filed. If approved, Cynosure would receive a full
release from the settlement class concerning the conduct alleged
in the complaint.

As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a
charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016,
which is still accrued on the Company's balance sheet as of July
1, 2017.

Hologic is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of premium
diagnostics products, medical imaging systems and surgical
products with an emphasis on women's health. On March 22, 2017,
Hologic acquired Cynosure, Inc., a developer and manufacturer of a
broad array of light-based aesthetic and medical treatment
systems.


HPT SUITE: Accused by "Brito" Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS G. BRITO, an Individual v. HPT SUITE PROPERTIES TRUST,
a Maryland Corporation, and HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Place Colorado Springs, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01934-LTB (D. Colo., August 10, 2017), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals arising from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mr. Brito contends that he encountered architectural barriers at
the Defendants' Hotel Property and Hotel Business, which denied or
diminished his ability to visit the Hotel Property and Hotel
Business and have endangered his safety.

HPT Suite Properties Trust is a Maryland Corporation, with its
principal office located in Baltimore, Maryland.  The Trust owned
and operated a hotel property/place of public accommodation
located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, with its
principal office located in Chicago, Illinois.  Hyatt Hotels owned
and operated a hotel business, which holds itself out to the
public as "Hyatt Place Colorado Springs" located at 503 West
Garden of the Gods Road, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-mail: ajperezlaw@gmail.com
                  agmlaw@bellsouth.net


IAC/INTERACTIVE CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned BRAD GREENSPAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-15908 (9th Cir.), Brad Greenspan
appeals from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute Greenspan's putative
shareholder class action.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.  The Ninth Circuit
affirms.

In his opening brief, Greenspan failed to challenge the district
court's dismissal of his action or any other district court order,
and therefore Greenspan waived any challenge.

Greenspan's notice of appeal challenging the Securities and
Exchange Commission's ("SEC") May 2, 2016 Order Determining
Whistleblower Award Claim, which was filed in the district court,
should have been filed in this court.  The Ninth Circuit construes
Greenspan's notice of appeal as a petition for review.  In the
interests of justice, the Ninth Circuit transfers Greenspan's
petition for review to the court.

The Clerk is directed to file Greenspan's notice of appeal as a
petition for review of the SEC's May 2, 2016 order and open a new
case in the court.

Greenspan's motion to certify questions of law to the Delaware
Supreme Court is denied.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 17, 2017 Memorandum
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7hqtheyfrom Leagle.com.


INDEPENDENT HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Aides Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audrea Mitchell, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Independent Home Care,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio., August 15,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay home
health aides' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Independent Home Care, Inc. is in the business of providing home
health care, personal home care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

         - and -

      Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 704-0546
      Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
      E-mail:  dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Faces "Braverman" Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUY BRAVERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., ISA ODIDI,
and DOMENIC DELLA PENNA, Case No. 1:17-cv-06045 (S.D.N.Y., August
10, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose that: (i)
IntelliPharma failed to conduct a human abuse liability study to
support its Rexista New Drug Application ("NDA"); (ii) the Company
did not include abuse-deterrent studies conducted to support
abuse-deterrent label claims related to abuse of the drug by
various pathways, including oral, intra-nasal and intravenous
routes of abuse abuse; (iii) IntelliPharma was not submitting
sufficient data to support approval of the Rexista NDA; and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, IntelliPharma's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Founded in 1998, IntelliPharma is headquartered in Toronto,
Canada.  IntelliPharma is a pharmaceutical company specializing in
research, development, and manufacture of novel and generic
controlled-release and targeted-release oral solid dosage drugs.
The Company's main product candidate is Rexista, an abuse-
deterrent oxycodone hydrochloride extended release tablets.

Isa Odidi co-founded and has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Scientific Officer.
Domenic Della Penna has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Chief Financial Officer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Cert. Bid in LIBOR-Related Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Firm and other
defendants have opposed the motion for class certification in the
U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions.

The Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a
series of individual and putative class actions filed in various
United States District Courts. These actions have been filed, or
consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions,
plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods,
starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or
collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss
franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank Offered
Rate ("SIBOR"), Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR") and/or the Bank
Bill Swap Reference Rate ("BBSW") by submitting rates that were
artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted
in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values
are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss
franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or BBSW and assert
a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble
damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation.

The Firm has agreed to settle the putative class actions related
to Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR.  Those
settlements are subject to further documentation and approval by
the Court.

In the EURIBOR action, the District Court dismissed all claims
except a single antitrust claim and two common law claims, and
dismissed all defendants except the Firm and Citibank.

In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court
dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and
permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common
law to proceed.

In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded
the case to the District Court to consider, among other things,
whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims.

In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved in
the District Court to dismiss the antitrust claims, and in
December 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion, finding that certain plaintiffs lacked
standing to assert antitrust claims. Those plaintiffs have filed
an appeal.

In May 2017, plaintiffs in three putative class actions moved in
the District Court for class certification, and the Firm and other
defendants have opposed that motion.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodity
Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX
litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have
been preliminarily approved by the Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Supreme Court Petition in Madoff Case Due Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Plaintiffs in the
Madoff Litigation have until September 2017 to file a petition for
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

A putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net
winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of
their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme
and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These
plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal securities law, as
well as other state and federal claims. The New Jersey court
granted a transfer motion to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The New York court granted the
Firm's motion to dismiss, and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit has affirmed that dismissal.

Plaintiffs have until September 2017 to file a petition for writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a
class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes.
The Florida court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss the case,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal, and the United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. In addition, the same
plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida
state court, where the action is stayed pending resolution of the
federal court matters.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Proprietary Products Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Plaintiffs in the
proprietary products litigation have filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, to which the Firm
will respond.

In December 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC agreed to a settlement with the SEC, and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. agreed to a settlement with the CFTC, regarding
disclosures to clients concerning conflicts associated with the
Firm's sale and use of proprietary products, such as J.P. Morgan
mutual funds, in the Firm's CCB and AWM wealth management
businesses, and the U.S. Private Bank's disclosures concerning the
use of hedge funds that pay placement agent fees to JPMorgan Chase
broker-dealer affiliates. The Firm settled with an additional
government authority in July 2016, and continues to cooperate with
inquiries from other government authorities concerning disclosure
of conflicts associated with the Firm's sale and use of
proprietary products.

A putative class action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
financial advisory clients from 2007 to the present whose funds
were invested in proprietary funds and who were charged investment
management fees, was dismissed by the Court. The dismissal was
affirmed on appeal. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, to which the Firm
will respond.


KBR INC: Patels' Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that Kuberbhai M. Patel and Kanti K.
Patel's motion to be appointed for lead plaintiff and to
consolidate two class action lawsuits is pending.

Susan Denenberg, in a recently filed claim, seeks class action
status on behalf of shareholders, alleging violations of  Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and some
of its officers.  Similar claims were filed in a second lawsuit
styled Porter v. KBR, Inc. et al.

Movants Kuberbhai M. Patel and Kanti K. Patel filed a motion to be
appointed for lead plaintiff and to consolidate both actions.  The
motion currently is pending.

Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the securities law in
connection with KBR's disclosures associated with the SFO's
investigations against KBR and its affiliates relating to Unaoil,
which the SFO announced in April 2017. KBR disputes plaintiffs'
allegations and claims.

"At this time, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter," the Company said.

KBR, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was formed on March 21, 2006
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.  KBR, Inc. and its wholly
owned and majority-owned subsidiaries is a global provider of
differentiated, professional services and technologies across the
asset and program life-cycle within the government services and
hydrocarbons industries.


KONA GRILL: Faces "Boots" Class Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Boots has filed a class action lawsuit against Kona
Grill, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona
Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by Mitchell
Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23 Class, in
the United States District Court for Minnesota claiming, among
other things, that the Company violated Minnesota gratuity/tip
pooling laws with respect to certain classes of restaurant
employees. The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf of a
putative Minnesota class and a putative national class of
employees.   The Company is investigating the claims made in such
complaint although it does not expect the result of such complaint
to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Kona Grill, Inc., including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns
and operates upscale casual dining restaurants under the name
"Kona Grill."


LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., has
been dismissed, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2017.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleged that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit sought injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.

In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was
denied. The Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification,
and the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the Motion for
Class Certification on January 20, 2017.

On July 26, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of the
Plaintiff's individual claim, and the lawsuit was dismissed on
July 26, 2017.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Sandusky Wellness
Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.

On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District
Court's denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded
the matter for further proceedings.

On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's
renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal in "Davis" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits
under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.

In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Sequenom Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, between August 15,
2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned
Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta
v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v.
Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade
Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-
JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and
Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints
asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of
Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named
the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged
that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain
allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the
Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and Cusumano action alleged that
the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining the merger.

On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. In
connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders. In September 6, 2016,
the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial
purposes the six individual actions described above under the
caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-
cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff
action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel.

The parties agree that the prior MOU has been terminated. The
Court has set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated Amended
Complaint and briefing for the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Bloomquist" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Daniel L. Bloomquist
v. Covance Inc., et al.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing
to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for
all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and
Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance Inc. in
California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3,
2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss "Bouffard" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class
Allegation is pending.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of
implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegation; this motion is currently
pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in "Gonzalez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company is defending against the case, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al.
v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings.

On May 24, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Maria T.
Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company
misclassified phlebotomists as independent contractors through an
arrangement with the co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The
complaint further alleges that the Company violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing
to pay minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing
to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of
attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings together with its
subsidiaries (the Company) is a global life sciences company that
is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing
comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development
services.


LAKELAND REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Amiel" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA AMIEL, And all others similarly situated v. LAKELAND
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01896-JDW-MAP,
August 10, 2017), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime for all of the hours she worked beyond 40 in a
single workweek.

Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc., a not for-profit regional
health system, provides inpatient and outpatient diagnostic and
treatment services in Florida.  The Company operates a trauma
center, a neonatal intensive care unit, an institute for advanced
rehabilitation medicine, and an emergency department.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
          Brandon, FL 33511
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in California Over Excessive Sewer Use Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC6723226 (Cal. Super.
Ct., August 15, 2017), arises from the City's practice of
overcharging residential properties of four or fewer units
("Residential Properties" or "Residential Customers") for sewer
use as a result of overstating the amount of sewage generated by
those customers.

City of Los Angeles is a government entity operating under the
laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Marc L. Godino, Esq.
      Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mgodino@glancylaw.com
              mgreenstone@glancylaw.com
              jrotter@glancylaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Mason" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll, and Osagie Ehigie, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04780 (E.D.N.Y., August 15,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty chain retailer of hardwood
flooring with hundreds of store locations through the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Marino, Esq.
      STEVENSON MARINO LLP
      75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 939-7228
      Facsimile: (212) 531-6129
      E-mail: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com


LYFT INC: Faces "Nieves" Suit Over Breach of Service Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keara Nieves, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06146-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.,
August 15, 2017), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendant's breach of the Lyft Terms of Service Agreement
("LTS"), specifically by failing to pay Lyft Drivers an amount
equal to the fare it charged to Rider less Lyft's "Commission"
percentage (20% or 25% of the fare, the applicable percentage
being based on when the driver contracted with Lyft) and any
applicable charges such as service fees, cancellation fees,
damages fees, tolls, and surcharges for each successful ride but
rather pay drivers based on a calculation of the distance and time
actually driven.
Lyft, Inc. operates a mobile phone application that allows
consumers to obtain transportation services from Lyft drivers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan T. Mashel, Esq.
      MASHEL LAW, LLC
      500 Campus Drive #303
      Morganville, NJ 07751
      Telephone: (732) 536-6161
      Facsimile: (732) 536-6165
      E-mail: smashel@mashellaw.com


MASIMO CORP: Suit by Physicians Healthsource Inc. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a complaint filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. remains pending.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI). The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition.

Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On
November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the
appeal. On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated and remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the
applicable FCC rule was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out
notices on solicited faxes. The stay of the District Court
litigation has not yet been lifted.

On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition seeking rehearing by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the requested rehearing on June 6, 2017. The plaintiffs
have stated that they intend to file a petition to the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals' opinion.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims in the District Court litigation, but there is no guarantee
that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine
whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of
such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the
Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements.

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring
technologies.


MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Seeks Guidance from Alabama Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has issued a Certification to the Supreme Court
of Alabama seeking guidance on a legal question.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. On
August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama's decision.  The appellate hearing
before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was held on December
13, 2016, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

On July 7, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Eleventh
Circuit) issued a Certification to the Supreme Court of Alabama
seeking guidance on a legal question. In that Certification, the
Eleventh Circuit stated that the plaintiffs failed to establish
that participation in the clinical study caused any injuries, and
that the negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty
and products liability claims, which includes the claims currently
alleged against the Company, were properly dismissed.

The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring
technologies.


MDL 2262: Cal. Direct Plaintiffs Appeal Order in Libor MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Direct Action Plaintiffs appeal from the Corrected
Order for Entry of Partial Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b) entered on July 19, 2017, in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 1:11-md-02262-
NRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The California Direct Action Plaintiffs are The Regents of the
University of California, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San
Diego Association of Governments, City of Richmond, The Richmond
Joint Powers Financing Authority, Successor Agency to the Richmond
Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Riverside, The Riverside
Public Financing Authority, County of Mendocino, County of
Sacramento, County of San Diego, County of San Mateo, The San
Mateo County Joint Powers Financing Authority, County of Sonoma,
and David E. Sundstrom, in his official capacity as Treasurer of
the County of Sonoma.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as In re: LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-2413, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants California Direct Action Plaintiffs are
represented by:

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          Facsimile: (917) 398-7753
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiffs FTC Capital GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, FTC Futures Fund
SICAV and Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia are represented
by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Roger W. Kirby, Esq.
          Surya Palaniappan, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 317-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: dhume@kmllp.com
                  dkovel@kmllp.com
                  roger.w.kirby@gmail.com
                  spalaniappan@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiffs FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and FTC Futures Fund SICAV are
represented by:

          Andrew Martin McNeela, Esq.
          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          Meghan Joan Summers, Esq.
          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: amcneela@kmllp.com
                  klerner@kmllp.com
                  msummers@kmllp.com
                  telrod@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3084
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4671
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net

Plaintiff Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia is represented
by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  lolts@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          George E. Barrett, Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETTE, JOHNSTON & PARSLEY
          217 2nd Avenue N
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

Plaintiff Ravan Investments, LLC, is represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Peter Anthony Barile, III, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8512
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  pbarile@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          34 Sunset Blvd.
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (646) 245-8502
          Facsimile: (646) 385-0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin Bruce Love, Esq
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          220 Alhambra Cir #400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-1222
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

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

          Paul Steel Mishkin, Esq.
          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Edward Fu, Esq.
          Neal Alan Potischman, Esq.
          Patrick Wyatt Blakemore, Esq.
          Peter John Davis, Esq.
          Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4292
          Facsimile: (212) 450-3292
          E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com
                  arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  edward.fu@davispolk.com
                  Neal.Potischman@dpw.com
                  patrick.blakemore@davispolk.com
                  peter.davis@davispolk.com
                  rwise@dpw.com

               - and -

          Julie Saranow Epley, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2061
          E-mail: julie.saranow@dpw.com

Defendants Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Capital Inc. and Barclays
U.S. Funding LLC are represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4705
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3333
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com
                  scottj@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Schiller, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com

Defendant Citibank NA is represented by:

          Alan M. Wiseman, Esq.
          Jonathan James Gimblett, Esq.
          Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One City Center
          850 10th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 662-6261
          E-mail: awiseman@cov.com
                  jgimblett@cov.com
                  tisaacson@cov.com

               - and -

          Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Tammy Albarran, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
          E-mail: talbarran@cov.com

               - and -

          David Marx, Esq.
          Mark Jacob Altschul, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
          227 West Monroe Street, #4400
          Chicago, IL 60606-5096
          Telephone: (312) 372-2000
          E-mail: dmarx@mwe.com
                  maltschul@mwe.com


MDL 2672: Executive VW Not Class Member, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of California,
issued an Order regarding Motion to Enforce the Volkswagen-Branded
Franchise Dealer Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates
To: Dkt. Nos. 3378, 3514, 3520, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D.
Cal.).

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation
to Volkswagen, asserting that the company violated the Clean Air
Act by using a defeat device in thousands of its "clean diesel"
vehicles. The disclosure gave rise to a flood of litigation
against Volkswagen, including suits by Volkswagen-branded
franchise dealers. A class of dealers ultimately settled their
claims against Volkswagen, as set forth in the Court-approved
Volkswagen-Branded Franchise Dealer Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. ("VWGoA") has agreed to make a series of payments "directly
to . . . Class Members."  Class Members are defined as "all
authorized Volkswagen dealers in the United States who, on
September 18, 2015, operated a Volkswagen branded dealership
pursuant to a valid Volkswagen Dealer Agreement," and who did not
opt-out of the Settlement.

JO Imports Ltd., d/b/a/Executive Volkswagen of North Haven,
currently operates a Volkswagen-branded franchise dealership
located in North Haven, Connecticut.  Executive VW purchased the
dealership from Montesi Motors, Inc., in 2015. Although Executive
VW and Montesi executed an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement on
July 11, 2015, the sale did not close until November 3, 2015, and
Executive VW did not become an authorized Volkswagen dealer until
November 4, 2015, when VWGoA and Executive VW executed a
Volkswagen Dealer Agreement.  Because Montesi was the authorized
Volkswagen dealer for the North Haven dealership on September 18,
2015, VWGoA has and continues to make settlement payments to
Montesi, not Executive VW.

Executive VW filed a breach of contract action against Montesi in
Connecticut Superior Court asserting that it entered into an
agreement with Montesi before the dealership sale closed, in which
Montesi agreed that it would distribute to Executive VW future
payments it received from Volkswagen relating to the emissions
scandal.

Executive VW also filed an interpleader action in Connecticut
Superior Court against Montesi, Montesi's president (Gary
Montesi), and VWGoA, in which Executive VW asked the Superior
Court to determine the parties' respective rights to the
Settlement Payments.

VWGoA filed a motion in the District Court to enforce the
Settlement. In its motion, VWGoA asks the District Court to enjoin
the interpleader action and to declare that Montesi, rather than
Executive VW, is a Class Member under the Settlement. Executive VW
followed by filing a motion to intervene to oppose VWGoA's motion
and to file its own motion to enforce the Settlement.

In its later-filed motion to enforce the Settlement, Executive VW
seeks a declaration that it, rather than Montesi, is a Class
Member, because it operated the North Haven dealership pursuant to
an informal agreement with Montesi.  Executive VW also seeks an
order directing VWGoA to make settlement payments to it, not
Montesi, and requests that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing.

The Court first grants Executive VW's motion to intervene. A key
question before the Court is whether Executive VW is a Class
Member. Executive VW has a significant protectable interest in the
resolution of that question. Executive VW also satisfies the other
elements to intervene as of right.

The Court denies Executive VW's motion to enforce the Settlement.
Executive VW seeks a declaration that it, rather than Montesi, is
a Class Member, because it operated the North Haven dealership
pursuant to an informal agreement with Montesi. Even if Executive
VW exercised day-to-day control over the North Haven dealership.
Executive VW acknowledges that it was not an authorized Volkswagen
dealer as of that date, and that its operation of the dealership
at that time was not pursuant to a valid Volkswagen Dealer
Agreement. Executive VW therefore falls outside the definition of
a Class Member. And because Executive VW is not a Class Member,
VWGoA is not required to make settlement payments to Executive VW.
As for VWGoA's motion to enforce the Settlement, the Court grants
in part and denies in part the motion. The Court grants the motion
to the extent VWGoA seeks a declaration that Executive VW is not a
Class Member. But the Court denies VWGoA's requests for an order
enjoining the Connecticut interpleader action, and for an order
declaring that Montesi is a Class Member.

There is no reason to believe that the Connecticut Superior Court
will seek to interpret the Settlement Agreement in a way that
conflicts with the District Court's judgments, in light of the
District Court's determination that Executive VW is not a Class
Member, the District Court holds.  For sake of clarity, it is also
not necessary, nor is it appropriate, for the District Court to
interfere with Executive VW's breach of contract action against
Montesi in Connecticut Superior Court.

As for VWGoA's request for a declaration that Montesi is a Class
Member, the only party challenging Montesi's status as a Class
Member is Executive VW, but Executive VW lacks standing to assert
such a challenge because it is not a party to the Settlement
Agreement. The requested declaration is therefore not appropriate.
Executive VW's motion to intervene is granted.  Executive VW's
motion to enforce the Settlement is denied. VWGoA's motion to
enforce the Settlement is granted in part and denied in part.

Executive VW is not a Class Member under the Volkswagen-Branded
Franchise Dealer Class Action Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available http://tinyurl.com/ybnr3re6from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey,
- rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman -
steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice
& Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet,
- waudet@audetlaw.com -  Audet & Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman -
jefff@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Peter B.
Fredman - peter@peterfredmanlaw.com - Law Office of Peter Fredman,
Robert B. Carey - rob@hbsslaw.com -  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker -
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -  charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Joan Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP., 275
Battery St Fl 29. San Francisco, CA 94111

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry -
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean
Noburu Kawamoto - dkawamoto@kellyrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser - dloeseer@kellerrohrback.com - Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice &
Tana Lin - tlin@kellerrohrback.com - Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback
LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar - jai@blbglaw.com - Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Harrod -
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com - Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP,
Matthew I. Henzi - mhenzi@swappc.com - Sullivan, War, Niki L.
Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Ross M.
Shikowitz - ross@blbglaw.com - Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law Offices of
Susan R. Podolsky.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague - avague@lightfootlaw.com  - Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier - clucier@mcguirewoods.com -
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III - cbaker@wcsr.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -
chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang - wlang@wcsr.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Elizabeth L. Deeley, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe,
Jr., Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller,
McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J.
Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.,
James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase, Chase
Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP.

Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley -
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew
Henry Marmolejo - mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael Howard Steinberg - steinbergm@sullcrom.com - Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin -
levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m -, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com - Verrill Dana
LLP, David Maxwell James Rein -  reind@sullcrom.com - Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr. - gswebb@Venable.com -  Venable
LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. - boehmg@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell
LTD, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. - gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, James K. Toohey - tooheyj@jbltd.com -
Johns & Bell LTD, John Thomas Prisbe - jtprisbe@venable.com -
Venable LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell - oswelll@sullcrom.com - Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -
ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Sharon L. Nelles - nelless@sullcrom.com - Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell -
bell.steve@dorsey.com - Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stuart A. Drake -
stuart.drake@kirkland.com - Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice &
William B. Monahan - monahanw@sullcrom.com - Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael Howard Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman,
Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David Maxwell
James Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Henry
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush,
Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, David Maxwell James Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Michael R.
Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Ritchie E. Berger, Esq.,
Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon
Peabody LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC,
Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.
Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Henry
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth &
Paige, PLLC, Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, David Maxwell James Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher
Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Michael R.
Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Parsons -aparsons@kslaw.com - King & Spalding LLP, Adam G.
Sowatzka -asowatzka@kslaw.com - King & Spalding LLP, Alexander K.
Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers,
Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com -
David M. Fine - dfine@kslaw.com - King, Spaulding Law Firm, G.
Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson &
Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha, Nixon Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey,
Johns & Bell LTD, James K. Vines, King & Spalding, John Thomas
Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth
Yeatts Turnbull, King & Spalding LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA
Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan
P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Sheldon T. Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING,
Sonya R. Braunschweig - sbraunschweig@briggs.com -  DLA Piper LLP,
W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice & William F.
Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.

David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Scott Moen, Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office
of Peter Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King &
Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper
LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong, Modrall
Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA
Piper LLP.


MEADWESTVACO CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Stockholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN
RE MEADWESTVACO STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No.
10617-CB (Del. Ch.).

In this action, stockholders of MeadWestvaco Corporation seek
damages relating to a strategic stock-for-stock merger of equals
between MeadWestvaco and Rock-Tenn Company that closed.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
the members of the MeadWestvaco board, and a second claim for
aiding and abetting against Rock-Tenn. The core issue before the
Court is whether the complaint contains factual allegations
sufficient to state a reasonably conceivable claim against
MeadWestvaco's directors for bad faith in connection with their
approval of the merger.

Plaintiffs CWA Local 1180 Administrative Fund and CWA Local 1180
Members Annuity Fund allege they held shares of MeadWestvaco at
all relevant times.

Vertical Research Partners published an analyst note proposing a
merger between RockTenn and MeadWestvaco. The note stated that
RockTenn, which faced a billion-dollar pension deficit, could
benefit from MeadWestvaco's pension surplus, which exceeded $1
billion. That same month, Starboard Value LP, a well-known
activist investment firm, began purchasing MeadWestvaco stock.

Starboard Acquires a 5.6% Stake and Sends a Letter to the Board
The MeadWestvaco board received a letter from Starboard stating
that it had acquired approximately 5.6% of MeadWestvaco's
outstanding common stock, making it one of the Company's largest
stockholders. Starboard asserted in the letter that the Company
was not operating at its full potential and demanded an overhaul
of the Company through cost cutting and the sale of its specialty
chemicals business.

After the transaction was announced, three class action lawsuits
were filed, which were consolidated. Defendants moved to dismiss
the Complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The standards governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim for relief are well settled: (i) all well-pleaded factual
allegations are accepted as true; (ii) even vague allegations are
well-pleaded if they give the opposing party notice of the claim;
(iii) the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party; and (iv) dismissal is inappropriate unless
the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any
reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.

Defendants make essentially two arguments in response -- that the
allegations of the Complaint do not plead a viable claim for bad
faith and, even if they did, that the board's decision to approve
the merger was cleansed under Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings, LLC and
its progeny by virtue of the stockholders' overwhelming approval
of the merger.

Count I Fails to State a Claim for Bad Faith

This Court has held on numerous occasions that to state a bad-
faith claim, a plaintiff must show either [1] an extreme set of
facts to establish that disinterested directors were intentionally
disregarding their duties or [2] that the decision under attack is
so far beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment that it seems
essentially inexplicable on any ground other than bad faith.

The Complaint's allegations fall far short of pleading the extreme
set of facts necessary to establish a reasonably conceivable bad-
faith claim on the theory that the concededly overwhelming
majority of disinterested and independent MeadWestvaco directors
(8 of 9) intentionally disregarded their fiduciary duties with
respect to the process that led to the merger.

The allegations in the Complaint also do not support a reasonable
inference that the ultimate decision to approve a strategic merger
that impliedly valued the Company at approximately $9 billion was
itself an act of bad faith.

First, the MeadWestvaco board negotiated an exchange ratio
representing a 9.1% premium to its stockholders in a strategic
merger between two widely-held companies where MeadWestvaco
stockholders obtained 50.1% of the combined entity even though,
according to information provided to the board, MeadWestvaco
contributed less than 50% of the combined company's revenue, net
income, and EBITDA.

Second, three separate, nationally recognized financial advisors,
none of which are alleged to be conflicted, opined that the merger
was fair to MeadWestvaco's stockholders. A board's receipt of a
fairness opinion typically supports a factual inference that the
board acted properly when deciding to proceed with a transaction.
Third, the deal protections in the Merger Agreement, which
included a fiduciary-out and a $230 million break-up fee,
concededly were reasonable. The $3 billion in value that
plaintiffs assert was left on the table is approximately thirteen
times the size of the break-up fee.

Count II Fails to State a Claim for Aiding and Abetting

To adequately plead an aiding and abetting claim, plaintiffs must
allege facts demonstrating (1) the existence of a fiduciary
relationship, (2) a breach of the fiduciary's duty (3) knowing
participation in that breach by the defendants, and (4) damages
proximately caused by the breach.

Count II fails to state a claim for a second reason. The knowing
participation element of an aiding and abetting claim is a
stringent standard that turn[s] on proof of scienter. But the
Complaint contains no non-conclusory facts suggesting that
RockTenn knew that MeadWestvaco's directors, who oversaw a process
in which MeadWestvaco terminated negotiations on at least two
occasions and obtained a premium for its stockholders after
rejecting an at market proposal, had failed to discharge their
fiduciary duties

Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.

A full-text copy of the Court of Chancery's August 17, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yayfddhafrom Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews - pandrews@andrewsspringer.com - Craig J.
Springer -  cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and David M. Sborz -
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com - of ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory M. Nespole - gmn@whafh.com - Mark C.
Rifkin - rifkin@whafh.com - Anita B. Kartalopoulos - abk@whafh.com
- and Kevin G. Cooper - kcooper@whafh.com - of WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, New York, New York; Lead Attorneys for
Plaintiff.

Gregory P. Williams - williams@rlf.com - and Sarah A. Clark -
sclark@rlf.com - of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Rachelle Silverberg - RSilverberg@wlrk.com - and A.J.
Martinez - AJMartinez@wlrk.com - of WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN &
KATZ, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants MeadWestvaco
Corporation, John A. Luke, Jr. Michael E. Campbell, James G.
Kaiser, Richard B. Kelson, Susan J. Kropf, Gracia C. Martore,
James E. Nevels, Timothy H. Powers, and Alan D. Wilson.

William M. Lafferty wlafferty@mnat.com and Ryan D. Stottmann --
rstottman@mnat.com -=-- of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Gary A. Bornstein -- gbornstein@cravath.com
-- of CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys
for Defendant Rock-Tenn Company.


MICROSOFT CORP: Hearing to Begin Sept. in British Columbia Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, that a six-month oral hearing is
scheduled to commence in September 2017 in the antitrust, unfair
competition, and overcharge class action in British Columbia.

The Company said, "Antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of
Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft
operating system software and/or productivity application software
between 1998 and 2010."

"The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims. A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in
September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness
affidavits.

"The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive."

Microsoft is a technology company.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, that the Canadian cell phone
class action has been dormant for more than two years.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more
than two years.

                    U.S. cell phone litigation

Microsoft also disclosed that, "Nokia, along with other handset
manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits
filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by
individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from
cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse
health effects. We assumed responsibility for these claims as part
of our acquisition of Nokia's Devices and Services business and
have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these
cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-
trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a
separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the
use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines."

"In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude
plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of
flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the trial court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation experts. The defendants filed an
interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating
expert scientific evidence, which the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals heard en banc. In October 2016, the Court of Appeals
issued its decision adopting the standard advocated by defendants
and remanding the cases to the trial court for further proceedings
under that standard. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen
discovery and file additional expert evidence."

Microsoft is a technology company.


MOLSON COORS: Still Faces "Hughes" Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the lawsuit by David Hughes and 631992
Ontario Inc.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario
("LCBO"), Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP,
Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-
00CP was filed in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. BRI and its owners, including Molson Coors Canada, as
well as the LCBO are named as defendants in the action.

The plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned
and operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement
to fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market
to the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek
to have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all
Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things,
damages in the amount of approximately CAD 1.4 billion.

"We note that The Beer Store operates according to the rules
established by the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and
distribution of beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The
Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and are approved
by the LCBO on a weekly basis. As such, we currently believe the
claim has been made without merit, and we intend to vigorously
assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit," the Company said.

Molson Coors Brewing Company is one of the world's largest brewers
and has a diverse portfolio of owned and partner brands, including
core brands Carling, Coors Light, Miller Lite, Molson Canadian and
Staropramen, as well as craft and specialty beers such as Blue
Moon, Creemore Springs, Cobra, Doom Bar, Henry's Hard Soda and
Leinenkugel's.


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a class action
lawsuit against Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group is now in
discovery.

The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading
of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to
the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in
its investigation."

"On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods
Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft
Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or attempted to
manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated
position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-
competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical
Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil
monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million
for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the
Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus
post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction
prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from violating
specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and
costs and fees.

"In December 2015, the court denied Mondelez Global and Kraft
Foods Group's motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market
manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now
in discovery.

"Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat
futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in
the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an
unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment;
costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified
relief.

"In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelez
Global and Kraft Foods Group's motion to dismiss, and the parties
are now in discovery.

"It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters;
however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with
Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to
bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with
the CFTC action."

Mondelez International manufactures and markets primarily snack
food products, including biscuits (cookies, crackers and salted
snacks), chocolate, gum & candy and various cheese & grocery
products, as well as powdered beverage products.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in "Lamders"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division, issued an Memorandum and Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned STEVEN W. LANDERS, et al., on behalf of themselves, all
other similarly situated, and the Class they seek to represent,
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV-20-
SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs' Count VIII for Unjust Enrichment and Count X for Civil
Conspiracy are dismissed.

Plaintiffs Steven and Deloris Landers are soybean, corn, and
cotton farmers in New Madrid County, Missouri. They filed this
action on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who farm in Alabama,
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, and whose crops were
affected by the herbicide dicamba.

Defendant Monsanto has moved to dismiss.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendant's representatives made a
practice of directing farmers who purchased the Xtend seeds to
illegally spray dicamba to their Xtend crops to protect their
crops.

Plaintiffs claim they were harmed by defendant's release of the
Xtend seeds because it was foreseeable that third-party farmers
who purchased the seeds would illegally spray older formulations
of dicamba onto their own crops to kill weeds, and that dicamba
drifted onto plaintiff's property, causing millions of dollars of
damages.

Plaintiffs identify eleven counts in their complaint, including
(1) strict liability defective design; (2) strict liability  --
failure to warn; (3) negligent design and marketing;(4) negligent
failure to warn; (5) negligent training; (6) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; (7) fraudulent concealment; (8)
unjust enrichment; (9) punitive damages; (10) civil conspiracy;
and (11) class action.

Proximate Cause

Common to all of plaintiffs' claims is the element of proximate
causation. To prevail, plaintiffs must establish that defendant's
actions proximately caused plaintiffs' injury. Defendant suggests
that because it did not manufacture, distribute, or sell the
dicamba that allegedly caused plaintiffs' damages, that it cannot
be held liable for those damages

Proximate causation is found when the defect in a product is the
"cause or act of which the injury was the natural and probable
consequence.

The Court noted that even to the extent the third-party farmers'
unlawful conduct was foreseeable, that foreseeability was negated
by the GE seeds' product warning labels, which prominently advised
that it was illegal to use dicamba with the seeds.

However, the Court later denied Monsanto's motion to dismiss and
granted the Bader Farms plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint when those plaintiffs added  as plaintiffs allege here
that Monsanto's representatives actually advised third party
farmers to apply the old dicamba product to their Xtend crops.
As this Court stated, although the Court maintains reservation
about whether defendant's action or inaction proximately caused
plaintiffs' injuries, the allegation that defendant's
representatives instructed seed-purchasing farmers to illegally
spray dicamba on the defendant's seeds, if true, would seemingly
negate the effectiveness of the product use labels attached to
defendant's seeds in addition to altering the proximate causation
analysis of this case.

Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded causation.

Duty of Care

Next, defendant asserts that it owed plaintiffs no duty of care to
prevent injuries caused by other manufacturers' products.
Defendant is of course correct that it is not an innkeeper or
other property owner in a premises liability action typical to
this line of authority. But defendant knew that "old" dicamba
could cause damage to neighboring crops, and, according to the
allegations, defendant released a seed that invited the dangerous
herbicide's use.

Defendant's representatives are alleged to have in fact promoted
its use. Those allegations squarely distinguish plaintiffs' case
here from those in which courts have found a manufacturer owed
plaintiffs no duty of care regarding actions by third parties.

The Court holds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiffs.

Fraudulent Concealment

Plaintiffs allege that defendant concealed (1) the risks to third
parties of illegal herbicide spraying from farmers, state
regulatory and legislative bodies, farming associations, the
general public, and Plaintiffs, (2) that defendant had created a
situation where illegal spraying would happen, and (3) that
catastrophic damage would occur to third parties as a result.

To prevail on this claim, plaintiffs must show that defendant had
a duty to speak.

The Court agrees that the risks of illegal dicamba use is readily
available information. However, that alone is not the only subject
of plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiffs also claim
that the defendant concealed its knowledge that use of dicamba by
farmers on the GE seeds was inevitable.  Plaintiffs even claim
that Monsanto representatives told its GE seed buyers to apply
dicamba in contravention of the warning label and despite the
known risks to third parties.

Thus, plaintiffs do plead that defendant had superior knowledge or
information about the risks of dicamba use as it pertained to
defendant's products such that a duty to speak arose. Although
tenuous, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have
sufficiently stated a claim for fraudulent concealment.

Civil Conspiracy

To demonstrate a civil conspiracy existed, plaintiffs must show:
(1) two or more persons; (2) with an unlawful objective; (3) after
a meeting of the minds; (4) committed at least one act in
furtherance of the conspiracy; and (5) [plaintiffs were] thereby
damaged.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently articulated
the elements regarding unlawful objective and meeting of the
minds. Plaintiffs state that defendant conspired with farmers to
market the GE seeds so that other farmers would have no choice but
to use the GE seeds themselves.

However, plaintiffs' allegations do not support that the other
farmers agreed to help sell defendant's seeds. Nor do plaintiffs
even allege that defendant told GE seed buyers that they were
required to use dicamba. Despite the contortions plaintiffs have
attempted in order to hold the defendant and (nonparty) farmers
responsible for co-conspirator liability, the allegations are
simply too vague and tenuous to support a conspiracy claim.

Count X will be dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

Finally, defendant argues that plaintiffs' claim for unjust
enrichment should be dismissed. Plaintiffs claim defendant was
enriched by the sale, profits, and anticipated profits of its GE
seeds from a benefit conferred by duping the public and cynically
marketing" an unsafe product that resulted in destruction of
plaintiffs' property.

They have pleaded that they were harmed as a result of defendant's
actions, but they have not alleged plaintiffs themselves conferred
a benefit on defendant.

Defendant Monsanto's motion to dismiss is denied in part and
granting in part.

Plaintiffs' Count VIII for Unjust Enrichment and Count X for Civil
Conspiracy are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybegwolp
from Leagle.com.

Steven Wayne Landers, Plaintiff, represented by Billy R. Randles,
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP. 3341 Campbell StKansas City, MO,
64109-1737

Steven Wayne Landers, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Marie
Splittgerber, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Beverly Turina
Randles, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP. 3341 Campbell StKansas
City, MO, 64109-1737

Deloris Irene Landers, Plaintiff, represented by Billy R. Randles,
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Angela Marie Splittgerber, RANDLES
AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Beverly Turina Randles, RANDLES AND
SPLITTGERBER, LLP.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E. Sternhell
Blackwell, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, 505 N 7th St Ste 3500Saint Louis,
MO 63101-1623 & Jeffrey A. Masson - jmasson@thompsoncoburn.com -
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defending "Vo" Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees vs. MRV Communications, Inc., Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, remains pending, MRV
Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act.

The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding
the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. Management
believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does
not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its
business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual
outcome of this case, further provisions could be recorded in the
future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
operating results.

In April 2017, MRV received a complaint from Nestor Hilsenrat, a
former employee, and a request for a labor board hearing. Mr.
Hilsenrat, who had been working in Argentina as the Company's
Regional Sales Director for Caribbean and Latin America prior to
being terminated as part of a reduction in force, claims that MRV
improperly calculated severance payouts related to his
termination. Mr. Hilsenrat alleges that MRV owes additional
severance along with penalties and interest totaling approximately
$2.9 million. Management believes that these allegations are
without merit and therefore has not accrued any provisions as of
June 30, 2017. However, depending on the actual outcome of the
prcoeedings, provisions could be recorded in the future which may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Kachelmyer" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the claims in the case,
Kachelmyer v. MRV Communications, Inc., et al., have no merit.

On July 2, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ADVA NA Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and Golden Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").Concurrently with entering
into the Merger Agreement, ADVA Optical Networking SE ("ADVA SE"),
the German parent company of Parent, is guarantying for the
benefit of the Company the payment obligations of Parent and
Merger Sub under the Merger Agreement.

On July 21, 2017, a putative securities class action complaint
(the "Kachelmyer Complaint") for an action captioned Kachelmyer v.
MRV Communications, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint names as
defendants the members of the MRV Board of Directors, as well as
MRV. The complaint purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of similarly situated public shareholders of MRV and
alleges, among other things, that the members of the MRV Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
MRV by approving the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated therein (the "Transactions") on terms and conditions
alleged to be materially unfair to MRV's stockholders, and by
issuing allegedly materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in connection therewith in the Schedule 14D-9.

The complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief,
including enjoining the MRV Board of Directors, and anyone acting
in concert with them, from consummating the Transactions, (ii)
certification of the action as a class action, (iii) in the event
the Transactions are consummated, rescinding the Transactions or
awarding damages to MRV's stockholders, (iv) an award of
attorneys' fees and other fees and costs and (v) such other
further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The Company says a preliminary injunction could delay or
jeopardize the completion of the Transactions, and permanent
injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the
Transactions. MRV believes that the claims stated in the
Kachelmyer Complaint have no merit; however, the outcome of this
matter is uncertain.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Allia" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the claims in the case,
Allia v. MRV Communications, Inc. et al., have no merit.

On July 2, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ADVA NA Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and Golden Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").Concurrently with entering
into the Merger Agreement, ADVA Optical Networking SE ("ADVA SE"),
the German parent company of Parent, is guarantying for the
benefit of the Company the payment obligations of Parent and
Merger Sub under the Merger Agreement.

On July 24, 2017, a putative securities class action complaint
(the "Allia Complaint") for an action captioned Allia v. MRV
Communications, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Peter
Allia, a purported owner of Shares, on behalf of himself and all
other public stockholders of MRV, against MRV and the members of
the MRV Board of Directors in connection with the pending Offer,
the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

The Allia Complaint claims that, among other things, the members
of the MRV Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders of MRV by approving the Merger Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby on terms and conditions alleged
to be materially unfair to MRV's stockholders and by allegedly
omitting and misrepresenting material information on MRV's
Schedule 14D-9 in connection therewith, with such material
information alleged to include, among other things, MRV's
financial projections and sales process and certain financial
analyses performed by Cowen in connection with the pending Offer,
the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.  The Allia Complaint further alleges that MRV and the
members of the MRV Board of Directors violated Section 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing the Schedule 14D-9 with such
alleged omissions and misrepresentations of material information
as described in the immediately preceding sentence.

The Allia Complaint seeks various remedies, including, among other
things, (i) certification of the action as a class action, (ii)
enjoining the pending Offer and the Merger, (iii) in the event the
Offer and the Merger are consummated, rescinding them and setting
them aside or awarding rescissory damages, (iv) declaring the
Merger Agreement unlawful and unenforceable, (v) awarding damages
to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of MRV, (vi) awarding
the plaintiff fees and expenses (including reasonable attorneys'
and experts' fees and expenses) incurred by the plaintiff in
connection with the litigation and (vii) granting such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

MRV says a preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Transactions, and permanent injunctive relief
could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Transactions. MRV
believes that the claims stated in the Allia Complaint have no
merit; however, the outcome of this matter is uncertain.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Chelvaratnam" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the claims stated in
the case, Chelvaratnam v. Ken Traub, et al., have no merit.

On July 2, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ADVA NA Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and Golden Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").Concurrently with entering
into the Merger Agreement, ADVA Optical Networking SE ("ADVA SE"),
the German parent company of Parent, is guarantying for the
benefit of the Company the payment obligations of Parent and
Merger Sub under the Merger Agreement.

On July 25, 2017, a putative class action complaint (the
"Chelvaratnam Complaint") for an action captioned Chelvaratnam v.
Ken Traub, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles by Ravindran
Chelvaratnam, a purported owner of Shares, on behalf of himself
and all other public stockholders of MRV, against the members of
the MRV Board of Directors in connection with the pending Offer
and the Merger. The Chelvaratnam Complaint claims that, among
other things, the members of the MRV Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of MRV by approving the
Merger Agreement and the Transactions on terms and conditions and
through processes alleged to be materially unfair to MRV's
stockholders, and by issuing allegedly materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in connection therewith in the Schedule
14D-9. The Chelvaratnam Complaint seeks various remedies,
including, among other things, (i) certification of the action as
a class action; (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
Merger from being consummated, (iii) to the extent already
implemented, rescinding the Merger Agreement or any of the terms
thereof, or granting the plaintiff and MRV's public stockholders
rescissory damages, (iv) directing the defendants to account to
the plaintiff and the public stockholders of MRV for all damages
allegedly suffered, (v) awarding the plaintiff fees and expenses
(including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses)
incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the action and (vi)
granting such other and further relief as the court may deem just
and proper. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Offer or the Merger, and permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Offer or the
Merger. MRV believes that the claims stated in the Chelvaratnam
Complaint have no merit; however, the outcome of this matter is
uncertain.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Scarantino" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the claims stated in
the case, Scarantino v. MRV Communications, Inc., have no merit.

On July 2, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ADVA NA Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and Golden Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").Concurrently with entering
into the Merger Agreement, ADVA Optical Networking SE ("ADVA SE"),
the German parent company of Parent, is guarantying for the
benefit of the Company the payment obligations of Parent and
Merger Sub under the Merger Agreement.

On July 25, 2017, a putative securities class action complaint
(the "Scarantino Complaint") for an action captioned Scarantino v.
MRV Communications, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Louis
Scarantino, a purported owner of Shares, on behalf of himself and
all other public stockholders of MRV, against MRV and the members
of the MRV Board of Directors in connection with the pending Offer
and the Merger. The Scarantino Complaint claims that, among other
things, MRV and the members of the MRV Board of Directors violated
Sections 14(e), 14(d) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as
applicable, by allegedly misrepresenting and omitting material
information on the Schedule 14D-9 in connection with the pending
Offer, the Merger and the Transactions. The Scarantino Complaint
seeks various remedies, including, among other things, (i)
enjoining the Merger from being consummated, (ii) in the event the
Merger is consummated, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages, (iii) awarding the plaintiff fees and
expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses) incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the action
and (iv) granting such other and further relief as the court may
deem just and proper. A preliminary injunction could delay or
jeopardize the completion of the Offer or the Merger, and
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion
of the Offer or the Merger. MRV believes that the claims stated in
the Scarantino Complaint have no merit; however, the outcome of
this matter is uncertain.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Facing "Trottier" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the claims stated in
the case, Trottier v. MRV Communications, Inc., et al., have no
merit.

On July 2, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ADVA NA Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and Golden Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").Concurrently with entering
into the Merger Agreement, ADVA Optical Networking SE ("ADVA SE"),
the German parent company of Parent, is guarantying for the
benefit of the Company the payment obligations of Parent and
Merger Sub under the Merger Agreement.

Trottier v. MRV Communications, Inc., et al. On July 27, 2017, a
putative securities class action complaint (the "Trottier
Complaint") for an action captioned Trottier v. MRV
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05581, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by Mark Trottier, a purported owner of Shares, on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of MRV,
against MRV and the members of the MRV Board of Directors in
connection with the pending Offer and the Merger. The Trottier
Complaint claims that, among other things, MRV and the members of
the MRV Board of Directors violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act
(17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-9), as applicable, by allegedly making
untrue statements of material fact and allegedly omitting certain
material facts relating to the pending Offer, the Merger and the
other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on the
Schedule 14D-9. The Trottier Complaint seeks various remedies,
including, among other things, (i) certification of the action as
a class action, (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
Offer and the Merger from being consummated, (iii) in the event
the Offer and the Merger are consummated, rescinding them and
setting them aside or awarding rescissory damages, (iv) awarding
the plaintiff costs (including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses) incurred by the plaintiff in connection with
the action and (v) granting such further relief as the court deems
just and proper.

MRV says a preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Offer or the Merger, and permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Offer or the
Merger. MRV believes that the claims in the Trottier Complaint
have no merit; however, the outcome of this matter is uncertain.

MRV Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation,
is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, data center operators,
enterprises and governments throughout the world.


NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case
-------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global
Markets, Inc., et al.

The Company is named as one of many defendants in City of
Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system.

The Company said, "On behalf of a putative class of securities
traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading;
the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section
6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the
same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We
then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 23, 2015."

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

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

"The SEC filed its brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and
plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs responding to the SEC's brief
on December 12, 2016. Given the preliminary nature of the
proceedings, and particularly the fact that the complaints have
been dismissed, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability
may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as the
district court concluded) that the claims are without merit and
will continue to litigate vigorously."

Nasdaq manages, operates and provides products and services in
four business segments: Market Services, Corporate Services,
Information Services and Market Technology.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court OKs 15 Trusts' Bid to Dismiss "Winne"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maine issued
an Order granting the Motions to Dismiss separately filed by
defendants in the case captioned JANE C. FORRESTER WINNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-1, et
al., Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-00229-JDL (D. Me.).

Jane Forrester Winne, Sarah Coffey, Vickie McMullen, and Karin
Hills filed a Second Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative
class against 24 named defendants, alleging claims arising out of
attempts to collect on student loan debts.  Fifteen Defendants,
including 13 of the 17 National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts,
Wilmington Trust Company, and The First Marblehead Corporation,
now known as Cognition Financial Corporation, have moved to
dismiss the claims against them. Plaintiffs have moved to
supplement the record before the Court related to the motions to
dismiss with the deposition of Bradley Luke, an employee of
Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc., that was taken in a separate
collection action filed against two of the named Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs allege that they, along with other Maine residents,
have been the subject of unlawful and fraudulent student debt
collection activities. They allege, inter alia, that a large
number of student loans purportedly owned by a series of National
Collegiate Student Loan Trusts are not collectible because the
Trusts do not have a lawful basis to collect on the loans, and
that the collection efforts undertaken by the Defendants violate
state and federal law.

The Trusts move to dismiss the claims against them for lack of
standing and failure to state a claim. Wilmington moves to dismiss
the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. First Marblehead moves to dismiss the
claims against it for lack of standing, lack of personal
jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
The burden of demonstrating that the complaint does not state a
claim for which relief can be granted is on the Defendants.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

A plaintiff has the burden of establishing the court's personal
jurisdiction over a defendant

Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises
directly out of, or is related to, the defendant's forum-based
contacts. For both categories of personal jurisdiction, the
defendant must have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum;
those contacts must be purposeful; and the exercise of
jurisdiction must be reasonable under the circumstances.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing

Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to
actual cases and controversies. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,
498 (1975). "One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is
that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.
Kerin v. Titeflex Corp., 770 F.3d 978, 981 (1st Cir. 2014)
(quotation omitted). A plaintiff must plead three elements to
satisfy the standing requirement: injury in fact, traceability,
and redressability.

Motion to Supplement the Record

Wilmington and First Marblehead argue that consideration of the
deposition testimony would violate the principles underlying
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 because they were not given
notice of the deposition and did not have the opportunity to be
represented by counsel at its taking. Rule 32 states that a
deposition may be used against a party at a hearing or trial if
the party was present or represented at the taking of the
deposition or had reasonable notice of it.

By its terms, however, Rule 32 applies to the use of deposition
testimony at a hearing or trial, and therefore does not bar
consideration of the transcript in ruling on the instant motions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement is granted.

The Trusts' Motion

The Trusts argue that the claims against them should be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs lack standing and because the Complaint
fails to state a claim.

Standing

The Trusts assert that at least one named plaintiff in a putative
class action must have standing against each individual defendant,
and that Plaintiffs have admitted that they do not have standing
to sue because they acknowledge that they do not have individual
claims against the 13 Trusts that brought the joint motion to
dismiss.

As a general rule in the First Circuit, named plaintiffs in a
class action do not have standing to assert claims against
defendants who are not directly implicated in the alleged harms
suffered by those named plaintiffs.

This case is more similar to Plumbers' Union, in which the First
Circuit found no standing. The Trusts share a common Owner Trustee
and Special Servicer, similar to the common depositor for the
eight Plumbers' Union trusts, but are distinct entities made up of
different assets that did not necessarily act in a manner
identical to that of the other four Trusts.

Plaintiffs therefore have not established that this case fits
within the qualification contemplated by Plumbers' Union, and have
not demonstrated that they have standing to sue the 13 Trusts who
seek dismissal of the Complaint.

Failure to State a Claim

The Trusts further argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim
against them because it does not allege any specific actions by
the Trusts.

Factual allegations made for the first time in a responsive
memorandum are not properly considered in evaluating the
sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The Complaint does
not contain any allegations specific to the 13 Trusts of unlawful
or abusive collection activities under the FDCPA or MFDCPA, of
unfair or deceptive practices under the UTPA, of false
representations constituting fraud, or of the breach of any
contract. It therefore fails to state a plausible claim for relief
against the 13 Trusts.

Wilmington's Motion

Wilmington moves to dismiss the Complaint against it for lack of
personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The various agreements governing Wilmington's relationship with
the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and the other
Defendants demonstrate that Wilmington does not exercise the type
of control over the actions of the other Defendants that would
justify the imputation of their contacts with Maine to Wilmington
for jurisdictional purposes.

This relationship, as defined by the Administration Agreement,
does not involve a sufficient level of control by Wilmington of
First Marblehead Data Services' actions to justify the imputation
of jurisdictional contacts. But even if it did, First Marblehead
Data Services is not a Defendant in this case and is not alleged
to have participated in the collection efforts against the named
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that a sufficient,
agency-like relationship exists between Wilmington and the other
Defendants to justify the imputation of jurisdictional contacts.
The exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Wilmington is
therefore not appropriate.

Failure to State a Claim

Wilmington also argues that the Complaint fails to state a
plausible claim against it because it cannot be personally liable
for its actions as Owner Trustee, and the Complaint does not
contain factual allegations sufficient to support the conclusory
allegation that it qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA
and MFDCPA.

Plaintiffs respond that Wilmington is vicariously liable for the
actions of the other Defendants by virtue of its asserted agency
relationship with the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and
US Bank.

Although a defendant may sometimes be held vicariously liable for
the actions of its agents, the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that an agency-like relationship exists between
Wilmington and the other Defendants in this case. The Complaint
therefore fails to state a plausible claim against Wilmington.

First Marblehead's Motion

First Marblehead argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over it, that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims
against it, and that the Complaint fails to state a claim against
it.

Plaintiffs concede that the exercise of general personal
jurisdiction is not appropriate. They argue that the Court can
exercise specific personal jurisdiction over First Marblehead on
the basis of contacts of other Defendants in this case, imputed to
First Marblehead based on the relationship among the Defendants.
Neither of those alleged actions gives rise to the Plaintiffs'
claims in this case, which are focused on allegedly unlawful
attempts to collect debt, and therefore neither is a basis for
exercising personal jurisdiction over First Marblehead. The
evidence produced to support specific jurisdiction must show that
the cause of action either arises directly out of, or is related
to, the defendant's forum-based contacts.

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over First Marblehead would be reasonable.

Standing

First Marblehead also argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring claims against it because they have not alleged that they
were harmed in any way by First Marblehead. In order to establish
standing, a plaintiff must show a sufficiently direct causal
connection between the challenged action and the identified harm.
Plaintiffs do not respond to First Marblehead's standing argument
in their responsive briefing. They instead suggest that the Court
defer ruling on the standing issue, claiming that Rule 12(b)(1)
provides for flexibility as to when and how [the Court] determines
whether it has jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have standing to bring
claims against it. There is therefore no need to defer ruling on
the standing question pending additional fact-finding,

Failure to State a Claim

First Marblehead also asserts that the Complaint fails to state a
claim against it, under the standard of Rule 12(b)(6). It argues
that the proposed claims under the FDCPA and MFDCPA are barred by
the one-year statute of limitations, that Plaintiffs do not
sufficiently allege that First Marblehead qualifies as a debt
collector under those statutes, and that Plaintiffs have failed to
allege any unfair or deceptive practice that would give rise to a
claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs do not directly respond to the arguments about the
statute of limitations and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. They
argue instead that First Marblehead's alleged relationship with
the other Defendants in this case provides a basis for concluding
that First Marblehead is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA and
MFDCPA.

The Complaint does allege that First Marblehead's subsidiaries
acted as Special Servicer and Administrator for the Trusts prior
to 2012, but that allegation does not support a reasonable
inference that a relationship existed between First Marblehead and
the other Defendants sufficient to hold First Marblehead liable
for the wrongdoing alleged in the Complaint, Thus, Plaintiffs have
therefore failed to state a claim against First Marblehead.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement is granted. The Motion to Dismiss
filed by the 13 National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts is
granted. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Wilmington Trust Company
is granted. The Motion to Dismiss filed by The First Marblehead
Corporation, now known as Cognition Financial Corporation, is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2aptfzfrom Leagle.com.

ANE C FORRESTER WINNE, Plaintiff, represented by CYNTHIA A. DILL,
LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA DILL, 511 Congress Street, Portland, Maine
04104-5011

JANE C FORRESTER WINNE, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM K.
MCKINLEY -wmckinley@troubhheisler.com  - TROUBH HEISLER.
SARAH N COFFEY, Plaintiff, represented by CYNTHIA A. DILL, LAW
OFFICE OF CYNTHIA DILL.

VICKIE L MCMULLEN, Plaintiff, represented by CYNTHIA A. DILL, LAW
OFFICE OF CYNTHIA DILL.

KARIN A HILLS, Plaintiff, represented by CYNTHIA A. DILL, LAW
OFFICE OF CYNTHIA DILL.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-1, Defendant,
represented by ADAM J. SHUB - ashub@preti.com - PRETI, FLAHERTY,
BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP, BRIAN D. ROTH - broth@sessions.legal.com
- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice, BRYAN C.
SHARTLE - bshartle@sessions.legal.com - SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN
& ISRAEL, pro hac vice, KRISTEN L. BURGE -
kburge@sessions.legal.com - SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL,
pro hac vice, MICHAEL D. ALLTMONT -  malltmont@sessions.legal.com
-SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice & MICHAEL
MESSERSCHMIDT - mmesserschmidt@preti.com - PRETI, FLAHERTY,
BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3, Defendant,
represented by ADAM J. SHUB, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS,
LLP, BRIAN D. ROTH, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac
vice, BRYAN C. SHARTLE, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro
hac vice, KRISTEN L. BURGE, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL,
pro hac vice, MICHAEL D. ALLTMONT, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL, pro hac vice & MICHAEL MESSERSCHMIDT, PRETI, FLAHERTY,
BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN J.
AROMANDO, -jaromando@pierceatwood.com - PIERCE ATWOOD LLP &
KATHERINE S. KAYATTA -kkayatta@pierceatwood.com - PIERCE ATWOOD
LLP.

ABRAHAMSEN RATCHFORD PC, Defendant, represented by DAVID S.
SHERMAN, JR. - dsherman@dwmlaw.com - DRUMMOND WOODSUM & KASIA S.
PARK - kpark@dwmlaw.com - DRUMMOND WOODSUM.

TURNSTILE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Defendant, represented by BRIAN D.
ROTH, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice, BRYAN C.
SHARTLE, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice, KRISTEN
L. BURGE, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac vice,
MICHAEL D. ALLTMONT, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, pro hac
vice, ADAM J. SHUB, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP &
MICHAEL MESSERSCHMIDT, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, Defendant,
represented by MICHAEL D. ALLTMONT, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL, pro hac vice, ADAM J. SHUB, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, &
PACHIOS, LLP & MICHAEL MESSERSCHMIDT, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, &
PACHIOS, LLP.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Defendant,
represented by MICHAEL D. ALLTMONT, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL, pro hac vice, ADAM J. SHUB, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, &
PACHIOS, LLP & MICHAEL MESSERSCHMIDT, PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, &
PACHIOS, LLP.


NATURAL HEALTH: Securities Class Action Stayed until Sept. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a securities class
action has been stayed until September 25, 2017.

In January 2016, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and its top executives in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On March 29, 2016, the Court consolidated these
actions under the caption Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-TJH-AFMx, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs,
Mahn Dao and Juan Wang, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi
& Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 29, 2016. The
consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
between March 6, 2015 and March 15, 2016 under (i) Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng, Timothy S.
Davidson and George K. Broady (together, the "Individual
Defendants"), and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Individual Defendants. The consolidated
complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its
business operations in China, including running an allegedly
illegal multilevel marketing business. The consolidated complaint
seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June
15, 2016. After full briefing and a hearing, the Court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss on December 5, 2016. On February 17,
2017, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint.
On April 14, 2017, the Court entered an order setting case
management deadlines for the case, which include the conclusion of
fact discovery in May 2018 and a final pretrial conference in
August 2018. On July 10, 2017, the Court entered a stipulation
between the parties, postponing all deadlines and staying the case
for thirty days to allow the parties to engage in settlement
discussions.

On July 17, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action. On July 18, 2017, the parties jointly filed a
stipulation and proposed order with the Court, seeking to extend
the stay for approximately sixty days to allow them an opportunity
to negotiate the terms of a written settlement agreement and
prepare and file the documentation necessary to obtain Court
approval of the settlement.

The Court entered the requested order on July 25, 2017, effecting
a further stay of the case until September 25, 2017.  If approved,
the proposed settlement will be fully funded by the Company's
insurers.  Defendants continue to believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them if a
settlement is not finalized and approved by the Court.

Natural Health is an international direct-selling and e-commerce
company.


OMEGA PROTEIN: Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Protein Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the lead plaintiff in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit has filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

In March and April of 2017, three class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and two of its officers. One of the lawsuits
was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and the other two lawsuits
were subsequently consolidated into one lawsuit.  On July 17,
2017, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

As with the pre-consolidated actions, the consolidated amended
complaint asserts claims against the Company and two of its
officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The
lead plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
during the period from August 6, 2013 through March 1, 2017. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by
alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions
by the Company and two of its officers, which allegedly operated
to inflate artificially the market price of the Company's
securities during the class period. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest thereon,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

Although the Company believes the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and intends to contest such litigation vigorously,
litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and we are not
able at this time to determine the outcome of this lawsuit or its
potential liability, if any. It is possible that an adverse result
in the litigation could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, reputation, results of operations and
financial condition. In addition, defending the lawsuit may be
costly and could require significant involvement of the Company's
senior management and divert management's attention from its
business and operations.

Omega Protein Corporation (the "Company") is a nutritional
products company that develops, produces and delivers products
throughout the world to improve the nutritional integrity of
foods, dietary supplements and animal feeds. The Company operates
through two industry segments: animal nutrition and human
nutrition.


ONEOK INC: Dismissed from Gas Index Pricing Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court in the Gas Index
Pricing Litigation has entered a final judgment dismissing these
actions with prejudice as to the COmpant and its affiliates.

The Company said, "In March 2017, the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the Court) entered an order granting
summary judgment in favor of our affiliate ONEOK Energy Services
Company, L.P. (OESC), the lone defendant in the previously
reported Sinclair case. The Court determined that the plaintiff's
claim is barred by a release obtained in a prior lawsuit against
us and OESC. Upon entry of a final judgment, Sinclair Oil
Corporation may pursue an appeal of this determination to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

"We expect that future charges, if any, from the ultimate
resolution of the Sinclair case will not be material to our
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

"In May 2017, the Court gave final approval to the previously
announced settlements of Learjet, Inc., et al. v. ONEOK, Inc., et
al. (filed in the District Court of Wyandotte, Kansas, in November
2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada); Arandell Corporation, et al. v. Xcel
Energy, Inc., et al. (filed in the Circuit Court for Dane County,
Wisconsin, in December 2006, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada); Heartland
Regional Medical Center, et al. v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in
the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, in March 2007,
transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada); and NewPage Wisconsin System v. CMS
Energy Resource Management Company, et al. (filed in the Circuit
Court for Wood County, Wisconsin, in March 2009, transferred to
MDL-1566 in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada and now consolidated with the Arandell case). Thereafter,
the Court entered a final judgment dismissing these actions with
prejudice as to us and our affiliates. The final judgment was not
appealed and became final and nonappealable in July 2017. The
amount paid to settle these cases was not material to our results
of operations, financial position or cash flows and was paid with
cash on hand."


ONEOK INC: Deal Reached Over Attorney's Fees
--------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that in the ONEOK Partners Class
Action Litigation, ONEOK Partners have entered into a settlement
concerning attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs' counsel.

In June 2017, ONEOK Partners settled two putative class action
lawsuits captioned Juergen Krueger, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ONEOK Partners, L.P., et al.
(filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma) and Max Federman, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. ONEOK Partners, L.P., et al.
(filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma) by agreeing to make certain disclosures
about the Merger Transaction in addition to those made in the
final proxy statement filed with the SEC.

The supplemental disclosure was filed with the SEC on June 12,
2017 and the Krueger and Federman actions were dismissed on June
14, 2017 as moot, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and
without prejudice as to any other members of a putative class.

In July 2017, ONEOK Partners entered into a settlement concerning
attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs' counsel in an amount
immaterial to the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows and was paid with cash on hand.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Join Micholle & Wasson Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthotech Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that putative lead
plaintiffs in the Micholle action have moved to consolidate the
Micholle and Wasson lawsuits.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016.
The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for
Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF drugs for the treatment of
wet AMD. The complaint seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On March 9, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. The complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 9, 2016. The
allegations made in the complaint are similar to those made in the
Micholle complaint. Putative lead plaintiffs in the Micholle
action have moved to consolidate the Micholle and Wasson actions.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable,
however, to predict the outcome of these matters at this time.
Moreover, any conclusion of this matter in a manner adverse to the
Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or damages not
covered by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance would have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition and business. In addition, the litigation could
adversely impact the Company's reputation and divert management's
attention and resources from other priorities, including the
execution of business plans and strategies that are important to
the Company's ability to grow its business, any of which could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business.

Ophthotech is a biopharmaceutical company specializing in the
development of novel therapeutics to treat ophthalmic diseases,
with a focus on orphan and age-related retinal diseases.


PROSPECT MEDICAL: Gauzza Sues Over Unpaid Interrupted Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY GAUZZA and MELISSA McCLOSKEY, for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC. and DELAWARE
COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:17-cv-03599-WB (E.D. Pa.,
August 10, 2017), seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 by knowingly suffering or
permitting employees with hands-on patient care responsibilities
to experience interrupted meal breaks without properly tracking
these interruptions or paying overtime wages due for these breaks.

Prospect is a privately-held Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Los Angeles, California.  Prospect currently
owns and operates 19 full-service hospitals in six states,
including seven hospitals in California, three hospitals in
Connecticut, one hospital in New Jersey, four hospitals in
Pennsylvania, one hospital in Rhode Island and three hospitals in
Texas.

DCMH is a 168-bed hospital that offers a broad range of acute and
specialized services.  Prospect acquired DCMH (along with Crozer-
Chester Medical Center, Springfield Hospital and Taylor Hospital)
in July 2016 by purchasing the Crozer-Keystone Health System.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


R1 RCM INC: Class Action Fairness Act Hearing Set for Oct. 4
------------------------------------------------------------
R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) hearing is set for October 4, 2017.

On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and Michigan Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed
payment plan in violation of those same statutes.

On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on
November 30, 2015.

Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed
all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a
confidential agreement in principle to settle the case.

On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in
principle and have filed the proposed class action settlement with
the Court, which will now conduct a Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) hearing on whether to approve of the settlement. Members of
the putative class have been notified of the settlement and are
given an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement
between now and the CAFA hearing on October 4, 2017.

If the settlement is approved, the Company will pay a total of
$1.3 million to a settlement fund to assist members of the class
pay off healthcare debt, to pay for class notice and
administration, to pay $15,000 to each of the named class
representatives and depending upon Court approval, to reimburse
plaintiff's attorneys' fees. If the settlement is not approved,
the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

R1 RCM Inc. (the "Company") is a provider of revenue cycle
management ("RCM") services and physician advisory services
("PAS") to healthcare providers.


RAGAN & RAGAN: Court Denies "Napolitano" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey, issued
an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, and denies Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend the
Complaint in the case captioned JESSICA NAPOLITANO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RAGAN &
RAGAN, A Professional Corporation and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-2732 (FLW) (D.N.J.).

Defendant Ragan & Ragan (Defendant), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c), moves for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to
Plaintiff Jessica Napolitano's Complaint, which accuses Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692.

Defendant mailed Plaintiff four substantially similar collection
letters, generic in form. Each of the collection letters were
printed on Defendant's law firm letterhead stating: "This is to
advise you that we have been retained by a creditor for the
collection of this debt."

Plaintiff filed this putative class action, one-count Complaint,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, alleging, inter alia, that Defendant violated Sections
1692e, 1692e(3), and 1692e(9) of the FDCPA by mailing collection
letters on its firm letterhead, containing an attorney signature
without it being from an attorney in any meaningful sense.
Defendant move for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit, and that Plaintiff failed
to state a claim under the FDCPA. In response, Plaintiff opposed
Defendant's motion, and at the same time, cross-moved to amend the
Complaint under Rule 15(a).
Motion to Amend

Plaintiff's motion to amend, Defendant does not argue, and the
Court does not find, that any undue delay, dilatory motive or
prejudice exists.  Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's
proposed amendments as to standing under Article III are futile.

To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must establish: (1) an
injury-in-fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

The Court finds that it is evident that Plaintiff alleges a
particularized and concrete injury, namely that the debt
collection letter sent to Plaintiff was allegedly deceptive by
falsely implying that an attorney had meaningfully reviewed the
case. Plaintiff avers that particular conduct violates the FDCPA.

Indeed, Plaintiff has a substantive, and not merely procedural,
statutory right under the FDCPA to be free from receiving
allegedly false or deceptive information relating to the
collection of a debt, the Court says.  Because of the alleged
violation, Plaintiff was placed at risk of economic injury by
potentially being deceived. Accordingly, Plaintiff has standing to
bring suit.

The FDCPA prohibits a broad range of false and misleading debt
collections activities. Relevant here, an attorney sending a debt
collection letter without having meaningfully reviewed the case
prior to issuing a collection letter falls within this broad range
of false and misleading activities or tactics.

Indeed, abuses by attorney debt collectors are more egregious than
those of lay collectors because a consumer reacts with far more
duress to an attorney's improper threat of legal action than to a
debt collection agency committing the same practice.

Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a claim under the FDCPA, the
Court finds.  Rather, Plaintiff has merely alleged that Defendant
violated the FDCPA by mailing four generic collection letters on
its firm letterhead, containing an electronically reproduced
facsimile of an attorney signature.

Plaintiff's sole theory of the case hinges on the presence of the
electronically reproduced attorney signature, and Plaintiff
provides no allegations surrounding the circumstances of the
letters that would imply that Defendant violated the FDCPA. In
other words, by only pointing to the electronically reproduced
attorney signature, Plaintiff accuses Defendant of violating the
FDCPA by failing to meaningfully review her collection files.

Contrary to Plaintiff's theory of the case, there is no authority
in this district that stands for the proposition that mere
presence of an electronically-reproduced attorney signatures is a
per se violation under the FDCPA. Hence, simply alleging that a
collection letter contains an electronic, facsimile of an attorney
signature cannot adequately plead a FDCPA violation under the
meaningful review standard.

Instead, Plaintiff must allege what specific elements of the
letters created the impression that the attorney who signed the
collection letters was not meaningfully involved. Similar
threadbare allegations regarding collection letters like the ones
at issue, have been found by courts in this district to be
insufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA.

In the present case, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled that
Defendant's collection letters were false or misleading. More
particularly, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged what aspects of
the letters would give the impression that the attorney did not
meaningfully review Plaintiff's files.

Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Additionally, Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to amend the Complaint is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y85gv5ugfrom Leagle.com.

JESSICA NAPOLITANO, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS -
Ari@MarcusZelman.com - MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

JESSICA NAPOLITANO, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN -
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com - Marcus Zelman, LLC.

RAGAN & RAGAN, Defendant, represented by W. PETER RAGAN, SR. -
wpr@raganlaw.com - RAGAN & RAGAN PC.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Name Lead Plaintiff under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a district court has
taken the motions to consolidate and to appoint a lead plaintiff
under submission.

The company said, "On January 31, 2017, a putative class action
complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court,
against us, Paul C. Grint (our former Chief Executive Officer),
and Joseph P. Hagan (then our Chief Operating Officer and
currently our President and Chief Executive Officer). The
complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the
complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27,
2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding our
business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our securities. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint
was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related.

"On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

"On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two
actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel
were filed in the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff
Motions.

"On June 2, 2017, the District Court took the Consolidation and
Lead Plaintiff Motions under submission.

"We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Regulus Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on discovering and developing first-in-class drugs
targeting microRNAs to treat diseases with significant unmet
medical need.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: $6.4M Settlement Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, that the
Court has granted final approval of the settlement of a securities
class action.

On January 6, 2017, the Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara (the "Court") issued an order (the "Order") preliminarily
approving the settlement proposed in the stipulation of settlement
by and among the plaintiff class and all named defendants in the
action, including the Company (the "Settlement"), in the
securities class action complaint captioned City of Warren Police
and Fire Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., et al,
Case No. 15-CV-287794, and directing that notice of the proposed
settlement be given to all members of the plaintiff class.

The Court scheduled a hearing on May 19, 2017 to, among other
things, make a final determination whether the Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court.
Following the hearing on May 19, 2017, the Court issued an order
ruling that, while it appeared that the claims process was
proceeding as expected, it was not yet complete.

The Court therefore postponed its decision regarding final
approval of the Settlement to a later hearing, set for July 28,
2017. At the hearing on July 28, 2017, the Court granted final
approval of the Settlement and indicated that the judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice would be entered forthwith,
thereby ending the litigation. This litigation did not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.

The Settlement will result in the creation of a cash settlement
fund of $6,400,000.  The Settlement Amount, plus accrued interest
and minus the costs of the Notice and all costs associated with
the administration of the Settlement, as well as any attorneys'
fees, expenses, and payment to Plaintiff for its time and expenses
in representing the Class that may be approved by the Court, will
be distributed to eligible Class Members pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation that is described in the Notice.

The law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Vanoverbeke
Michaud & Timmony, P.C. represent Class Members.

Additional information on the settlement is available at:

            http://www.revancesecuritiessettlement.com/


RIVERSIDE MOTORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farrar" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Farrar, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated people v. Riverside Motors, Inc., Hopkins And Raines,
Inc. and Prosperity Marketing, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00518-BSM
(Ark. Cir. Ct., August 15, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of placing non-emergency, automated and unsolicited ca1ls
to the Plaintiff and class members' cellular phones.

Riverside Motors, Inc. operates a used car dealership company at 8
Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72210.

Hopkins And Raines, Inc. and Prosperity Marketing, LLC operates a
marketing company in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray Baxter, Esq.
      Todd Turner, Esq.
      ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A.
      501 Crittenden Street P.O. Box 480
      Arkadelphia, AR 71923
      Telephone: (870) 246-9844
      Facsimile: (888) 866-9897


ROCKET FUEL: "Debnath" Suit Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Sizmek
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARNAB DEBNATH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROCKET FUEL INC., E. RANDOLPH WOOTTON III, MONTE
ZWEBEN, RICHARD A. FRANKEL, SUSAN L. BOSTROM, RONALD E. F. CODD,
WILLIAM W. ERICSON, CLARK M. KOKICH, and JOHN J. LEWIS, Case No.
3:17-cv-04615 (N.D. Cal., August 10, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Sizmek Inc.; in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 16, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement, by which Sizmek would commence a tender
offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Rocket Fuel
common stock for $2.60 per share in cash in a transaction valued
at approximately $145 million.

Rocket Fuel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware.  The Company maintains its principal
executive offices in Redwood City, California.  Rocket Fuel is a
predictive marketing platform.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


SABRA HEALTH: Care Capital Shareholder Suit in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, In re
Care Capital Properties, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, are in a
preliminary stage.

On May 7, 2017, the Company and the Operating Partnership entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Care Capital Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CCP"), PR
Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"), and Care Capital
Properties, L.P. ("CCPLP"), a Delaware limited partnership and
wholly-owned subsidiary of CCP. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
CCP will be merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with
Merger Sub continuing as the surviving entity in the Merger.
Following the Merger, also pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the
"Subsequent Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving
entity in the Subsequent Merger. Simultaneously with the
Subsequent Merger, also pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CCPLP
will be merged with and into the Operating Partnership (the
"Partnership Merger"), with the Operating Partnership continuing
as the surviving entity in the Partnership Merger.

Subsequent to its entry into the Merger Agreement, the Company,
the Operating Partnership and Merger Sub were named, in addition
to CCP and each member of CCP's board of directors (collectively,
"CCP Defendants"), in two putative class action lawsuits (Loeb v.
Care Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00866-UNA
(D. Del. June 30, 2017), and Klein v. Care Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., Case No 1:99-mc-09999 (D. Del. July 10, 2017)) filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Four other related actions have been filed against only the CCP
Defendants, three in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware (Gordon v. Care Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-00859-LPS; Vineyard v. Care Capital Properties, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00878-LPS; and Parrish v. Care Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00909-LPS) and one in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Douglas v. Care Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-04942).

The lawsuits all seek to recover under federal securities laws on
the basis that the joint proxy statement/prospectus included in
the registration statement filed by the Company with the SEC
purportedly omitted to disclose information necessary to make the
statements therein not materially false or misleading. The
lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction of the Merger;
dissemination of a revised registration statement; declarations
that the registration statement violated federal securities laws;
damages, including rescissory damages; and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On July 25, 2017, the five actions filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware were consolidated
under the lead-case caption In re Care Capital Properties, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00859-LPS. The
lawsuits are in a preliminary stage. The Company believes that
these actions are without merit.

Sabra's primary business consists of acquiring, financing and
owning real estate property to be leased to third party tenants in
the healthcare sector.


SALOV NORTH: Sweeney Appeals Order in "Kumar" Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Rohini Kumar, et al. v. Salov North America Corp.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02411-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as Rohini Kumar, et al. v. Salov
North America Corp., Case No. 17-16621, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Objector
Theodore H. Frank filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Rohini Kumar, et al.
v. Salov North America Corp., Case No. 17-16405.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has previously dismissed with
prejudice the case pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Settlement.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 11, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 10, 2017;

   -- Appellant Pamela Sweeney's opening brief is due on
      November 20, 2017;

   -- Appellees Rohini Kumar and Salov North America Corp.'s
      answering brief is due on December 20, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant PAMELA SWEENEY, of Madison, Wisconsin, appears
pro se.

Plaintiff-Appellee ROHINI KUMAR, an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee SALOV NORTH AMERICA CORP. is represented by:

          Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
          Mark E. Haddad, Esq.
          Nitin Reddy, Esq.
          Collin Partington Wedel, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6010
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
                  mhaddad@sidley.com
                  nreddy@sidley.com
                  cwedel@sidley.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Lawsuit Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court
has granted an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the
resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re
Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). The Deka
Lawsuit was brought against the Company, certain of its current
and former directors and executive officers and certain
institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12,
2014.

In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In
September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned
Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief.

On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, and on June
13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied.

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes, on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition to
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes, and on
March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief.

On July 11, 2017, the court granted an order staying the Deka
Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec.
Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June
15, 2017).

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the
holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Parmelee Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company's motion to dismiss the Parmelee lawsuit remains pending.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit).

On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit).

Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the
Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges
that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and
Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other
public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the
Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance
for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior
periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting
periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Parmelee Lawsuit.

On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee
Lawsuit alleges that the Company made false or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act
and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among
other things, the Company's change in its methodology for
estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such
allowance for prior periods in, among other public disclosures,
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2015, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings
for prior reporting periods. The amended class action complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other
relief.

On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Parmelee Lawsuit, on April 25, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on June 9, 2017, the
Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(together with its subsidiaries, SC or the Company), is the
holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and its subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Court Approves $700K Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of California,
issued an Order granting joint motion for approval of class action
settlement in the case captioned KIM ALLEN, LAINIE RIDEOUT and
KATHLEEN HAIRSTON, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. SIMILASAN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed this class action Complaint alleging that
Similasan Corporation (Similasan) engaged in false or deceptive
labeling of its homeopathic products.

Now pending before the Court is the parties' joint motion for
final approval of class action settlement.

The proposed Settlement Agreement applies to class members (Class
or Class Members) defined as purchasers of all Similasan
Corporation homeopathic Products nationwide for personal or
household use and not for resale.

The Settlement contemplates that Similasan will establish a fund
of $700,000.

The Ninth Circuit maintains a strong judicial policy that favors
the settlement of class actions.

The Court concludes that class certification under Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate in
this case.

The Court further finds that the Proposed Settlement is fair,
adequate and reasonable under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Court grants the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certifies the following Class for settlement purposes:
purchasers of all Similasan Corporation homeopathic Products
nationwide for personal or household use and not for resale, as
listed in Exhibit A to the Agreement from February 10, 2008 to the
present.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court finds that the named plaintiffs in this Action, Lainie
Rideout and Kathleen Hairston are members of the Settlement Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9zl7sswfrom Leagle.com.

Lainie Rideout, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood -
admin@consumersadvocate.com - Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.
Lainie Rideout, Plaintiff, represented by Dean A. Goetz -
dgoetz12@gmail.com - Law Offices of Dean A Goetz, Deborah S. Dixon
- ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com - Gomez Trial Attorneys, John P.
Fiske - Fiske@gomeztrialattorneys.com - Baron & Budd, P.C., John
H. Gomez -john@gomeztrialattorneys.com -  Gomez Trial Attorneys &
Ronald Marron - admin@consumersadvocate.com - Law Office of Ronald
Marron.

Kathleen Hairston, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Dean A. Goetz, Law Offices of Dean A
Goetz, Deborah S. Dixon, Gomez Trial Attorneys, John P. Fiske,
Baron & Budd, P.C., John H. Gomez, Gomez Trial Attorneys & Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron.

Similasan Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Gillette
- mgillette@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua Thomas
Foust -jfoust@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP.

Mark Brnovich, Amicus, represented by Brunn Wall Roysden, III,
Arizona Attorney General's Office.


SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Court Awards $175K Atty's Fees in "Allen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of California,
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's fees,
Costs and Incentive Award in the case captioned KIM ALLEN, LAINIE
RIDEOUT and KATHLEEN HAIRSTON, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
SIMILASAN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-00376-BAS-JLB
(S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs' counsel files an unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs and Incentive Award requesting $175,000 in attorneys' fees,
$102,544.12 reimbursement for costs, $105,000 to administer the
settlement and $2,500 each as incentive awards for the named
Plaintiffs Lainie Rideout and Kathleen Hairston.

The Court granted in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
and granted in part/denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  At a later date, with a Motion for Decertification
of the Class and an additional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
pending, the parties notified the Court they had reached a
settlement.

The Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

Plaintiffs claim that Similasan Corporation (Similasan) engaged in
false and deceptive labeling of its homeopathic products.
Plaintiffs claim Defendant's products are worthless because they
do not work, describing several of the products as mere high-
priced water.

Courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the
attorneys' fees and class representative awards, like the
settlement, are reasonable.

Turning first to the percentage of recovery method, the Court
notes that the $175,000 requested for attorneys' fees is 25% of
the $700,000 settlement fund and appropriately does not take into
consideration the additional injunctive relief obtained. Not
surprisingly, giving the long history of this case, the $175,000
is well below the lodestar amount in this case. Hence, the Court
finds the $175,000 requested is appropriate.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and
Incentive Awards.  The Court grants Plaintiff $175,000 in
Attorneys' Fees, $102,544.12 in Costs, $105,000 for administering
the Settlement, and $2,500 for each named plaintiff as an
incentive award.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/LGqpj1 from Leagle.com.

Lainie Rideout, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood -
admin@consumersadvocate.com - Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.
Lainie Rideout, Plaintiff, represented by Dean A. Goetz -
dgoetz12@gmail.com - Law Offices of Dean A Goetz, Deborah S. Dixon
- ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com - Gomez Trial Attorneys, John P.
Fiske - Fiske@gomeztrialattorneys.com - Baron & Budd, P.C., John
H. Gomez -john@gomeztrialattorneys.com -  Gomez Trial Attorneys &
Ronald Marron - admin@consumersadvocate.com - Law Office of Ronald
Marron.

Kathleen Hairston, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Dean A. Goetz, Law Offices of Dean A
Goetz, Deborah S. Dixon, Gomez Trial Attorneys, John P. Fiske,
Baron & Budd, P.C., John H. Gomez, Gomez Trial Attorneys & Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron.

Similasan Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Gillette
- mgillette@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua Thomas
Foust -jfoust@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP.
Mark Brnovich, Amicus, represented by Brunn Wall Roysden, III,
Arizona Attorney General's Office.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss an amended securities class action complaint with
prejudice remains pending.

On January 20, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock
between April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint alleges
that Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain former
Mississippi Power officers made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Kemper IGCC in violation of certain
provisions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
provided additional detail about their claims, increased the
purported class period by one day, and added certain other former
Mississippi Power officers as defendants. On July 27, 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint with prejudice.

Southern Company Gas is an energy services holding company whose
primary business is the distribution of natural gas through
utilities in seven states -- Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, New
Jersey, Florida, Tennessee, and Maryland. Southern Company Gas and
its subsidiaries are also involved in several other complementary
businesses.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Lacey-Siegfried Suit in Discovery Process
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, Carla
Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation,
and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation, is
currently in the discovery process.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of
Mexico Generadora de Energia S. de R.L. ("MGE") by Controladora de
Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect
subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"), the
Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012
(the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012 restructuring
of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to MGE for the
construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company's
Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring"). The action
purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common
stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE
Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties
and the Company's charter. The Company has filed a response
denying these allegations and is currently in the discovery
process.

Southern Copper is a majority-owned, indirect subsidiary of Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. ("Grupo Mexico"). At June 30, 2017, Grupo
Mexico through its wholly-owned subsidiary Americas Mining
Corporation ("AMC") owned 88.9% of the Company's capital stock.

Southern Copper is an integrated producer of copper and other
minerals, and operates mining, smelting and refining facilities in
Peru and Mexico. The Company conducts its primary operations in
Peru through a registered branch (the "Peruvian Branch" or
"Branch" or "SPCC Peru Branch"). The Peruvian Branch is not a
corporation separate from the Company. The Company's Mexican
operations are conducted through subsidiaries. The Company also
conducts exploration activities in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador,
Mexico and Peru.


SQUARE INC: Still Faces Independent Contractors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is involved
in a class action lawsuit concerning independent contractors in
connection with the Company's Caviar business.

On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as
amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other
similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in
doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code
and California Business and Professions Code by requiring them to
pay various business expenses that should have been borne by
Caviar.

The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims
on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
with prejudice on May 2, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a
Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr.
Levin filed his opening appellate brief regarding the order
compelling arbitration of his individual claims on October 7,
2016.

The Company filed its answering brief on December 7, 2016, and Mr.
Levin filed his reply on December 21, 2016. No hearing date has
been set. Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The
parties stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA
claim but that it may instead be pursued by a different courier.

Subsequently, couriers Nadezhda Rosen and La'Dell Brewster filed a
new PAGA-only claim in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco on November 7, 2016.
Plaintiffs claim that Caviar misclassified its couriers as
independent contractors resulting in numerous violations of the
California Labor Code, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek statutory
penalties for those violations. In February 2017, the Company
participated in a mediation with the parties in these Caviar
misclassification suits to explore resolution of the matters at
hand.

After continued negotiation, the parties reached a preliminary
global settlement of these suits, which is subject to final
approval by the arbitrator. The Company has made appropriate
accruals in the financial statements for the immaterial amounts
expected to be paid as settlement.

Square, Inc. creates tools that help sellers start, run, and grow
their businesses. Square enables sellers to accept card payments
and also provides reporting and analytics, next-day settlement,
and chargeback protection.


STAAR SURGICAL: Oct. 16 Hearing on "Todd" Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
STAAR Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court has scheduled
a final approval hearing regarding the settlement of the "Todd"
stockholder securities litigation for October 16, 2017.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and
omitted material information from our investors between February
27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at
STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility.

On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed
two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged
Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and
demanded compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. On July 10, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's
application for preliminary approval of a class action settlement
in the amount of $7,000,000. If finally approved, the Company's
insurance carriers will fund the entire settlement.

The court scheduled a final approval hearing regarding the
settlement for October 16, 2017. The Company has not recorded any
loss or accrual in the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements at June 30, 2017 and December 30, 2016 for
this matter.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used
to deliver the lenses into the eye.


SUNPOWER CORP: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bids Set for Aug. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that new motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff are set for hearing on August 31, 2017.

On August 16, 2016 and August 26, 2016, two securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the United Stat
`es District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's
securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016 (the
"Class Period"). The substantially identical complaints allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec.240.10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance of
the Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance
and generally allege that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

On December 9, 2016, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On March 31, 2017, the court granted
the lead plaintiff's motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff. Two
investor groups comprised of individual investors filed new
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff, which are set for hearing
on August 31, 2017. No operative complaint has been filed.

SunPower Corporation is a global energy company that delivers
complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power
plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware, software,
and financing options and through utility-scale solar power system
construction and development capabilities, operations and
maintenance ("O&M") services, and "Smart Energy" solutions.


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Appeal Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In January 2016 and March 2016, two securities
class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive
officer, our former chief operating officer and our former chief
financial officer, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. In May 2016, the court consolidated the
two lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in July
2016 and filed a second consolidated amended complaint in August
2016.

"The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged
class of those who purchased our common stock between March 5,
2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising under
Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

"In October 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety, which plaintiffs have opposed. Our
motion to dismiss was granted by the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts in May 2017. In July 2017
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. We believe we have valid defenses
against these claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of
such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") is a clinical-
stage biopharmaceutical company using its proprietary chemistry
technology to create novel antibiotics for serious and life-
threatening multidrug-resistant infections. The Company is
developing its lead product candidate, eravacycline, a fully-
synthetic fluorocycline, as an intravenous, or IV, and oral
antibiotic for use as a first-line empiric monotherapy for the
treatment of multidrug-resistant infections, including multidrug-
resistant, or MDR, Gram-negative infections. The Company is also
pursuing the discovery and development of additional antibiotics
that target unmet medical needs, including multidrug-resistant
Gram-negative bacteria.


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Sued by Firefighters Fund for Defrauding Gov't
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC.,
W. NICHOLAS HOWLEY, AND TERRANCE PARADIE, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677-
DCN (N.D. Ohio, August 10, 2017), involves an alleged fraudulent
and illegal scheme by TransDigm and its senior executives to
artificially inflate TransDigm's growth and profitability by price
gouging the U.S. Government.

TransDigm has recently been accused of operating as a hidden
monopoly and of engaging in waste, abuse and fraud against the
Government, the Plaintiff states.  Specifically, the Company has
engaged in a series of unreasonable price increases for products
for which it is the only supplier and also disguised its cost
structure and identity from Pentagon procurement officers, in
violation of the rules governing the bidding on such government
contracts.

TransDigm is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Cleveland, Ohio.  TransDigm designs, produces,
and supplies aircraft components to customers around the globe.
W. Nicholas Howley was, at all relevant times, Chief Executive
Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of
TransDigm.  Terrance Paradie was, at all relevant times, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TransDigm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO WILCOX PECA & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
          E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


TRANSENTERIX INC: Motions to Dismiss "Bankley" Case Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the motions to dismiss
the class action lawsuit by Ashok V. Bankley remains pending.

On June 2, 2016 a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery , in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the
"Initial Complaint"), against the Company and two of its executive
officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and
May 10, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under the
securities laws.

On August 30, 2016, the court appointed Randall Clark, Samir
Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association, and the North Underhill
Cemetery Association as the lead plaintiffs in the Initial
Complaint, and also provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to
amend the Initial Complaint.

On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts
revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery,
and adds claims against certain current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the
sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the
Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock
in its 2016 ATM Offering.   The Amended Complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements related to
the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in
violation of certain federal securities laws.  The Amended
Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class
certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock in connection with the 2016
ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which the plaintiffs later opposed.  As of January 23,
2017, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and deemed
submitted to the court for decision.

TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.


TRANSENTERIX INC: "Maine" Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, Scott Maine
vs. Paul LaViolette, et al., remains stayed.

On March 3, 2017, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of the Company, captioned Scott Maine vs. Paul
LaViolette, et al., in the Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Wake County, North Carolina (case number 17CV002590)
(the "Maine Action").  The complaint in the Maine Action is
substantially similar to the complaint in the Pikal Action,
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief against
largely the same group of defendants named in the complaint in the
Pikal Action.  On April 11, 2017, the court entered an order
staying the Maine Action pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Bankley Action.

TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Dismissal of Federal Securities Claims Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the dismissal of
federal securities claims is now final.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint
proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection
with the merger with the acquired company violated various
securities laws and that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees."

"On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Second Circuit"), but on March 17, 2016, the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 12, 2016.  On
June 27, 2017, the petition was denied and the dismissal is now
final."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Denial of Arbitration in 2 Cases Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an
opinion vacating the District Court Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and remanding the case for further
proceedings in the appeals cases captioned SPENCER MEYER,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-
Counter-Claimant-Appellant, TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendant-Appellant,
ERGO, Third-Party Defendant, Docket Nos. 16-2750-cv, 16-2752-cv
(2d. Cir.).

Plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee Spencer Meyer downloaded onto
his smartphone a software application offered by defendant-
counter-claimant-appellant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), a
technology company that operates, among other things, a ride-
hailing service. Meyer then registered for an Uber account with
his smartphone. After using the application approximately ten
times.

The district court joined Uber as a defendant and denied motions
by Kalanick and Uber to compel arbitration. In doing so, the
district court concluded that Meyer did not have reasonably
conspicuous notice of and did not unambiguously manifest assent to
Uber's Terms of Service when he registered. The district court
held that Meyer therefore was not bound by the mandatory
arbitration provision contained in the Terms of Service.

Uber offers a software application for smartphones (the Uber App)
that allows riders to request rides from third-party drivers.
Meyer registered for an Uber account with the Uber App on a
Samsung Galaxy S5 phone running an Android operating system. After
registering, Meyer took ten rides with Uber drivers in New York,
Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and Paris.

Below the input fields and buttons on the Payment Screen is black
text advising users that by creating an Uber account, you agree to
the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY. The capitalized phrase,
which is bright blue and underlined, was a hyperlink that, when
clicked, took the user to a third screen containing a button that,
in turn, when clicked, would then display the current version of
both Uber's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Meyer recalls entering his contact information and credit card
details before registering, but does not recall seeing or
following the hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions. He declares
that he did not read the Terms and Conditions, including the
arbitration provision.

The Terms of Service further provided that the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) would hear any dispute, and that the
AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules would govern any arbitration
proceeding.

Defendants timely appealed the district court's order denying the
motions to compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 16,
which permits interlocutory appeals from the denial of a motion to
compel arbitration.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), a written provision
in a contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter
arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable.

State law principles of contract formation govern the
arbitrability question. The Second Circuit agrees with the
district court's determination that California state law applies,
and note that New York and California apply "substantially similar
rules for determining whether the parties have mutually assented
to a contract term.

Where there is no evidence that the offeree had actual notice of
the terms of the agreement, the offeree will still be bound by the
agreement if a reasonably prudent user would be on inquiry notice
of the terms. Thus, only if the undisputed facts establish that
there is reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of
contract terms and unambiguous manifestation of assent to those
terms" will the Second Circuit finds that a contract has been
formed.

While new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new
situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of
contract, the Second Circuit holds.

Courts around the country have recognized that an electronic
'click' can suffice to signify the acceptance of a contract, and
that there is nothing automatically offensive about such
agreements, as long as the layout and language of the site give
the user reasonable notice that a click will manifest assent to an
agreement.

The Second Circuit considered whether Meyer was on inquiry notice
of the arbitration provision by virtue of the hyperlink to the
Terms of Service on the Payment Screen and, thus, manifested his
assent to the agreement by clicking "Register."

Defendants argue that Meyer is precluded from arguing that no
contract was formed by an allegation in his complaint that to
become an Uber account holder, an individual first must agree to
Uber's terms and conditions.

The Second Circuit disagrees. First, as the district court
observed, the pleading is not obviously a concession in that it
makes no reference to Meyer's knowledge. Second, Meyer volunteered
to amend his complaint on the record to delete the allegation at
issue, an offer that was accepted by the district court. Third,
regardless of the allegation or even the validity of Meyer's
amendment, Meyer has attested that, at the time he signed up for
an Uber account, he was not aware of the existence of the Terms of
Service or the arbitration clause contained therein.

In considering the question of reasonable conspicuousness,
precedent and basic principles of contract law instruct that the
Second Circuit considers the perspective of a reasonably prudent
smartphone user.

Turning to the interface at issue in this case, the Second Circuit
concludes that the design of the screen and language used render
the notice provided reasonable as a matter of California law.  The
Payment Screen is uncluttered, with only fields for the user to
enter his or her credit card details, buttons to register for a
user account or to connect the user's pre-existing PayPal account
or Google Wallet to the Uber account, and the warning that "By
creating an Uber account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE &
PRIVACY POLICY.

The Second Circuit disagrees with the district court's
determination that the location of the arbitration clause within
the Terms and Conditions was itself a barrier to reasonable
notice. The Second Circuit concludes that the Uber App provided
reasonably conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service as a matter
of California law and turn to the question of whether Meyer
unambiguously manifested his assent to those terms.

Although Meyer's assent to arbitration was not express, the Second
Circuit is convinced that it was unambiguous in light of the
objectively reasonable notice of the terms.

The fact that clicking the register button had two functions
creation of a user account and assent to the Terms of Service does
not render Meyer's assent ambiguous.

The Second Circuit concludes on the undisputed facts of this case
that Meyer unambiguously manifested his assent to Uber's Terms of
Service as a matter of California law.

The order of the district court denying defendants' motions to
compel arbitration is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
district court to consider whether defendants have waived their
rights to arbitration and for any further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's August 17, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yayfddhafrom Leagle.com.

JEFFREY A. WADSWORTH (Brian Marc Feldman, Edwin Michael Larkin,
III, Gregory M. Dickinson,1600 Bausch @ Lomb Place, Rochester, NY
14604 on the brief), Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester, New
York, and Bryan L. Clobes, Ellen Meriwether, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1101 Market
Street, Suite 2650,Philadelphia, PA 19107 and Matthew L. Cantor -
mcantor@constantinecannon.com - Ankur Kapoor -
akapoor@constantinecannon.com - Constantine Cannon LLP, New York,
New York, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee Spencer Meyer.
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR. (Daniel G. Swanson -
dswanson@gibsondunn.com - Cynthia E. Richman -
crichman@gibsondunn.com - Joshua S. Lipshutz -
jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com - Reed Brodsky - rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com
- on the brief), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles,
California, Washington, D.C., and New York, New York, for
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant Uber Technologies, Inc.
Karen L. Dunn, William A. Isaacson, Ryan Y. Park, Peter M.
Skinner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C., 1401 New
York Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20005 and New York, New York, for Defendant-
Appellant Travis Kalanick.

Jonathan D. Selbin, Jason L. Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor , New York, NY 10013
and Jahan Sagafi, Paul W. Mollica, Outten & Golden LLP, One
Embarcadero Center , 38th Floor , San Francisco, CA 94111 and
Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus Curiae Public Justice, P.C.
Alexander H. Schmidt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601 for Amici Curiae Law
Professors.

Rees F. Morgan - rmorgan@coblentzlaw.com - Mark L. Hejinian -
mhejinian@coblentzlaw.com -Skye D. Langs - slangs@coblentzlaw.com
- Coblentz Patch Duffy and Bass LLP, San Francisco, California,
for Amici Curiae Internet Association and Consumer Technology
Association.

Kate Comerford Todd, Warren Postman, U.S. Chamber Litigation
Center, Washington, D.C., and Andrew J. Pincus -
apincus@mayerbrown.com - Evan M. Tager - etager@mayerbrown.com -
Archis A. Parasharami -aparasharami@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae The Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America.


UNITED STATES: Approval of $100MM Deal in Takings Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Government's Motion for Reconsideration in the
case captioned Daniel and Kathy HAGGART, et al., For Themselves
and As Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 09-103L (Fed. Cl.).

This rails-to-trails takings class action is in a very unusual,
perhaps even unique, procedural posture.  A total of 520 class
members brought claims. After resolution of a number of motions
for partial summary judgment, extensive discovery, and lengthy,
detailed settlement negotiations assisted by a senior judge of
this court, 253 class members and the government reached a
settlement calling for payment of $110 million to class members,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs.

One class member, a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Woodley, owning
property that would receive just compensation under the
settlement, appealed the court's approval of the settlement and
award of common-fund attorneys' fees on the ground that class
counsel had not provided sufficient information in written form
(oral explanations had been provided) to class members that would
enable cross-checking calculations of the settlement amount to be
received by them.

In the appeal, the government changed position from that it had
taken at the fairness hearing and supported the Woodleys, but it
did not itself file an appeal or raise any additional issues on
appeal.

The court of appeals ruled that approval of the Settlement
Agreement was improper on the ground that written information had
to have been provided to enable class members to comparatively
calculate their amounts to be awarded, and it also reversed this
court's award of attorneys' fees under a common fund.8 In short,
the court of appeals vacated the court's approval of the
Settlement Agreement and remanded the case for further action by
this court.

The government has taken the position that the vast majority of
class [m]embers own no property interest in the railroad corridor
and are entitled to nothing. With this further change of position,
the government seeks to negate the unconditional, comprehensive
Settlement Agreement that the government executed with the class.
The Federal Circuit held that the Settlement Agreement was and
remains a binding and enforceable contract. The court also
considered the district court's decision in the Western District
of Washington that addressed some of the properties at issue here,
concluding that the decision "is not binding on this court and
cannot and does not affect the enforceability of the Settlement
Agreement.

The government has moved for reconsideration of this court's
decision.

With respect to this court's approval of the Settlement Agreement,
the Federal Circuit articulated the "precise issue" presented on
appeal by the Woodleys:

     "The precise issue before us is whether the Claims Court
abused its discretion by finding class counsel's act of
explaining, as opposed to physically providing objecting class
members with a copy of the final spreadsheet detailing the precise
methodology used to calculate the allocation of their property
values, satisfied the requirement that the settlement agreement be
fair, reasonable and adequate."

The government contends that the Federal Circuit vacated this
court's prior judgment in its entirety to encompass the Settlement
Agreement itself but that position is inconsistent with the
Federal Circuit's decision. Given the scope of the Woodleys'
appeal, the court of appeals addressed whether class counsel's
explanations sufficiently permitted class members to evaluate
their respective property valuations and compare those values
across the class.

The Federal Circuit therefore explained that the government's
acquiescence that the settlement agreement in total was fair,
reasonable, and adequate is not inconsistent with the government's
current assertion that class counsel failed to provide adequate
disclosure of how the settlement agreement was distributed among
every individual class member.

In the context of the Federal Circuit's opinion, the court of
appeals only vacated this court's approval of the Settlement
Agreement and award of common-fund attorneys' fees.

Compliance with the Federal Circuit's Mandate

In accord with the Federal Circuit's mandate, this court initially
sought to ensure that all information pertinent to the appraisal
process was made available to class members in written form.
Class counsel, counsel for the Woodleys, and the government have
thus had the opportunity to seek any and all relevant documents
through discovery. Indeed, the government manifestly has had the
three spreadsheets throughout the course of the remand
proceedings, and notably it attached the three disputed
spreadsheets to its motion for reconsideration, making them a
matter of public record.

Issues with respect to the spreadsheets thus have no bearing on
this court's most recent decision or the government's pending
motion for reconsideration.

A contract may be abandoned as the result of a written or verbal
agreement, or by the acts and conduct of the parties. With respect
to conduct, the acts of the parties must be positive, unequivocal
and inconsistent with an ntent to be further bound by the
contract.

Here, the government's reliance on class counsel's conduct is
misplaced. Class counsel's exchanges with class members reflect
his effort to comply with the Federal Circuit's mandate and
provide class members with sufficient information and
documentation, not an intent to abandon the Settlement Agreement.
Thus, the government has not met its burden of demonstrating that
the parties unequivocally intended to abandon the Settlement
Agreement.

Enforceability of the Settlement Agreement

The attachment to the Settlement Agreement presented to the court
in 2014, however, specifies the amount allocated to each class
member before consideration of attorneys' fees. Settlement
Agreement, Attach. B. That attachment can therefore stand on its
own and allocate the full $110 million settlement amount, plus
interest, to class members.

At this juncture, class counsel and the Woodleys have proposed
allocating the $110 million to class members in accord with the
allocations set forth in the Settlement Agreement presented to the
court in 2014, but without the possibility of any reduction for
common fund-attorneys' fees.

The government finally argues that the court lacks the authority
to bind the government to the Settlement Agreement but such a
contention is misguided.

The government's argument is unpersuasive because, as discussed
supra, the court of appeals only addressed the documentary
disclosure provided to class members with respect to individual
allocations, not the Settlement Agreement itself or any other
aspect of that Agreement. The government even agreed that the
Settlement Agreement was undisturbed until the recent district
court decision in Washington.

Where a defendant changes its position regarding a settlement in
light of a new legal development, courts have uniformly concluded
that a change in law will not affect the binding nature of a
settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement therefore remains a
binding and enforceable contract.

The government's motion for reconsideration is denied

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' August 17, 2017,
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y72dcv59from
Leagle.com.

DANIEL HAGGART, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald -
WALD@SWM.LEGAL - Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

KATHY HAGGART, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

GORDON ARTHUR WOODLEY, Plaintiff, represented by David Charles
Frederick - dfrederick@kellogghansen.com - Kellogg, Hansen, et al.
DENISE L. WOODLEY, Plaintiff, represented by David Charles
Frederick, Kellogg, Hansen, et al.

WESTPOINT PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cleveland Square, LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

RC TC Meridian Ridge LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

TWOSONS LLC, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gretchen Chambers, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

William Ames, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


U.S. BANCORP: Court Orders "Hopkins" Case Closed
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss
the amended complaint in the case captioned LOUIS HOPKINS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
U.S. BANCORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-552 (S.D.
Ohio).  The Court also ordered the case closed.

This civil action is before the Court on Defendants' motion to
dismiss and the parties' responsive memoranda.

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court must: (1) view
the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff; and (2)
take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.

This is a class action seeking damages for Plaintiff and the class
he seeks to represent, consisting of all hourly paid employees who
worked for Defendants in the United States, and who were not paid
for all hours worked (Class).  Defendants allegedly entered into a
compensation agreement with Plaintiff and the Class members
whereby Defendants agreed to compensate them an hourly wage for
every hour worked.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates
to test the sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal of
a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires
that the complaint contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The indefiniteness of the agreement as alleged by Plaintiff is
sufficient to defeat Plaintiff's breach of contract claims, the
Court held.  The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was paid an
annual salary based on Defendant's calculation of 2080 working
hours per year when the true number of working hours per year was
either 2088 or 2096, leaving either 8 or 16 hours per year unpaid
(this difference is based on the difference between 52 weeks and
365 (or 366) days).

Even at Plaintiff's lowest salary, 2080 hours at $15.68 per hour
is greater pay than the 2096 hours at $15 per hour that Plaintiff
has alleged he was promised, the Court noted.  Defendant more than
adequately compensated Plaintiff even if the oral agreement
alleged by Plaintiff is considered a binding contract, the Court
concluded.

The claims in Plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed. The
Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, the case is be
closed in the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 17, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycldc22hfrom Leagle.com.

Louis Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Wesley Matthew Nakajima,
O'Connor, Acciani & Levy., 1014 Vine St., Suite 2200. Cincinnati,
OH 0 513-241-7111

Louis Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos V. Leach, Morgan &
Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice & Barry David Jacobson Levy, O'Connor
Acciani & Levy. 1014 Vine St. Suite 2200, Cincinnati, OH 45202

U.S. Bancorp, Defendant, represented by Angelique Paul Newcomb -
anewcomb@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C., Andrew J. Voss -
avoss@littler.com - Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Anthony
de Sam Lazaro, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.

U.S. Bank National Assocation, Defendant, represented by Angelique
Paul Newcomb - anewcomb@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Andrew J. Voss, Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Anthony de
Sam Lazaro, Littler Mendelson, P.C., 1300 IDS Center80 South 8th
StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice.


US XPRESS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in "Ayala" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., and U.S. Xpress, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Anthony
Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-
00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 15,
2017, the Honorable George H. Wu granted the Plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of
the California Labor Code and California Industrial Commission
Wage Orders, including failure to provide meal and rest periods
and failure to compensate for all hours of work performed.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80157, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Kan, Esq.
          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin Lee Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 North Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Petitioners U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., and U.S.
XPRESS, INC., are represented by:

          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          10 West Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  jtaylor@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          2 North Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          30 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7181
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com


VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval Hearing Reset to October 18
------------------------------------------------------------
The August 17, 2017 final fairness hearing on the settlement of
the Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation has been rescheduled for
October 18 at 9:30 a.m.

According to Verisk Analytics, Inc. 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, the Company was served
on September 9, 2015, with a nationwide putative class action
complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County in
Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp") titled Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.
and The Cato Corporation et al. Defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
October 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior
complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against
Intellicorp, namely (i) a section 1681k(a) claim on behalf of all
individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished
by Intellicorp, which contained  public record  information in the
"Government Sanctions" section of the report on or after Sept. 4,
2013 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared,
and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim  on behalf of all individuals
who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished  by
Intellicorp, which contained  public record  information in the
"Government Sanctions" section of the report where the address or
social security number of the subject of the report do not match
the social security number or address contained in the government
database on or after Sept. 4, 2013 and continuing through the date
the class list is prepared.

Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring  consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III
allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy
of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and
FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to
assure that the public record information reported, which was
likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and
up to date, respectively. The Amended Complaint alleges that
defendants acted willfully and seeks statutory damages for the
classes in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not
more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages,
equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On April 24, 2017, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation in
a Settlement Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement on the same day.
The settlement provides for a non-material cash payment by the
Company, as well as certain non-monetary relief.

Specifically, IntelliCorp has agreed to provide a settlement fund
of $1,100,000.00.  This money will be divided among the Settlement
Class Members, and will also be used to pay for any Court-approved
attorneys' fees, costs, and Class Representative award.

The exact amount each Settlement Class Member will receive will
depend on the amount of fees, costs, and award, as well as the
number of settlement participants.   There are 4,791 class
members.

Although the exact amount will vary depending on the amount of
attorneys' fees, costs, and Class Representative award, and
exclusions, it is expected that Settlement Class Members will
receive $136.37.

In addition, IntelliCorp has agreed to implement certain processes
for the next five years: it will conduct a manual review of each
background report it furnishes on each Settlement Class Member
before such report is completed; it will verify any Government
Sanctions hit records during the preparation of background reports
at the source; and prior to utilizing any additional database
information for Government Sanctions product, IntelliCorp will
conduct a special audit of such database.

The District Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval on
April 25, 2017.

Additional information is available at:

           http://www.intellicorplegrandclassaction.com/

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement of Interthinx Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, 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 final approval
hearing of the settlement in the case, Interthinx, Inc.
Litigation, has been postponed until sometime in late August 2017.

On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics,
Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and
individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who
were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims
that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. The parties agreed to resolve this matter with
the Company's contribution of a non-material amount in the Class
Action Settlement Agreement executed on November 8, 2016. For
settlement purposes only, this matter was consolidated with a
related action pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in which
the Company is not a party, titled Sager v. Interthinx. On
February 21, 2017, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved the
settlement at the preliminary approval hearing and the final
approval hearing has been postponed until sometime in late August
2017.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VERISK ANALYTICS: 10th Cir. Declined to Reverse Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, 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 in the Insurance
Services Office, Inc. Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit has denied the Appellants' motion for en banc
reconsideration of the Appeals Court's affirmance of the dismissal
of the case.  The Appellants had until August 24, 2017 to petition
the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and ISO. Except for the Company,
ISO and the defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard
forms to assist in insurance transactions, most of the other
defendants are property and casualty insurance companies that
plaintiffs claim conspired to underpay property damage claims.
Plaintiffs claim that the Company and ISO, along with all of the
other defendants, violated state and federal antitrust and
racketeering laws as well as state common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint.

On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as
the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly
alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay property damage
claims, but does not specifically allege what role the Company or
ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims that the Company
and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state
and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state
common law, and seeks all available relief including injunctive,
statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees.

On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on
February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants' motion to strike
the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave
plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in
accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016
and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the
Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court
of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of
the Court's January 15, 2016 dismissal.

Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal
on July 21, 2016 and Appellees filed their brief in response on
September 21, 2016.  On April 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals for
the 10th Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the Third
Amended Complaint.  A copy of that decision is available at:

       https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1111.pdf

Appellants filed a motion for en banc reconsideration of the 10th
Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal of the Third Amended
Complaint which was denied on May 26, 2017.

Appellants had until August 24, 2017 to petition the Supreme Court
for a writ of certiorari.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Group 1 Has Payment from Emissions Scandal Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. has received settlement payments fro
Volkswagen and Audi, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In late June 2016, Volkswagen agreed to pay up to an aggregate of
$14.7 billion to settle claims stemming from the diesel emissions
scandal, including claims from customers and automotive dealers.

In October 2016, the Company received notification from Volkswagen
that it is entitled to receive, in the aggregate, approximately
$13.2 million in connection with the Company's current and prior
ownership of seven Volkswagen dealerships in the U.S. The Company
accepted and executed the offer in the fourth quarter of 2016 and
received half of the compensation in a lump sum amount in January
2017 with the remaining amount to be paid over 18 months.

The Company has received five of the remaining 18 monthly
installments as of June 30, 2017. The Company recognized the
entire settlement as an offset to Selling, General and
Administrative Expenses ("SG&A") in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Also, in conjunction with the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal,
Volkswagen agreed in March 2017 to settle allegations of damages
by the Company relative to its three Audi branded dealerships. The
Company received the cash and recognized the settlement as an
offset to SG&A in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of
Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2017.

Through its dealerships, Group 1 sells new and used cars and light
trucks; arranges related vehicle financing; sells service and
insurance contracts; provide automotive maintenance and repair
services; and sells vehicle parts.


VOYA FINANCIAL: "Dezelan" Plaintiffs May File Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a court has granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the case, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company, but permitted the plaintiff to file
an amended complaint.

Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC
District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251) (filed July 26, 2016),
is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a
403(b) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are
invested in Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("VRIAC") "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff
alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees and
setting its own compensation in connection with stable value
products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. On July 7, 2017,
the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but
permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Voya Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively the
"Company") is a financial services organization in the United
States that offers a broad range of retirement services,
annuities, investment management services, mutual funds, life
insurance, group insurance and supplemental health products.


VOYA FINANCIAL: "Patrico" Plaintiffs Filed Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiff in the
case, Patrico v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al., has filed an
amended complaint.

Patrico v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al (USDC SDNY, No. 1:16-cv-
07070) (filed September 9, 2016), is a putative class action in
which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) Plan, seeks to
represent a class of plans "for which Voya or its subsidiaries
provide recordkeeping, investment management or investment
advisory services and for which Financial Engines provides
investment advice to plan participants." Plaintiff alleges that
the Company and its affiliates have violated ERISA by charging
unreasonable fees in connection with in-plan investment advice
provided in conjunction with Financial Engines, a third-party
investment adviser. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

On June 20, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. On July 19, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

Voya Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively the
"Company") is a financial services organization in the United
States that offers a broad range of retirement services,
annuities, investment management services, mutual funds, life
insurance, group insurance and supplemental health products.


WD SERVICES: Accused by "Gray-Lingle" Suit of Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
XUANDAO GRAY-LINGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WD SERVICES LLC; DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01661-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., August 10,
2017), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading his privacy.

WD Services LLC is a pay-day lender.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Singh"
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate judge Edmund F. Brennan of the United States District
Court, Eastern District of California, issued a Findings and
Recommendation granting defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim in the case
captioned RAJ SINGH and KAREN SINGH, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK and
DOES 1 through 1000, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-2664-JAM-EFB PS (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs generally allege that defendant has engaged in a policy
of misleading and discriminating against borrowers by charging
erroneous fines and costs. Defendant also allegedly denied short
sales, loan modification and other foreclosure alternatives
illegally and in misleading ways.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action; it must contain
factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by lawyers.

Defendant argues that the complaint must be dismissed for failure
to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. Defendant
further argues that, to the extent plaintiffs' claims are
predicated on the foreclosure of the subject property, they are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

In his opposition, plaintiff Raj Singh appears to acknowledge that
the complaint is deficient and provides additional factual
background concerning the foreclosure of the subject property. He
also filed a proposed first amended complaint, which he intends to
serve as a more definite statement.

Mr. Singh explains that this action was filed primarily to correct
the amount of cancelled debt. He explains that Ms. Singh obtained
a loan from defendant in the amount of $357,000, which was secured
by a deed of trust on the subject property.

Mr. Singh's opposition and proposed amended complaint demonstrate
that leave to amend would be futile. First, Mr. Singh's claim that
defendant purchased the property without tendering payment, even
if true, does not provide a basis for relief.

Mr. Singh's contention that defendant wrongfully reported a debt
to the IRS also fails to provide a basis for liability. Mr. Singh
claims that defendant should not have reported a debt to the IRS
because any debt owed to defendant was extinguished upon
foreclosure of the property.

Accordingly, contrary to Mr. Singh's contention, the unsatisfied
portion of the debt was not extinguished after the foreclosure of
the subject property, and therefore the reporting of the remaining
debt fails to support a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As it is clear from the facts already presented by plaintiff that
granting leave to amend would be futile, it is recommended that
plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim be granted.

A full-text copy of the magistrate's August 17, 2017 Findings and
Recommendations is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya5cz84mfrom
Leagle.com.

Raj Singh, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Karen Singh, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant, represented by Megan Catherine Kelly
- mck@severson.com -  Severson & Werson.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Accrued $0.8M Jury Award in Short Break Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as of June 30, the
Company had accrued for the $0.8 million jury's award in the short
break matter and had not accrued for the sleeper berth matter.

The Company said, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this
class action suit is August 2008 through March 2014. The case was
tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of $0.8
million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter. As of June 30,
2017, we had accrued for the jury's award in the short break
matter and had not accrued for the sleeper berth matter."

"We are also involved in certain class action litigation in which
the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.
Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations. However, the final disposition of these matters and
the impact of such final dispositions cannot be determined at this
time."

Werner operates in the truckload and logistics sectors of the
transportation industry.


WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Faces "Gladden" Adversary Proceeding in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Gladden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, et al., Case No.
17-01109-mew (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2017), is an adversary
proceeding brought to recover money/property.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC provides nuclear power plant
products and services to utilities worldwide.  The Company
primarily engages in the development, licensing, detailed
engineering, project management, and component manufacturing, as
well as provision of startup support for new nuclear power
plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          201 S. Washington Avenue
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 434-8259
          E-mail: vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com
                  molsen@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sam@lankmill.com


WESTSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six,
issued an Opinion denying Defendant Weststar Transportation,
Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned GUY
BEAUDOIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WESTSTAR
TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, 2d Civil
No. B271072 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff employees bring a class action against their employer in
which they allege employment law violations.

The employer moves to compel arbitration of the dispute. The
company requires its employees to sign an arbitration agreement
when they are hired.

Weststar Partnership (Weststar) is engaged in the business of
transporting pipe and related materials to various locations in
California.

Guy Beaudoin, a former employee of Weststar, brought a class
action alleging illegal employment practices resulting in the
violation of various Labor Code sections and corresponding wage
and hour regulations and for unfair business practices.

The agreement was not signed by anyone from Weststar. Nor is there
a place on the agreement for a signature by a Weststar official.
Beaudoin opposed the motion for arbitration on the grounds: (1)
the arbitration agreement is with Weststar, Inc. and not with the
employer, Weststar Partnership; (2) Weststar breached the
agreement and acted in bad faith by coercing employees to sign
agreements opting out of the lawsuit; and (3) the arbitration
agreement is unconscionable.

The trial court did not rule on Weststar's motion to compel
arbitration. Instead, it granted Beaudoin leave to amend his
complaint by adding another Weststar former employee, Joram
Cortez, as plaintiff.

The trial court denied Weststar's motion to compel arbitration.
Weststar did not request a statement of decision.

Weststar contends the trial court erred in finding that the
arbitration agreement is unenforceable for lack of mutuality.
The party seeking arbitration has the burden of proving the
existence of an arbitration agreement. (Pinnacle Museum Tower
Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th
223, 236 (Pinnacle).) Thus Weststar bears the burden of proving
the agreement is between Weststar Partnership and its employees,
and not Weststar, Inc.

Weststar did not request a statement of decision. A statement of
decision is required for the denial of a motion to compel
arbitration upon a timely request. In the absence of a statement
of decision, we indulge in all intendments and presumptions in
favor of the judgment or order. Thus we presume the trial court
considered Corriea's declaration and rejected it for lack of
sufficient verity.

Weststar contends the trial court erred in finding the arbitration
agreement unconscionable.

In any event, there is more here that militates against the
enforcement of the agreement than the modest degree of
unconscionability that Weststar acknowledges.

First, the employer identified in the arbitration agreement,
Weststar, Inc., is not the plaintiffs' employer. The trial court
found it was not a typographical error. Assuming that Weststar,
Inc. is a typographical error, it would be unconscionable to
enforce the agreement. Weststar claims it did not know the
contents of its own agreement. Yet it expects its employees to
know the contents of the agreement and abide by its terms.

Second, Weststar also breached its own arbitration agreement. The
paragraphs contemplate prior written notice, a reasonable period
to consider the matter, a private meeting and good faith
discussions aimed at reaching a resolution of the dispute by
consensus of both parties. None of that happened.

Instead, employees were summoned without prior notice to a meeting
with their superior and handed pre-printed settlement agreements.
The settlement checks were available at the meeting and contained
the employee's name preprinted on the check, thus making it
obvious that Weststar not only expected the employee to sign the
settlement agreement, but to sign it right then and there.

The judgment order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s August 17, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb7sloaafrom Leagle.com.

Call & Jensen, John T. Egley, 610 Newport Center DriveSuite
700Newport Beach, CA 92660 and Jamin S. Soderstrom -
jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com - for Defendants and Appellants
Weststar Transportation, Inc. and Weststar Partnership.

Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han - dhan@justicelawcorp.com -
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh - statavos@justicelawcorp.com - Daniel J.
Park - dpark@justicelawcorp.com - and Joy D. Llaguno -
jllaguno@justicelawcorp.com - for Plaintiffs and Respondents Guy
Beaudoin and Joram Cortez.


WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Faces "Koppers" Suit Over Defective Joists
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN KOPPERS and JEFFREY KOPPERS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Case No.
6:17-cv-06557 (W.D.N.Y., August 10, 2017), arises out of alleged
damages sustained by the Plaintiffs and the Class that were
proximately caused by Weyerhaeuser's defective TJI Joists with
Flak Jacket Protection used in the construction of their homes and
other structures.

Weyerhaeuser manufactured the alleged defective Joists, and since
at least December 2016, sold and distributed the Joists throughout
New York and the United States for installation in homes and other
structures.

Weyerhaeuser Company is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.
Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest forest products
companies, controlling 13.1 million acres of timberlands,
primarily in the United States, and managing additional
timberlands under long-term licenses in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joe Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net


WILLBROS GROUP: Lead Plaintiffs' Bid to Reinstate Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros 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 Lead Plaintiffs' motion
asking the Court to reconsider its order in 2016 dismissing
certain claims remains pending.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters Related to the Company's October
21, 2014 Press Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended
June 30, 2014

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer. On
January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems
as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant John T.
McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had succeeded
Mr. Harl, and claims regarding the restatement of the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014. On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs
filed a second amended consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified
damages and asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based
on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the SEC filings and
other public disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal
controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance
with debt covenants and liquidity, certain financial results and
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part. On July 22, 2016, the
Company filed an answer to the suit denying the remaining
allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding
internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment and
Mr. Harl's departure.

On June 28, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court
to reconsider its order in 2016 dismissing certain claims and
allow Lead Plaintiffs to replead two of the claims the Court has
dismissed; the Company opposes the motion.

The Company continues to vigorously defend against the Lead
Plaintiffs' allegations, which the Company believes are without
merit. The Company is not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Willbros Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its
subsidiaries, is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor
serving the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that
primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities
development services. The Company's principal markets for
continuing operations are the United States and Canada. The
Company obtains its work through competitive bidding and
negotiations with prospective clients. Contract values range from
several thousand dollars to several hundred million dollars, and
contract durations range from a few weeks to more than two years.
The Company has three reportable segments: Oil & Gas, Utility T&D
and Canada.


XPO LOGISTICS-SC: "Lo" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chimeng Lo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. XPO Logistics-SC of Texas, LLC and XPO Logistics, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-00674-O (N.D. Tex., August 15, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
litigation costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing transportation and
logistics services throughout the United States and globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe St.
      Austin, TX 78701
      E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com

         - and -

      Scotty Jones, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1110 E. Weatherford Street
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 339-1185
      Facsimile: (817) 810-0050
      E-mail: sjones@dunhamlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 679-5000
      Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
      E-mail: mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com




                             *********


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  * * *