---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Monday, October 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 214



                            Headlines

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays "Cobble" Class Cert Bid
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: $1.3MM Settlement in "Anger" Has Final Approval
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Awaits Court Approval
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Ruling in Cambridge Suit Under Appeal

AMERICAN RENAL: Still Defends "Esposito" Class Action
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Accord in Moses, et al. Suit Awaits Final OK
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Suit by Wilchfort, et al. Underway
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Defending Against "Abouzied" Class Suit
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Cable Modem Consumer Litigation Underway

ASHFORD INC: Stockholder Class Action Closed
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: 2nd Bid to Certify "Hargreaves" Class Denied
AVINGER INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Atty in Securities Suit
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit over Miller Energy IPO
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit by FBR Shareholders Dismissed

BANK MUTUAL: "Schumel" Suit Remanded to Milwaukee State Court
BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Firefighters' Pension Trust Underway
BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Robert Hossfeld Underway
BBX CAPITAL: Suit over Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited Ongoing
BLACKROCK INC: Class Suit by iShares ETFs Investors Underway

BLACKROCK INC: Suit Related to Employee 401(k) Plan Underway
BLITCHTON MARATHON: Ocejo Appeals Order in "Swope-Kreiser" Suit
BOOZ ALLEN: Says Stockholder Action Underway in E.D. Virginia
BSN MEDICAL: Ct. Refuses to Certify "RJF" Class Without Prejudice
CANADA: Injured Veterans Raise Money for Class Action

CANADA: Wedgewood Residents Mull Class Action Over Sloping Issue
CARE CAPITAL: Shareholder Litigation Underway
CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Court Refuses to Remand "Crummie" Wage Suit
CITIZENS COMMUNITY: "Parshall" Class Suit Underway
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Pension Fund Class Suit Underway

COLUMBUS, GA: Settlement in "Harrison" Suit Has Final Approval
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Actions Against Sheriff's Office Pending
COWEN INC: Supreme Court Appeal Mulled in "Fletcher" Case
CU BANCORP: Shareholder Suits over PacWest Merger Dismissed
CVS HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Class Suit by Indiana Fund

CVS HEALTH: Corcoran and Podgorny Suits Remain Pending
CVS HEALTH: Appeal in "Barchock" Suit Underway
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Transfer Bewley & Prescott Suits to NJ Pending
CVS HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Suit by Klein, et al.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Suit in Arkansas

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Mississippi Suit Remand to State Court
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Makris" Class Suit Pending
ENTEROMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Two Data Breach Class Actions in Richmond

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Dougherty" Action Underway
ETSY INC: Appeal in "Altayyar" Case Underway
ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes & Weiss Actions in Early Stage
EXXON MOBIL: Court OKs Stipulated Protective Order in "Goldstein"
FCA US: Bid to File Third Party Suit v. J&E Auto Denied

FCA US: Sanction for Spoliation Partly Imposed in "Victorino"
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Remains Pending
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Says 75% of Funds in Escrow Account
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: No Trial Date in Cash Advance Litigation
FIRST HORIZON: Class Action Related to Merger Underway

FITBIT INC: Can Compel Arbitration for Opt-Ins in "McLellan" Suit
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suit Pending
HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Underway
HORTONWORKS INC: Settlement in "Monachelli" Case Wins Final OK

HSBC: Settles US Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of "Riffey" Class Certification
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Donato" Suit Underway
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Motion Conference Held in Securities Suit
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Says Merger Class Suits Dismissed

ITERIS INC: Settlement of Stockholder Suit Has Final OK
JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Retirement Plan Suit Underway
KEMET CORP: Discovery in Antitrust Case to End by Dec. 29
KEMET CORP: Says TOKIN Paid Initial Installment Payments
LAUREATE EDUCATION: Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Denied

LIONS GATE: Trial in Stockholder Suit to Commence 2019
LIPOCINE INC: Utah Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss "Lewis" Suit
LUMOS NETWORKS: Class Suits over EQT Merger Dismissed
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Motion to Dismiss Rockford Suit Due Dec. 11
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suits Combined

MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Securities Class Suits Underway in D.C.
MERCK & CO: Sales Force Litigation Remains Pending
MERCK & CO: Hearing Held on Settlement of K-DUR Antitrust Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Owens" Suit
MGM RESORTS: Says Appeal over Class Action Settlement Underway

MOYA HOLDINGS: Indonesian Supreme Court Dismisses Class Action
NL INDUSTRIES: Says Appeal in Lead Pigment Litigation Underway
NOVELION THERAPEUTICS: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 30
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Ongoing in SEPTA Case
PBF HOLDING: Says Potential Amount of Claims Not Determinable

PBF HOLDING: Protective Order Entered in "Goldstein" Case
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Court Awards $52.7K Attys' Fees in "Brown"
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Settlement in "Brown" Suit Has Final Approval
POPULAR INC: Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Case Underway
POPULAR INC: "Ramirez Torres" Suit Dismissed

POPULAR INC: Says "Morales" Class Action Underway
POPULAR INC: BPPR to Seek Dismissal of "Gonzalez Camacho" Case
POPULAR INC: Costa Dorada Class Action Underway
POPULAR INC: Says "Fernandez" Suit Now Concluded
POPULAR INC: Says "Valle" Class Action Underway

PTC INC: Settlement of "Crandall" Suit Has Final Approval
QWEST CORPORATION: Facing Suits over Improper Billing Practices
RINGCENTRAL INC: SPS Brief on Appeal Due Nov. 6
SAINT-GOBAIN: Request for Medical Records in PFOA Case OK'd
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Suit by West and Hopson Underway

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lee" Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lawsuits over Philips Transaction Pending
SUNRUN INC: Fink et al. Suits Pending in California
TIGER NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss "Fishman" Denied as Moot

TIME INC: Discovery in "Perlin" Class Suit Underway
UNITED CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Stay "DeClue" TCPA Suit
UNITED STATES: ACLU's 2nd Amended Complaint vs. HHS Denied
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Trial to Begin Jan. 30 in Allergan Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: October 2018 Trial in Timber Hill Case

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: U.S. Securities Case Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Suits Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss RICO Suits Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Contact Lens Antitrust Suits Pending

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower Products Suits Underway in U.S.
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower Products Suit Pending in Canada
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Afexa Class Action Ongoing
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Makes $210MM Payment in Salix Case
VCA INC: Motion to Prevent Duran's PAGA Action Underway

VCA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suit by Bradsbery & Brakensiek
VCA INC: Appeal in "Graham" Class Suit Still Pending
VCA INC: "Campbell" Employee Class Suit Underway
VCA INC: Class Suits over Merger Dismissed
VECTRUS INC: Still Defends Employment Lawsuit

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Expert Discovery Underway in Securities Suit
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Against "Youngers" Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Class Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Class Action Under Arbitration Administered by JAMS
VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Arbitration of New Plaintiff's Claims

WAYFAIR INC: Settlement of "Zouzout" Suit Remains Pending
WESTAR ENERGY: Defending Merger Class Suit
WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
WOLVERINE WORLD: Law Firms Eyes Class Action Over Toxic Waste
XBIOTECH INC: Jan. 2018 Status Conference in "Rezko" Suit

XOMA CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Against "Markette" Suit
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit over Symbol Acquisition Underway
ZILLOW GROUP: To Make Settlement Payments During 2017
ZIMMER BIOMET: Still Defends "Shah" Class Suit in Indiana
ZODIAC US: $952K Settlement in "Cuzick" Suit Has Prelim Approval

* CFPB's Richard Cordray Lashes at Arbitration Rule Opponents



                            *********


20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays "Cobble" Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES COBBLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 20/20
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.: 2:17-CV-53-TAV-MCLC
(E.D. Tenn.), Judge Thomas A. Varlan of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted the Defendant's
Motion to Stay Briefing and Adjudication of Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification.

The case concerns allegations of unpaid overtime wages under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").  Plaintiff Cobble
seeks to represent all similarly situated Field Sales Managers
whom defendant employed in the past three years to service its
account with Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and to whom it
allegedly failed to properly pay overtime wages.

He originally filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA"), seeking the same relief.  After
that proceeding had remained pending for almost a year, however,
the Plaintiff withdrew his arbitration demand and filed a
complaint for monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief in the
Court.  The complaint asserts that the Defendant employed hundreds
of Field Sales Managers who worked over 40 hours per week yet did
not receive sufficient overtime pay.

The Defendant responded by moving the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint and compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  In support of its motion, the
Defendant asserted that, as a condition of employment, all Field
Sales Managers had signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement ("MAA"),
which required the parties to submit all non-excepted disputes to
arbitration and which contained a class action waiver.  The
Plaintiff responded that he never signed an MAA or forum-selection
clause, noting that Defendant has been unable to produce the
original, signed agreement.  Moreover, he has argued that the MAA
would be unenforceable under controlling Sixth Circuit precedent
to the extent it contains a class action waiver.

On July 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to transfer the
claims of all but one opt-in Plaintiff to the Northern District of
Texas on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over these claims.  It later moved for a stay of discovery pending
a ruling on its motions to dismiss or transfer venue.

Then, on Aug. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff moved the Court to
conditionally certify the matter as a collective action and to
order sending notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  The Court
referred these motions to Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker for
his consideration.  These motions remain pending before Magistrate
Judge Corker as of the date of entry of the Opinion.

Finally, on Aug. 31, 2017, the Defendant moved for a stay of
briefing and adjudication of the Plaintiff's conditional
certification motion.  The Defendant submits that, in the
interests of judicial economy and preservation of party resources,
the Court should defer ruling on the Plaintiff's motion until it
has ruled on the Defendant's motions to dismiss or transfer venue.
The Plaintiff responded in opposition, and the Defendant replied.

Judge Varlan finds that principles of judicial economy require the
Court to consider the Defendant's motions before deciding whether
to conditionally certify this matter as a collective action.
After carefully considering the authorities cited and arguments
advanced by both parties, the Judge finds that, in the interest of
judicial efficiency, it must defer consideration of the
Plaintiff's conditional certification motion until it has ruled on
the Defendant's motions to dismiss or transfer venue.

He is mindful of its obligation under the FAA to provide a
"summary and speedy disposition" of the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration.  He also notes that a finding of
arbitrability would be dispositive of the case, as the FAA would
then direct the Court to stay the proceedings until the
arbitration process is complete.  By contrast, a ruling on the
Plaintiff's conditional certification motion would, one way or the
other, permit these proceedings to continue.  Thus, the "interest
of judicial efficiency" speaks to the need to address the issue of
arbitration before the issue of collective-action certification.

On the other hand, Judge Varlan is cognizant of the Plaintiff's
concern that any delay in ruling on his conditional certification
motion may result in the statute of limitations running on the
claims of potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  He finds, however, that
this argument is ultimately unpersuasive.  The Judge Court plans
to prioritize ruling on the Defendant's motions to dismiss or
transfer venue regardless of whether a stay is entered.  Thus, his
ruling on the instant motion will affect only whether the parties
continue to brief the Plaintiff's conditional certification
motion, not the order in which the various pending motions are
resolved.

For these reasons, Judge Varlan granted the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Briefing and Adjudication of Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification.  He stayed the briefing and
adjudication of the Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Conditionally
Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Opt-
in Plaintiffs until the Court rules on the Defendant's pending
motions to dismiss or transfer venue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ck3Nm5 from Leagle.com.

James Cobble, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Freddie Tubbs, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Kari Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch, Morgan
& Morgan, P.A..

Marty Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Samantha Queszada, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Jordan Hurley, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Vannessa Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Jeffrey Leonetti, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Maderral Dunn, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

John Hargett, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch, Morgan
& Morgan, P.A..

20/20 Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth S.
Washko -- liz.washko@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: $1.3MM Settlement in "Anger" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of
Allocation of Settlement Proceed in the case captioned Joseph
Anger, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Accretive Health, Inc. d/b/a Medical Financial
Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-12864 (E.D. Mich.).

On July 22, 2014, Anger filed a class action complaint against
Accretive, which has since changed its name to R1 RCM, Inc., in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
asserting class claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA"), and the Michigan Occupational Code ("MOC").  R1 has
denied any and all liability alleged in the Lawsuit.

On Feb. 23, 2017, after extensive arms-length negotiations, the
Parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which is
subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  On May 10, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed the Settlement Agreement, along with their Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement,
Attorneys Fees and Costs, Class Notice, and Other Relief.  On May
19, 2017, the Defendant submitted a Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion, concurring in the relief sought.

On June 13, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Unopposed
Preliminary Approval Motion, the Defendant's Response, and the
record, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.  Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court, among other things, (i) preliminarily certified
a class of Plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the
Lawsuit; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement;
(iii) appointed Plaintiffs Anger, Delione Galbraith, Johnnie Mae
Jones, Rochelle Jones, Terri Meyerhoff, John Bernard Weisend, Jr.,
and John Weisend III as the Class Representatives; (iv) appointed
Dave Honigman, Gerard V. Mantese, Krista M. Hosmer, and Jordan B.
Segal of Mantese Honigman, P.C. and James C. Warr of James C. Warr
& Associates,

P.L.C., as the Class Counsel; (v) approved the Notice Plan as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement; (vi) approved the opt out and
exclusion terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and (vi)
set the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing.

On Sept. 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his Final Approval Motion,
and the Defendant filed its response concurring in the relief
sought.  On Oct. 4, 2017, a Final Approval Hearing was held.  The
Parties now request final certification of the settlement class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and final approval of the proposed
class action settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Judge Roberts certified the Settlement
Class of all Class Members excluding: (i) the Class Members who
properly executed and filed a timely request for exclusion from
the Settlement Class; (ii) the Class Members whose Released Claims
against the Defendant have already been fully and finally
adjudicated and/or released; and (iii) the legal representatives,
successors and assigns of the Class Members referenced in Sub-
Paragraphs 1.35(1) and 1.35(2) of the Settlement Agreement, but
only with respect to the Released Claims.

As defined within the Settlement Agreement, "Class" is defined as
all persons in the State of Michigan who were sent one or more
Letters by or on behalf of the Defendant between July 22, 2008 and
the date on which the Court enters its Preliminary Approval Order
certifying the Class.

Judge Roberts appointed Plaintiffs Anger, Galbraith, Johnnie Mae
Jones, Rochelle Jones, Meyerhoff, Weisend, Jr., and Weisend, III
as the Class Representatives.  She also appointed Mantese
Honigman, P.C. David M. Honigman Gerard V. Mantese Krista M.
Hosmer Jordan B. Segal 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Tel:
(248) 457-9200 James C. Warr & Associates, P.L.C. James C. Warr
24500 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 205 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: (248)
357-6493 as the Class Counsel.

She finally approved the terms in the Settlement Agreement and
Plan of Distribution of the Settlement Funds as described in the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval, and will be consummated in
accordance with the terms and provisions thereof.  Namely:

     a. The Defendant will contribute monetary relief totaling
$1.3 million to the Settlement Fund.

     b. The Settlement Administrator will pay or cause to be paid
from the Settlement Funds, payment of the Settlement Notice and
Administration Expenses, payment of the Fee Award, payment of the
incentive awards, and payment of any Remaining Funds to the Cy
Pres Recipient.  The Class Counsel will direct the Cy Pres
Recipient to administer and distribute the remaining funds to
Class Members in accord with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

     c. The Class Counsel's request for fees of one-third of the
Settlement Fund, or $433,333.29, is approved.  In no event will
Defendant R1 or its affiliates be required to contribute any funds
over and above the Settlement Fund to cover the incentive awards,
attorneys' fees, and/or litigation costs and expenses.

     d. Judge Roberts approved the incentive award of $15,000 for
each of the seven Named Plaintiffs.

     e. R1 will perform all of the acts that it is required to
perform pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
including paragraphs 2.3(a)-2.3(f) of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Roberts dismissed the Lawsuit with prejudice in all
respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Final Order and
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/LZFa5K from Leagle.com.

Joseph Anger, Plaintiff, represented by Gerard V. Mantese --
gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C..

Joseph Anger, Plaintiff, represented by James C. Warr --
jcwarr@go2warr.com -- Jordan Benjamin Segal, Mantese Honigman, PC,
Krista M. Hosmer, Mantese Honigman, P.C. & David M. Honigman --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, PC.

Delione Galbraith, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin
Segal, Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman,
PC.

Terri Meyerhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin Segal,
Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman, PC.

John Bernard Weisend, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin
Segal, Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman,
PC.

Johnnie Mae Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin
Segal, Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman,
PC.

Rochelle Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin Segal,
Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman, PC.

Weisend John, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Benjamin Segal,
Mantese Honigman, PC & David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman, PC.

Accretive Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew B. Clubok
-- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Jennifer G.
Levy -- jennifer.levy@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP,
Kathleen A. Brogan -- kathleen.brogan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Leonid E. Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com --
Kirkland and Ellis LLP.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement agreement of
securities class action lawsuits remains pending.

In July 2015, three securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
each on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

In December 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, the Company's board of directors,
underwriters of the Company's January 13, 2015, follow-on public
stock offering, and two of the Company's institutional
stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges that, in connection
with the Company's follow-on stock offering, the defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly
omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical
trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys'
fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two
institutional stockholder defendants.

On March 16, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
asserted actions. The proposed aggregate amount of the settlement
is $13.0 million, of which $1.0 million would be contributed by
the Company to cover its indemnification obligations to the
underwriters, and the remainder would be contributed by the
Company's insurers. The settlement is subject to definitive
documentation, shareholder notice and court approval. The Company
and the defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all
of the claims alleged in the actions, and the settlement does not
assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability
as to any defendant. If final court approval is not obtained with
respect to the settlement or the settlement otherwise does not
become effective and litigation resumes, adverse outcomes in the
actions could result in substantial damages. The Company recorded
$1.0 million as general and administrative expense during the
three months ended March 31, 2017, when the amount and time of
settlement became estimable and probable.

Adverum Biotechnologies is a gene therapy company advancing novel
medicines that may offer life-changing benefits to patients living
with serious rare and ocular diseases.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in
the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the
caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-
cv-00024.

According to the Company, "the action names as defendants the
Company, our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain
officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other
things, making materially false statements and/or failing to
disclose material information to the Company's shareholders
regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with
Altisource Asset Management Corporation, Ocwen Financial
Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.
These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's
reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with
Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling
loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for
violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and
Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls."

"The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain
asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that
allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's
shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses."

In May 2015, two of the Company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff
and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions.

On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion
of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be
lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In
a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff file an opposition to defendants' motion for
reconsideration on May 8, 2017. In addition, the defendants filed
their answer and affirmative defenses on April 21, 2017. On May
26, 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration
of the Court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss. Discovery
has commenced and is ongoing.

"We believe this complaint is without merit. At this time, we are
not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can
we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said.

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estate
investment trust ("REIT") focused on acquiring, owning and
managing single-family rental ("SFR") properties throughout the
United States.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Ruling in Cambridge Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Plaintiff in the case,
City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., has filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers of
AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC
shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr.
Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with
RESI, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource
Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including
allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature
of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and
(ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair
process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's
and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only
defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended
consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion, and
on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying
with prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to file the
first amended consolidated complaint.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal district
court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying with
prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first amendment
consolidated complaint in the matter.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time,
we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter,
nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the
Company said.

AAMC's primary business is to provide asset management and certain
corporate governance services to institutional investors.


AMERICAN RENAL: Still Defends "Esposito" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings,
Inc., et al., remains pending, according to American Renal
Associates Holdings' Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017.

On August 31, 2016 and September 2, 2016, putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively,
against the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  Both complaints asserted federal securities law claims
against the Company and the individual defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC and in addition, the complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaints alleged that the Company made material
misstatements or omissions, including in connection with its
initial public offering filings and other public filings. The
complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities from April 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District
of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice.  On November 30, 2016, Lead Plaintiff was appointed for
the putative shareholder class action complaint pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action").

On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff in the Esposito Action filed
an amended complaint against the Company, certain former and
current officers and directors of the Company, Centerbridge
Capital Partners L.P., and certain of the underwriters in our
initial public offering. The amended complaint asserts federal
securities laws claims under Securities Act Sections 11 and 15, as
well as Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. On
May 18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On July 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
opposition to the motions to dismiss.

The Company's reply in further support of the motion to dismiss
was due in August 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims.

American Renal Associates is a dialysis services provider in the
United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships
with physicians.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Accord in Moses, et al. Suit Awaits Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement in the case,
Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., remains
subject to final court approval.

As disclosed in the 2016 Form 10-K, on April 22, 2014, Plaintiff
Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REIT Seven, Inc.
("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed
a class action against the Company and several individual
directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former
shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased
additional shares under the Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP")
of Apple Seven, Apple Eight and the Company between July 17, 2007
and February 12, 2014.

In January 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation for $5.5 million, which settlement remains
subject to final court approval, and was included in accounts
payable and other liabilities in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets as of December 31, 2016 and June 30, 2017, and in
transaction and litigation costs (reimbursements) in the Company's
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December
31, 2016.  At this time, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved, and therefore the actual
loss incurred could be in excess of the amount accrued as of June
30, 2017.

The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be
treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  The Company is
self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate,
primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Suit by Wilchfort, et al. Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. continues to defend against the case,
Wilchfort, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Marsha Wilchfort, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six"), Apple Seven and
Apple Eight, filed a class action against, among others, the
Company and the former individual directors of Apple Six, Apple
Seven and Apple Eight, including Mr. Glade Knight, on behalf of
all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple
Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares
under Apple Six's, Apple Seven's and Apple Eight's DRIP between
July 17, 2007 and December 2012 (in the case of Apple Six
shareholders) or June 30, 2013 (in the case of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight shareholders).  The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
alleges, among other items, breach of contract under Virginia law,
tortious interference and breach of implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing.  The complaint alleges that the prices at which
Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional
shares through the DRIPs were not indicative of the true value of
the units of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this proceeding or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to this proceeding, if any.

The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be
treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  The Company is
self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate,
primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Defending Against "Abouzied" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend
against the case, Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al.

The Company said, "On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us
and two of our officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied
Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry,  et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02399. The complaint in this
matter seeks class action status on behalf of our shareholders,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, our chief executive officer, and our
chief financial officer, arising out of our announcement on August
3, 2017 that "we see softer than expected demand for our 40G
solutions with one of our large customers that will offset the
sequential growth and increased demand we expect in 100G." The
complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief."

"We dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously contest the
matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., ("AOI" or the "Company") was
incorporated in Texas on February 28, 1997.  In March 2013, the
Company converted into a Delaware corporation. The Company is a
leading, vertically integrated provider of fiber-optic networking
products, primarily for four networking end-markets: internet data
center, cable television, fiber-to-the-home and
telecommunications. The Company designs and manufactures a wide
range of optical communications products at varying levels of
integration, from components, subassemblies and modules to
complete turn-key equipment.


ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Cable Modem Consumer Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against the
case, In Re ARRIS Cable Modem Consumer Litigation, C.A. 5:17-cv-
01834, Northern District of California.

On March 31, 2017, Carlos Reyna, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated filed a putative class action lawsuit against
ARRIS alleging that the SB6190 modem which includes the Intel Puma
6 chipset is defective. The plaintiff alleges violation of the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and
California Unfair Competition Law. It is premature to assess the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an
unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to pay damages.

ARRIS is a leader in entertainment and communications technology.
Our innovations combine hardware, software, and services across
the cloud, network, and home to power TV and Internet for millions
of people around the globe.


ASHFORD INC: Stockholder Class Action Closed
--------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has entered a
stipulation and order closing a stockholder class action.

The Company said, "On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder
class action and derivative complaint challenging the Remington
acquisition, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and styled Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No. 11796.
The complaint names as defendants each of the members of the
Company's board of directors, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A.
Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP, as
well as the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges
that the members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection
with the Remington acquisition and that Monty Bennett, Archie
Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and
Remington Holdings GP aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty.

In support of these claims, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair
process with Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result
the Company overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100%
general partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint
also alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains
certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action
seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting
of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock
issuances or rescinding the Remington acquisition if they are
consummated, or in the alternative an award of damages, as well as
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
any other relief the court may deem proper. Since the filing of
the complaint, the special meeting of stockholders and related
vote occurred with the stockholders approving the acquisition.

"On March 24, 2017, the Remington acquisition was terminated and
therefore this action is moot. On April 13, 2017, the Court of
Chancery entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice as
to the named plaintiff, and without prejudice as to all other
members of the class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the
plaintiff's anticipated application for an award of mootness fees
and reimbursement of expenses. After negotiations, and to
eliminate any risk associated with the plaintiff's fee petition,
the Company agreed to pay fees and expenses in the amount of
$150,000 within five (5) days of the entry of an order closing the
case. Accordingly, this amount was recorded within "general and
administrative" expenses on our condensed consolidated statements
of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for both the three
and six months ended June 30, 2017. The Court of Chancery has not
and will not pass any judgment on the fee payment. On July 17,
2017, the Court of Chancery entered a stipulation and order
closing the case.


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: 2nd Bid to Certify "Hargreaves" Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington denied the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned MYRON HARGREAVES,
CORTNEY HALVORSEN, BONNIE FREEMAN, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a
Washington corporation, and PAUL J. WASSON AND MONICA WASSON,
individually and the marital community, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
CV-0103-TOR (E.D. Wash.).

On April 1, 2016, Hargreaves filed a putative class action against
Associated asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"); the Washington Consumer Protection Act
("WCPA"); and the Washington Collection Agency Act ("WCAA").  On
Nov. 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, along with Halvorsen and Freeman,
filed a First Amended Complaint adding the Wasson Defendants.

Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that judgment creditor,
Associated, and its attorney, Mr. Wasson, misrepresented
information in writs of garnishment, which allowed them to
unlawfully garnish the Plaintiffs' exempt property in their bank
accounts in violation of the FDCPA.  They contend that Associated
and Mr. Wasson's same conduct also violates the WCPA and the WCAA.

The Court entered a scheduling order on Nov. 18, 2016.  Among
other deadlines, the Plaintiffs were required to file any motion
for class certification no later than April 10, 2017.  On April
10, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class for all claims
stemming from the Defendants' alleged conduct in violation of the
FDCPA and the WCPA by: (i) falsely asserting that judgment debtor
assets are not exempt; (ii) unlawfully garnishing property and
collecting fees based on falsely certified writ applications;
(iii) making false, deceptive, and misleading statements to
consumers about exemption rights; and (iv) unlawfully profiting to
the detriment of putative class members.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion, but agreed to revisit the
issue should the Plaintiffs develop sufficient evidence to support
the putative class size, while recognizing that the propriety of a
class action sometimes cannot be determined without discovery.  At
that time, the Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs' hunch that the
Defendants' allegedly unlawful practices have affected at least
100 Washington residents failed to satisfy the numerosity
requirement, despite having nearly six months to conduct
discovery.

The Plaintiffs renew their class certification request and argue
that the numerosity requirement is now satisfied.  They now expand
the proposed class definition to also include violations of the
WCAA.  The Plaintiffs argue that the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity
factor is satisfied based on information gleaned from a public
records request for all cases filed in Spokane County by Defendant
Associated seeking a writ of garnishment between Jan. 1, 2012 and
May 26, 2017.  They represent that Defendant Associated filed
2,463 writs of garnishment in 1,299 lawsuits during that time
period and each writ contained a "false" application.  They argue
that a joinder of more than 1,200 parties would not be practical
and warrant class certification.  The Wasson Defendants oppose the
Plaintiffs' renewed request and request oral argument; Defendant
Associated joins therein.

During the last hearing, the Court found the Plaintiffs' 100-
member estimate insufficient to enable it to make a reasoned
determination because the Plaintiffs failed to provide concrete
evidence of a single prospective class member other than
Plaintiffs.  Judge Rice has now considered the Plaintiffs'
proffered 1,299 writ application figure and 40-person sampling
analysis and finds that by expanding the universe to include every
garnishment action filed, the Plaintiffs still have not overcome
their deficient showing of numerosity in order to support class
certification.  Moreover, they are not "representative" of their
proposed class because their complaint only concerned collection
of consumer debt by garnishment of bank accounts, not the universe
of garnishment proceedings.  They have no standing to assert more
violations than those for which they were allegedly harmed.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class from April 1, 2015 to
present.  With respect to the three newly-proposed FDCPA
subclasses, Judge Rice finds it unclear how many individuals fall
within each of the proposed subclasses.  Equally troubling, he
says, is that the proposed overarching FDCPA class is not limited
to the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, but rather
encompass the universe of garnishment proceedings (wage and non-
wage) for consumer debt during the relevant statute of
limitations.  However, the Plaintiffs do not adequately represent
every conceivable garnishment proceeding, only arguably bank
account garnishments for consumer debt.  Their sampling has shown
16 writs of garnishment issued to banks during this period which
is insufficient for class certification.  Accordingly, Judge Rice
declined to certify a FDCPA class.

With respect to the newly-proposed WCPA class and the two WCPA
subclasses, the Plaintiffs have not shown any number of class
members beyond a mere inference.  Because the he cannot ascertain
putative class members who fit within the proposed class and
subclasses, the Judge declined to certify a WCPA class action.
And, because the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate numerosity
sufficient for class certification, this insufficiently briefed
factual dispute need not be resolved at this time.

For the first time, the Plaintiffs propose certifying a class for
their WCAA claim.  However, they never proposed this claim in
their initial motion for class certification and, therefore, have
not established the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requirements for class
certification as to this claim.  Moreover, because the Defendants
have not had an opportunity to address this claim because it was
raised for the first time in the Plaintiffs' reply brief, Judge
Rice declined to consider class certification for this claim.

For these reasons, Judge Rive denied the Plaintiffs' Second Motion
for Class Certification.  He directed the District Court Executive
to enter this Order and provide copies to the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PxrGT5 from Leagle.com.

Myron Hargreaves, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS.

Associated Credit Services Inc, Defendant, represented by John
Gregory Lockwood, Law Office of J Gregory Lockwood PLLC.

Paul J Wasson, Defendant, represented by Kevin James Curtis,
Winston & Cashatt, Molly Marie Winston, Winston & Cashatt & Roger
James Peven -- rjpeven@gmail.com -- Law Office of Roger J Peven.

Monica Wasson, individually and the marital community, Defendant,
represented by Kevin James Curtis, Winston & Cashatt - SPO.

Monica Wasson, Defendant, represented by Molly Marie Winston,
Winston & Cashatt.


AVINGER INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Atty in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ARINDAM BANERJEE and JOGESH HARJAI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AVINGER, INC., JEFFREY M. SOINSKI, MATTHEW B.
FERGUSON, DONALD A. LUCAS, JOHN B. SIMPSON, JAMES B. MCELWEE,
JAMES G. CULLEN, THOMAS J. FOGARTY, CANACCORD GENUITY, INC., COWEN
AND COMPANY LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO., BTIG, STEPHENS INC., AND DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03400-CW (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) appointed Banerjee and Harjai
as the Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) approved their selection of the law
firm of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, as the Lead Counsel
for the putative class; and (iii) granted the parties' requests to
submit supplemental filings, and has considered those filings.

On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff Lindsay Grotewiel filed a class action
complaint in San Mateo County Superior Court against Avinger and
several of its individual officers and directors, alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Grotewiel claims that
the Defendants issued a materially false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus in connection with Avinger's
Jan. 30, 2015 initial public offering.

The Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 12, 2017.
On June 19, 2017, this Court granted the parties' joint motion to
relate this case to Olberding v. Avinger, No. 17-cv-03398,1 and
Gonzalez v. Avinger, No. 17-cv-03401.  The plaintiffs in Olberding
and Gonzalez filed motions to remand, but Grotewiel did not.  The
Court remanded the related cases and issued an order to show cause
why the case should not also be remanded.  On Aug. 22, 2017,
following briefing, the Court discharged the order to show cause,
holding that the statutory removal bar in the Securities Act is
not jurisdictional and was waived by Grotewiel.  Meanwhile,
Grotewiel published the PSLRA notice of pendency of a putative
securities fraud class action on July 7, 2017.

Pending before the Court are three motions to be appointed as the
Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and for approval of the selection of
the Lead Counsel.  The motions were filed by: Grotewiel and Todd
Vogel; Banerjee and Harjai; and Michael Dolan.  The
Grotewiel/Vogel and Banerjee/Harjai groups have opposed the
others' motions and filed replies to each others' oppositions.
Additionally, Grotewiel and Vogel filed objections to reply
evidence submitted by Banerjee and Harjai, and Banerjee and Harjai
filed a motion for leave to file a response to Grotewiel and
Vogel's objections.

Judge Wilken finds that if Banerjee and Harjai are permitted to
proceed as a "group of persons" under 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-
1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), their financial interest is the largest of any
of the Lead Plaintiff candidates.  They have submitted evidence
that they purchased and retained 9,195 shares of Avinger stock
during the class period, for which they spent $148,535.59.
Grotewiel and Vogel purchased a total of 16,551 shares of Avinger
stock, expending $137,773.60, and retain 15,642 of those shares
for a net loss of $127,589.98.  Dolan has a net out-of-pocket loss
of $19,064.54.

The Judge also finds that Banerjee and Harjai may be considered as
a group and no other candidate has submitted proof that this
presumptive lead plaintiff group will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique
defenses.

In addition, the Court approves Banerjee and Harjai's choice of
Scott+Scott as lead counsel, based on the information submitted
regarding the firm's experience and expertise in the area of
securities litigation.  The Court further finds that the fact that
Scott+Scott formerly represented Plaintiff Olberding in a related
action in this Court, obtained remand of that action and then
withdrew as counsel after seeking appointment in this action, does
not create a conflict of interest or mean that they have engaged
in impermissible forum shopping.

For these reasons, Judge Wilken appointed Banerjee and Harjai as
the Lead Plaintiff group, and approved their selection of
Scott+Scott as the Lead Counsel.  He directed the Clerk to update
the docket.  The Judge accordingly denied the competing motions of
Dolan, and Grotewiel and Vogel.  He also granted Grotewiel and
Vogel leave to file objections to Banerjee and Harjai's reply
evidence, and granted Banerjee and Harjai's motion for leave to
file a response to those objections.  Banerjee and Harjai's
response is deemed filed.  The Judge has fully considered both the
objections and the response.

The case management conference remains set for Oct. 17, 2017 at
2:30 p.m.  The joint case management conference statement remains
due Oct. 13, 2017 at 12:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MJtAoy from Leagle.com.

Lindsay Grotewiel, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Y. Chang --
mail@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini and Bottini, Inc..

Lindsay Grotewiel, Plaintiff, represented by Francis A. Bottini,
Jr., Bottini & Bottini, Inc., Yury A. Kolesnikov, Bottini and
Bottini, Inc., Rhiana Swartz, -- RSWARTZ@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott
and Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP & Thomas L. Laughlin, IV --
RSWARTZ@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Avinger, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman --
btolman@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril --
dgavril@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio
Evaristo Salceda -- ISalceda@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.

Jeffrey M. Soinski, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

Matthew B. Ferguson, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon
Tolman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Donald A. Lucas, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

John B. Simpson, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

James B. McElwee, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

James G. Cullen, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

Thomas J. Fogarty, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jon Tolman,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Doru Gavril, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati & Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati.

Canaccord Genuity, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Mugmon -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Harry Hanson -- harry.hanson@wilmerhale.com --
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, John F. Batter, III --
john.batter@wilmerhale.com -- Attorney at Law & Rebecca Denise
Kline -- becca.kline@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale.

Cowen and Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Harry Hanson,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, John F. Batter, III,
Attorney at Law & Rebecca Denise Kline, WilmerHale.

Oppenheimer & Co., Defendant, represented by Michael A. Mugmon,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Harry Hanson, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, John F. Batter, III, Attorney
at Law & Rebecca Denise Kline, WilmerHale.

Michael Dolan, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Arindam Banerjee, Movant, represented by John T. Jasnoch --
JJASNOCH@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
Rhiana Swartz, Scott and Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP & Thomas L.
Laughlin, IV, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Jogesh Harjai, Movant, represented by John T. Jasnoch, Scott Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP, Rhiana Swartz, Scott and Scott, Attorneys at
Law, LLP & Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, ScottScott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP.

Todd Vogel, Movant, represented by Francis A. Bottini, Jr.,
Bottini & Bottini, Inc.


B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit over Miller Energy IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that a class action lawsuit in connection
with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc., remains
pending.

On January 5, 2017, the complaints filed in November 2015 and May
2016 naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR,
as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims
under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.
The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses.

Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller
in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in
October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller. Briefing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss has been filed with the court.


B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit by FBR Shareholders Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that class action lawsuits by shareholders of
FBR & Co. have been dismissed.

In April 2017, two purported shareholders of FBR & Co. filed a
putative class action against FBR and the members of its board of
directors that challenged the disclosures made in connection with
the merger of FBR with the Company, styled Michael Rubin v. FBR &
Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00410-LMB-MSN and Kim v. FBR & Co.,
et al. Case No.1:17-cv-004440LMB-IDD. The complaints alleged that
the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Ru1e 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

On July 12, 2017, per stipulation, the complaints were dismissed -
- with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only, without
prejudice as to the class.  The Company expects the plaintiffs to
seek the payment of mootness fee in the near future.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment
banking and financial services to corporate, institutional and
high net worth clients, and asset disposition, valuation and
appraisal and capital advisory services to a wide range of retail,
wholesale and industrial clients, as well as lenders, capital
providers, private equity investors and professional services
firms throughout the United States, Australia, Canada, and Europe
and with the acquisition of United Online, Inc. ("UOL") on July 1,
2016, provide consumer Internet access and related subscription
services.


BANK MUTUAL: "Schumel" Suit Remanded to Milwaukee State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUSSELL SCHUMEL, ALEX JAMES KOWALSKI, and
HOLLY KAY KOWALSKI, Plaintiffs, v. BANK MUTUAL CORPORATION,
MICHAEL T. CROWLEY, JR., DAVID A. BAUMGARTEN, RICHARD A. BROWN,
MARK C. HERR, MIKE I. SHAFIR, DAVID C. BOERKE, LISA A. MAUER,
ROBERT B. OLSON, THOMAS H. BUESTRIN, WILLIAM J. MIELKE, and
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP, Defendants. THOMAS L. PAQUIN, TODD BESTUL,
and DAVID BIRKHOLZ, Plaintiffs, v. BANK MUTUAL CORPORATION,
MICHAEL T. CROWLEY, JR., DAVID A. BAUMGARTEN, RICHARD A. BROWN,
MARK C. HERR, MIKE I. SHAFIR, DAVID C. BOERKE, LISA A. MAUER,
ROBERT B. OLSON, THOMAS H. BUESTRIN, WILLIAM J. MIELKE, and
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP, Defendants. FREDERICK WOLLENBURG, Plaintiff,
v. BANK MUTUAL CORPORATION, MICHAEL T. CROWLEY, JR., DAVID A.
BAUMGARTEN, WILLIAM J. MIELKE, THOMAS H. BUESTRIN, ROBERT B.
OLSON, MARK C. HERR, DAVID C. BOERKE, RICHARD A. BROWN, LISA A.
MAUER, MIKE I. SHAFIR, and ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP, Defendants, Case
Nos. 17-CV-1240-JPS, 17-CV-1241-JPS, 17-CV-1242-JPS (E.D. Wis.),
Judge Joseph Peter Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiffs' motions to
remand each of these actions to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court
from where they were removed.

Bank Mutual and Associated are planning to merge, with Associated
paying almost half a billion dollars for the privilege.  As part
of the transaction, Bank Mutual's shareholders will be allowed to
convert their shares into shares of Associated, at a little more
than a 2:1 ratio.

The Plaintiffs, individual shareholders in Bank Mutual, believe
that this payment and conversion ratio is unfair and grossly
inadequate consideration.  They allege, on behalf of themselves
and all Bank Mutual shareholders, that the Directors violated
their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to the
transaction.  Namely, the Directors entered into certain onerous
and preclusive deal protection devices that all but ensure that
the transaction will be successful and no competing offers will
emerge for Bank Mutual.

The Plaintiffs state two causes of action.  The first is, of
course, for breach of fiduciary duties by the Directors for
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Bank Mutual to its
public shareholders.  The second targets Associated for knowingly
aiding and abetting the Directors in breaching their fiduciary
duties.  Bank Mutual is a Named Defendant, but it is not expressly
implicated in either cause of action. It is before the Court,
presumably, because Bank Mutual would be party to an injunction
issued prohibiting the merger, which is part of the Plaintiffs'
request for relief.

Associated removed each of these actions pursuant to the Court's
diversity jurisdiction as modified by the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs have filed motions to remand
each of these actions to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, from
where they were removed to the Court.  Associated, the removing
Defendant, opposes the Plaintiffs' request.  Bank Mutual and its
individual directors also contest the motion.  The Plaintiff
replied to both opposition briefs.

Judge Stadtmueller finds that Associated's removal appears to fit
with the prima facie requirements of CAFA, and the Plaintiffs do
not argue otherwise.  CAFA jurisdiction is subject to exceptions,
however.

CAFA's expansion of diversity jurisdiction does not apply to any
class action that solely involves a claim: (i) concerning a
covered security as defined under 16(f)(3)1 of the Securities Act
of 1933 ; (ii) that relates to the internal affairs or governance
of a corporation or other form of business enterprise and that
arises under or by virtue of the laws of the State in which such
corporation or business enterprise is incorporated or organized;
or (iii) that relates to the rights, duties (including fiduciary
duties), and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to
any security as defined under section 2(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("Fiduciary Duty Exception").

The Plaintiffs maintain that all three exceptions apply to the
case, but the vast majority of the parties' efforts are directed
at the Fiduciary Duty Exception.  Associated does not contend that
the fiduciary duty claim, alleged against the Directors, would be
removable under CAFA.  Instead, its removal is premised on the
Plaintiffs' addition of the aiding-and-abetting claim.  Associated
argues that, even if the Plaintiffs' allegations were proven
entirely true, its conduct would be at best tangential to the
fiduciary duties which run from the Directors to the Plaintiffs.

Judge Stadtmueller says that Associated loses sight, however, of
the incredibly broad reach of the Fiduciary Duty Exception.  It is
not limited to removing claims for breach of fiduciary duty beyond
CAFA's grasp.  The exception applies to any claims which relate to
fiduciary duties, and the aiding-and-abetting claim certainly
does.  It goes on to state that the fiduciary duties at issue must
be related to or created by or pursuant to the shares.  While not
so obviously within the bounds of Fiduciary Duty Exception as a
fiduciary duty claim itself, the Judge finds that the aiding-and-
abetting claim can find shelter therein.

Associated cites no factually analogous case -- meaning one
involving a breach of fiduciary duties in a merger transaction,
brought by shareholders against the directors of the issuer and a
third-party aider-and-abettor -- from the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals that is consistent with its interpretation of the
exception.  In the absence of such controlling authority, Judge
Stadtmueller is bound to apply CAFA's plain language in a
straightforward manner.  The Court must therefore apply the
exception and grant the motions to remand.  The parties' other
pending motions, to dismiss and to stay, will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand; (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' motions to
dismiss; and (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motions to stay.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all appropriate steps
to effectuate the remand of the case back to the Milwaukee County
Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/O7DNli from Leagle.com.

Frederick Wollenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Guri Ademi --
gademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Frederick Wollenburg, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Christopher Tillotson
-- christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC,
Juan Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- monteverde &
Associates PC, Michael J. Palestina --
michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti LLC & Miles
Schreiner -- mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde &
Associates PC.

Bank Mutual Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel E.
Conley -- daniel.conley@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald
K. Schott -- don.schott@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett -- ken.hallett@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP & Rachel A. Graham -- rachel.graham@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady LLP.

Michael T Crowley Jr, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

David A Baumgarten, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

William J Mielke, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

Thomas H Buestrin, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

Robert B Olson, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

Mark C Herr, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley, Quarles &
Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP, Kenneth V.
Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham, Quarles & Brady
LLP.

David C Boerke, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

Richard A Brown, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kenneth V. Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham,
Quarles & Brady LLP.

Lisa A Mauer, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Conley, Quarles
& Brady LLP, Donald K. Schott, Quarles & Brady LLP, Kenneth V.
Hallett, Quarles & Brady LLP & Rachel A. Graham, Quarles & Brady
LLP.


BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Firefighters' Pension Trust Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. continues to defend against the
class action lawsuit by St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust, according to its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and subsequently
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the
plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI)
made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.


BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Robert Hossfeld Underway
----------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. continues to defend against the
class action lawsuit by Robert Hossfeld, according to its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. and MSR Group, LLC, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context
of customer satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of
individuals who have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to
receive calls on their cell phones. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are
substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.


BBX CAPITAL: Suit over Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. Litigation.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain employees of BVU,
seeking to establish a class action of former and current
employees of BVU alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of
contract. The lawsuit also alleges that BVU terminated plaintiff
Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about violations
of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of the unpaid
compensation owed to plaintiffs.

On July 27, 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation to conditionally certify collective action and
facilitate notice to potential class members be granted with
respect to certain employees and denied as to others.  Management
believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital is a Florida-based diversified holding company with
investments in Bluegreen Corporation ("Bluegreen"), real estate
and real estate joint ventures and middle market operating
businesses. Bluegreen is a sales, marketing and management company
focused on the vacation ownership industry.


BLACKROCK INC: Class Suit by iShares ETFs Investors Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit by
investors in certain iShares ETFs, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of
its advisory affiliates, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.  The lawsuit was
filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the "ETFs"), and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws,
purportedly by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses
issued by the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the
event of a "flash crash."  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

The Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing
that complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion in
part and denied it in part.

The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

BlackRock, Inc. is a leading publicly traded investment management
firm with $5.689 trillion of AUM at June 30, 2017.  With
approximately 13,000 employees in more than 30 countries,
BlackRock provides a broad range of investment and risk management
services to institutional and retail clients worldwide.


BLACKROCK INC: Suit Related to Employee 401(k) Plan Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related
to the BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A., the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from April 5,
2011, to the present.  The lawsuit generally alleges that the
defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
by, among other things, offering investment options that were
overly expensive, underperformed peer funds, focused
disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were
unduly concentrated with investment options managed by BlackRock.

While the complaint does not contain any specific amount in
alleged damages, it claims that the purported underperformance and
hidden fees cost Plan participants more than $60 million.

The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

BlackRock, Inc. is a leading publicly traded investment management
firm with $5.689 trillion of AUM at June 30, 2017.  With
approximately 13,000 employees in more than 30 countries,
BlackRock provides a broad range of investment and risk management
services to institutional and retail clients worldwide.


BLITCHTON MARATHON: Ocejo Appeals Order in "Swope-Kreiser" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Alvaro Ocejo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Dakota Swope-Kreiser, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. BLITCHTON MARATHON INC., and ALVARO
OCEJO, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JSM-PRL, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid minimum wages
from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to unpaid wages from the
Defendants for all time worked for which they were not paid as a
result of wage theft.  The Plaintiff also alleges that she is
entitled to unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Florida's State
Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants are gas station operators.  The Plaintiff was employed
as a cashier.

The appellate case is captioned as Dakota Swope-Kreiser v. Alvaro
Ocejo, Case No. 17-14509, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before November 3, 2017, as to Appellee Dakota
      Swope-Kreiser; and

   -- Motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Alvaro
      Ocejo is denied.

Defendant-Appellant ALVARO OCEJO of Ocala, Florida, appears pro
se.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DAKOTA SWOPE-KREISER, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jay Paul Lechner, Esq.
          Jason Michael Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          200 Central Avenue, Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822-1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  jason@thefllawfirm.com


BOOZ ALLEN: Says Stockholder Action Underway in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation is defending against a
stockholder class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia naming the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017. The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the
Company concerning the Company's business, results of operations
and compliance policies relating to the Company's contracts with
the United States government. The plaintiff seeks to recover from
the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of
damages class members allegedly incurred by buying the Company's
securities at an allegedly inflated price.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit. At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is
not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of
cost or any loss associated with the lawsuit.

Booz Allen is a provider of management and technology consulting,
engineering, analytics, digital solutions, mission operations, and
cyber expertise to U.S. and international governments, major
corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.


BSN MEDICAL: Ct. Refuses to Certify "RJF" Class Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RJF CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated per-sons, Plaintiff, v. BSN MEDICAL, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00842-RJC-DSC
(W.D. N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division, denied without prejudice and with leave to refile the
TJF's Motion to Certify Class.

On Dec. 14, 2016, RJF filed a Complaint before this Court alleging
the Defendants violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.
These Defendants include BSN, and John Does 1-10, whose identity
RJF alleges will be identified through discovery but remain
presently unknown.

Specifically, RJF alleges that around Jan. 9, 2013, the Defendants
sent an unsolicited advertisement to RJF by way of telephone
facsimile machine.  It states that the Defendants continued to
send these faxes to RJF and others, thus violating the JFPA.  As a
result, RJF argues that the Defendants' unsolicited faxes damage
recipients by invading their privacy and consuming paper, toner,
and time.  In this suit, RJF comes before the Court on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated and ask this Court to
certify a class comprised of those who received Defendants'
alleged faxes.

RJF defines the class as all persons who (i) on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action; (ii) were sent telephone
facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of Defendants; (iii) from whom the Defendants did not
obtain prior express invitation or permission to send fax
advertisements; and (iv) with whom the Defendants did not have an
established business relationship; and/or (v) which did not
display a proper opt-out notice.

In justifying the certification of the class, RJF states that,
upon information and belief, the proposed class contains more than
40 members who share common questions of law and fact.  The common
questions of law and fact, RJF alleges, derive from the
Defendants' standardized conduct of faxing a single advertisement
form to persons on a list generated by the Defendants and/or third
a third party, which did not obtain prior express invitation or
permission to send the Defendants' advertisement by fax.

Defendant BSN has responded individually arguing that RJF's motion
should be denied because it is premature, unsupported, and in
violation of the Federal and Local Rules.  Specifically, BSN
states RJF's Complaint and Motion to Certify Class amounts to
nothing more than unsupported allegations.

After considering the recent Supreme Court decision, Judge Conrad
finds that RJF's "Placeholder" Motion to Certify Class has been
rendered an obsolete procedural tactic by the Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez.  He explains that RJF's complaint faces no threat of
becoming moot if BSN attempts to pick-off RJF as long as RJF does
not accept that offer.  With such a threat extinguished, the Judge
is left with a pending motion filled with vague allegations that
is of no utility to either party.  As a "placeholder," RJF's
motion contains unrefined allegations and remains unresolved.

Judge Conrad adds that the placeholder motion is little more than
another form of RJF's complaint.  It provides nothing more than a
vague pleading standard.  Having been filed prior to any
discovery, it stands no chance of surviving the rigorous gambit of
Rule 23.

He also agrees with BSN that RJF's placeholder motion violates the
Local Rules.  RJF filed their motion to certify class the same day
they filed their complaint.  No supporting brief was filed. In
fact, no reply was ever filed after BSN's Response to Motion to
Certify Class.

Judge Conrad therefore concludes that the placeholder motion to
certify class fails to establish Rule 23's requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.  As such, he
denied RJF's motion to certify class without prejudice and with
leave to refile.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/witdF2 from Leagle.com.

RJF Chiropractic Center, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Chad Alan
McGowan -- cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com -- McGowan, Hood & Felder.

RJF Chiropractic Center, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca, Anderson Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- pro hac vice
& Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, pro
hac vice.

BSN Medical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry Lee Falls, III
-- lfalls@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Hunter Cavin
Quick -- hquick@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Peter A.
Santos -- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, David
Alan Yudelson -- david.yudelson@koleyjessen.com -- Koley Jessen
PC, LLO, pro hac vice & J. Daniel Weidner --
daniel.weidner@koleyjessen.com -- Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O., pro
hac vice.


CANADA: Injured Veterans Raise Money for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott Roberts, writing for CTV Vancouver, reports that dozens of
injured veterans and their supporters gathered in Burnaby's
Central Park on Oct. 15 to raise money for their ongoing legal
battle with the federal government.

The event -- Equitas Society's first-ever Walk for Veterans --
aims to defray the cost of the society's class-action lawsuit,
which seeks to reinstate lifetime pensions for veterans injured in
the line of duty.

In 2005, the federal government replaced the pension plan for
injured soldiers with a lump sum payment worth a maximum of
$360,000 -- an amount Equitas Society president Mark Burchell says
isn't enough for people who risked their lives for their country.

"It's substantially lower than what the pension act offered,"
Mr. Burchell said of the current system.  "Prime Minister Trudeau,
when he was running for election in 2015, promised to reinstate
lifelong pensions and he hasn't kept that promise, so we're here
to send him a message."

Aaron Bedard was among those walking on Oct. 15.  He was injured
in Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2006, during one of Canada's earliest
missions in the country.

He told CTV News he sustained brain and spine injuries during his
tour, and has spent the better part of a decade going to medical
assessments and filling out government forms in order to obtain
compensation.

"Veterans Affairs Canada and Department of National Defence didn't
do a great job of managing my issues and giving me a proper
treatment plan," Mr. Bedard said.  "I need to see better security
-- lifelong security in the form of a pension."

The Trudeau government has said that it will soon introduce a new
pension "option" soon.  Veterans Affairs didn't respond to
requests for comment on Oct. 15.

Conservative MP John Brassard, who recently served as his party's
critic for veterans affairs, said the Trudeau government has not
kept its promise on pensions.

"They're now changing their tune," he said.  "They're talking
about an option of a lifelong pension and nobody really knows what
that means.  The Prime Minister made it very clear he was going to
return life-long pensions and he hasn't done that at this point."
[GN]


CANADA: Wedgewood Residents Mull Class Action Over Sloping Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Svjetlana Mlinarevic, writing for Daily Herald-Tribune, reports
that two hundred Wedgewood residents have signed a petition
calling on the County of Grande Prairie to fix the sloping issue
in the area.

"It's a much larger issue than just the neighbours that are
directly involved cause it's a Mother Nature problem and a lack of
good infrastructure that was not put in when the subdivision was
developed.  We are getting the brunt of it and there's more water
into the Bear Creek . . . so you've got that issue where there's
more water volume pulling from the creek (bank)," said resident
Carmen Haakstad.

Ms. Haakstad and four other neighbours began lobbying the county
to repair the slope in 2015.  The municipality approved funding
half of a $70,000 survey by SNC-Lavalin, which was released this
July.

The report found rainfall and precipitation are linked to slope
instability, but that there has been no downward or upward trend
of precipitation in Grande Prairie other than six episodes of
heavy rainfall between 1983 and 2016.  The report also noted there
are seepage areas on the slope from groundwater.

The study further found the soil is made up of silt and sand
sitting on clay with a bedrock base.  The 11m to 19m deposits were
measured to be moist-to-wet and soft-firm in consistency.

The study was conducted in 1993 for a nine-hole golf course that
was being considered for the site.  The consulting firm determined
the risk of slope instability was too high and that it would be
too expensive to mitigate the slope.  Further, should the project
be built, it would cost too much to remediate.

However, the report did indicate development was possible if nine
requirements were first met: two of which were to build 10m away
from the crest of the slope and to get the in-ground and above-
ground water under control.

Any work to remediate the problem could cost between $1 million
and $5 million.  Homeowners invested about $250,000 in 2015 to try
and fix the slope.

Homeowners have given their petition to Reeve Leanne Beaupre, who
was the sole vote in chambers to fix the slopping issue when
residents lobbied the county again in August.  It has been the
county's position that it has no legal obligation to fix the
slope, that the slope is on private land, and the use of taxpayers
dollars for the slopping issue couldn't be justified.

"It can be fixed but it has to have proper drainage right down to
the creek, even from the front of our homes, they talk about
French drains and shoring up the bank of the creek, which shores
up the bottom of the hill verses the top of the hill," said
Ms. Haakstad.

"None of that can be done on the homeowners property, that's on
either the county's land...it could be the province . . . but it's
definitely a problem that won't go away without it being fixed.
It's affecting all of Wedgewood . . ."

Ms. Haakstad said residents who are trying to sell their homes in
the neighbourhood are having difficulty doing so becasue no one
wants to buy in Wedgewood and that has forced residents to reduce
their asking price.

Property values have also dropped for Ms. Haakstad and his
neighbours who live directly on the creek bank.  One homeowner's
property was evaluated by the county at $560,000 in 2016; now it's
worth $277,000, while another resident's home was evaluated at
$680,000 and is currently worth about $300,000.

Ms. Haakstad said if the county refuses to fix the issue residents
will seek legal means to resolve the problem.

"I hate to do that but we feel the issue of building permits
should not have been issued.  It was on unstable land and we've
done research and we've seen that.  And the fact that they are not
extending a hand to help their citizens when we pay taxes, we feel
that if there is no other course we will have to put a class
action suit against the county." [GN]


CARE CAPITAL: Shareholder Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------
Care Capital Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against
the case, In re Care Capital Properties, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

On May 7, 2017, Care Capital Properties, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("CCP" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (as may be amended from time to time, the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Sabra Health Care
REIT, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Sabra"), PR Sub, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), Care Capital Properties, LP, a Delaware
limited partnership ("Care Capital LP"), and Sabra Health Care
Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership ("Sabra LP").
The Merger Agreement provides for (i) the merger of the Company
with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub being the
surviving company in the Merger (the "Surviving Company"), (ii)
immediately following the Merger and simultaneous with the
Partnership Merger, the merger of the Surviving Company with and
into Sabra (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Sabra being the
surviving corporation in the Subsequent Merger and (iii)
immediately following the Merger and simultaneous with the
Subsequent Merger, the merger of Care Capital LP with and into
Sabra LP (the "Partnership Merger"), with Sabra LP being the
surviving limited partnership in the Partnership Merger, in each
case on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement.

Between June 29 and July 10, 2017, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, and were subsequently consolidated under the
caption In re Care Capital Properties, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 1:17-cv-00859-LPS (the
"Consolidated Delaware Litigation").  The Consolidated Delaware
Litigation names the Company and its directors as defendants, and
certain of the lawsuits also name as defendants Sabra, Merger Sub,
Care Capital LP, and Sabra LP. On June 30, 2017, a putative class
action lawsuit (Douglas v. Care Capital Props., Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-04942) (the "Illinois Litigation" and, together with
the Consolidated Delaware Litigation, the "Merger Litigation") was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company and its directors, and on
July 28, 2017, the Court entered the parties' voluntary
stipulation staying the Illinois Litigation.

All six lawsuits allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus
(the "Proxy Statement") related to the proposed merger of the
Company and Sabra violated federal securities laws in purportedly
omitting to disclose information necessary to make the statements
therein not materially false or misleading. The lawsuits seek,
among other things, an injunction of the proposed merger;
dissemination of supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement;
declarations that the Proxy Statement violated federal securities
laws; damages, including rescissory damages; and an award of costs
and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and intends to defend against the
Merger Litigation vigorously. However, in order to moot the
plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide
additional information to its stockholders, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as
described in this Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company
specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that
any additional disclosure was or is required.


CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Court Refuses to Remand "Crummie" Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied Tierre Crummie's motion to remand
the case captioned TIERRE CRUMMIE, Plaintiff, v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03892-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Crummie filed the putative class action in Alameda Superior Court.
The operative First Amended Complaint asserts various wage and
hour violations against the Defendant on behalf of hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees who worked for CertifiedSafety during any
period from April 24, 2013 through time of judgment.  The
complaint does not disclose the dollar amount in controversy.

CertifiedSafety removed the action to this Court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), contending that the
amount in controversy can be reasonably estimated to exceed the $5
million threshold for jurisdiction under CAFA.  Crummie seeks
remand, arguing that CertifiedSafety has not met its burden to
establish the amount in controversy is sufficient.

In support of its Notice of Removal, Certified Safety submitted
the declaration of Stephen Hines, its Vice President of Human
Resources, setting out the assumptions and figures it had used to
calculate an amount in controversy of not less than $5,004,030.
In opposition to the remand motion, Hines provides a supplemental
declaration, and Certified Safety claim additional items of
potential recovery to increase the amount in controversy to
$6,743,912.50.

Judge Seeborg finds that the parties' dispute turns on whether
CertifiedSafety is entitled to assume that class members worked
the equivalent of 30 minutes "off the clock" each and every work
week, missed one meal period in 50% of the shifts they worked,
missed one rest period in 50% of the shifts, and that they may be
entitled to the maximum penalties on the wage statement, minimum
wage, and waiting time claims.

The Judge says Crummie may be correct that CertifiedSafety has
presented no direct evidence to ground its assumptions of a weekly
half hour in unpaid overtime and a 50% violation for meal and rest
breaks on empirical data.  Crummie's alternate proposal to assume
a 25% violation rate, however, is likewise untethered to factual
evidence.  Crummie insists he has no obligation to come forward
with such evidence because CertifiedSafety has the burden of
establishing jurisdiction.

Judge Seeborg explains that while the ultimate burden does lie
with CertifiedSafety, most typically once jurisdiction has been
challenged, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy
requirement has been satisfied.  There nonetheless may be cases
where plaintiff can successfully resist remand merely by showing
through argument that the removing defendant's evidence is
insufficient to support jurisdiction.  This is not such a case, he
says, because CertifiedSafety has made an adequate showing that
the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold,
notwithstanding that the violation rate and penalty rates it
utilizes in its calculations are presumed, rather than established
by statistical or other direct evidence.

Even with the $900 PAGA penalty eliminated, Judge Seeborg adds,
CertifiedSafety's original calculation of the amount in
controversy submitted with the notice of removal exceeds $5
million.  While the parties dispute how large a dollar figure for
attorney fees may properly be added on, such fees unquestionably
may be considered, and provide an additional margin of error here.
As the total therefore comfortably exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold, his Order needs not reach the propriety of considering
the potential of additional penalties under Labor Code section
204, which Crummie contends have not been sought as part of the
class action claims.

Ultimately, because CertifiedSafety has presented reasonable
estimates sufficiently grounded in evidence, and Crummie has
provided no rebuttal evidence, Judge Seeborg denied Crummie's
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FKcVO1 from Leagle.com.

Tierre Crummie, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Tierre Crummie, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Tara Zabehi --
tara@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

CertifiedSafety, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela Joy
Rafoth, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., James Michael
Cleary, Jr. -- cleary@mdjwlaw.com -- Martin Disiere Jefferson and
Wisdom LLP, Michelle B. Heverly -- mheverly@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim Miska, Jr. -- pmiska@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C.


CITIZENS COMMUNITY: "Parshall" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
The case, Paul Parshall v. Wells Financial Corp., et al., remains
pending, Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported Wells stockholder,
filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint
in the District Court of Faribault County, Minnesota captioned
Paul Parshall v. Wells Financial Corp., et al. The complaint was
subsequently amended on June 15, 2017. The lawsuit names as
defendants Wells, each of the current members of the Wells board
and CCBI. The amended complaint asserts that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by initiating a process
to sell Wells that undervalues Wells; by agreeing to the merger
agreement at a price that does not reflect Wells' true value; by
either failing to inform themselves of Wells' true value or
disregarding such value; by entering into a preclusive merger
agreement; and by failing to make adequate disclosure in the
registration statement on Form S-4 as filed on June 2, 2017. The
amended complaint further asserts that Wells and CCBI aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended
complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be
maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the merger; (iii) in the event the merger is
consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary
damages; (iv) an order directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award
to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and
experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper.

The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations.


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Pension Fund Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt International Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In November 2014, two purported stockholders,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
and Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of our securities from February 21, 2012 through November 4, 2014
(the "St. Lucie lawsuit"). The St. Lucie lawsuit, filed against us
and certain officers, former and current members of the Board of
Directors, underwriters, and investment firms and funds, asserted
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures, primarily regarding compliance with the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") in our Angolan operations and the
performance of certain wells offshore Angola."

"In December 2014, Steven Neuman, a purported stockholder, filed a
substantially similar lawsuit against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through August 4, 2014 (the
"Neuman lawsuit"). Like the St. Lucie lawsuit, the Neuman lawsuit
asserted violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding our compliance with the FCPA in our Angolan
operations.

"In March 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Neuman lawsuit with the St. Lucie lawsuit (the "Consolidated
Action") and also entered an order in the Consolidated Action
appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed
their consolidated amended complaint in May 2015. Among other
remedies, the Consolidated Action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and
expenses to the plaintiffs. We filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in June 2015, and the other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. The Court denied our
motion to dismiss in January 2016, and, in March 2016, the Court
also denied our motion requesting that the Court certify its order
on the motions to dismiss so that we may seek interlocutory
appellate review of the order.   In June 2017, the Court certified
a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between March 1, 2011 and November 3,
2014.  In July 2017, we filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal challenging the class certification order.
On August 4, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our
petition for permission to file the interlocutory appeal.  The
matter remains ongoing."

Cobalt is an independent exploration and production company with
operations in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico and offshore
Angola and Gabon in West Africa.


COLUMBUS, GA: Settlement in "Harrison" Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement of the case
captioned CLEOPATRA HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et. al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 4:16-CV-329-CDL (M.D. Ga.).

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and
entered the Preliminary Approval Order dated April 26, 2017, and
notice was given to all members of the Settlement Class under the
terms of the Preliminary Approval Order.  It has not received any
objections from any person regarding the Settlement Agreement.
The Court held a hearing on Oct. 11, 2017, at which time the
parties and objecting Settlement Class Members were afforded the
opportunity to be heard in support of or in opposition to the
Settlement Agreement.

Based on the papers filed with the Court and the presentations
made to the Court at the hearing, Judge Land granted final
approval to the Settlement.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Judge certified,
for settlement purposes only, the class of all persons who, at any
time from Oct. 5, 2014, through the date of the Settlement
Agreement, were assessed or paid a victim assessment fee related
to a proceeding in the Columbus Recorder's Court or any similar
fee for dismissal or non-prosecution of a criminal action in the
Columbus Recorder's Court, including but not limited to, any fees
assessed or paid by any persons pursuant to former section
2.15.2(1) of the Columbus Code of Ordinances.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), he appointed
Cleopatra Harrison as the Class Representative and appointed as
the Class Counsel (i) Sarah Geraghty Ryan Primerano Southern
Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303; and
(ii) Mark C. Post Harp, Poydasheff, Post & Sowers, LLC P.O. Box
1172 Columbus, GA 31902.

Judge Land ordered the Defendants to tender a check for the
Settlement Funds to the Class Counsel in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement within 14 days of the date of the
Order.  He ordered the Class Counsel to distribute Settlement
Funds to the members of the Settlement Class within 14 days of
receiving a check for the Settlement Funds from Defendants.
Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Class Counsel will
provide the Court with written notice confirming that the
Settlement Funds were distributed, and will move for an order
dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Judge approved the payment of attorneys' fees to the Class
Counsel in the amount of $15,000 and the incentive fee payment of
$5,000 for Cleopatra Harrison.  These amounts will be paid in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

To the extent that any checks to the Settlement Class Members
expire and become null and void, and to the extent that any
undisbursed funds remain in the Settlement Fund for any other
reason, any remaining funds will be distributed as a cy pres award
to the Columbus Alliance for Battered Women, doing business as
Hope Harbour.

Any objections to the Settlement Agreement are overruled and
denied in all respects.  Judge Land finds that no just reason
exists for delay in entering the Final Approval Order and
Judgment.  Accordingly, he directed forthwith the Clerk to enter
the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Final Approval Order
and Judgment is available at https://is.gd/Um6tzq from Leagle.com.

CLEOPATRA HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD R. WEBER --
gweber@constitutional-litigation.com.

CLEOPATRA HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by MARK C. POST --
info@hpps-law.com -- Harp, Poydasheff, Post & Sowers, RYAN
PRIMERANO -- rprimerano@schr.org -- & SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY --
sgeraghty@schr.org.

CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS GEORGIA, Defendant,
represented by ALAN G. SNIPES -- ags@psstf.com -- JAMES C. CLARK,
Jr. -- clark@fridayfirm.com -- THOMAS F. GRISTINA -- tfg@psstf.com
-- & TYLER CARR CASHBAUGH -- tcc@psstf.com.

Judge MICHAEL CIELINSKI, Defendant, represented by DAVID R.
HELMICK -- dhelmick@waldrepmullin.com -- David C. Rayfield --
davidrayfield@waldrepmullin.com -- Waldrep, Mullin and Callahan,
LLC & NEAL J. CALLAHAN -- njc@waldrepmullin.com.

JOHN DARR, Defendant, represented by ALAN G. SNIPES, JAMES C.
CLARK, Jr., THOMAS F. GRISTINA & TYLER CARR CASHBAUGH.

RICKY BOREN, Defendant, represented by ALAN G. SNIPES, JAMES C.
CLARK, Jr., THOMAS F. GRISTINA & TYLER CARR CASHBAUGH.

MICHAEL LINCOLN, Defendant, represented by ALAN G. SNIPES, JAMES
C. CLARK, Jr., THOMAS F. GRISTINA & TYLER CARR CASHBAUGH.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Actions Against Sheriff's Office Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Grimm, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that after
years of litigation over the 2012 firing of a single Cook County
sheriff's police officer, dozens of other officers, jail guards
and courtroom deputies fired for misconduct could get their jobs
back, and hundreds more suspended without pay could be in line for
possibly six-figure payouts.

The state Supreme Court last month declined to consider an appeal
of a lower court ruling that found Sheriff Tom Dart and the Cook
County Board improperly appointed members to the Sheriff's Merit
Board, which hands out firings and suspensions for sheriff's sworn
personnel.

The decision raises questions about hundreds of disciplinary cases
brought by Dart, who has aggressively filed charges against
officers, deputies and guards during his nearly 10 years in
office.  The ruling has caused an "administrative and bureaucratic
mess" that might take years to unravel, said
Cara Smith, Dart's chief policy officer.

The ruling affects cases that date back at least until 2011, and
the sheriff's and state's attorney's offices are researching
whether earlier board appointments could affect even more cases,
Smith said.

"The decision from the appeals court is what it is.  We are going
to cure the issues they've identified," Smith said.  "We take our
disciplinary procedures very seriously.  And this is very
concerning."

Sheriff's police officer Percy Taylor was fired in 2012, not long
after Dart had appointed John Rosales in 2011 to finish the final
year of the term of a departing merit board member.

State law, Taylor successfully argued, requires all board members
to be appointed to six-year terms.  Taylor's lawyer discovered the
technicality while doing research for a lawsuit aimed at getting
Taylor his job back.

Taylor would like to return to duty and is owed more than $400,000
in back pay for the five years since the merit board first
suspended him, said Richard Linden, Taylor's lawyer.
"I don't know if it was great lawyering, but there it was," Linden
said.  "I couldn't imagine that the merit board would be that
neglectful.  It created a mess for the sheriff."

Linden is no longer the only lawyer scrutinizing the dates merit
board members took their seats.  A class-action lawsuit filed
against the sheriff's office this year lists four other merit
board members -- some appointed after Taylor filed his lawsuit in
2013 -- who were appointed to terms that don't line up with state
law.  The lawsuit could affect more than 200 cases heard by the
board between 2011 and 2015, said Dana Kurtz, an attorney
representing three corrections officers who are lead plaintiffs in
the class-action case.

"They're entitled to due process," Kurtz said.  "That would be
like saying that someone could go before a criminal judge that
hadn't been elected, hadn't been appointed but was someone sitting
as a judge."

It's not clear whether sheriff's officers who'd been fired could
be reinstated and then immediately charged with the same offenses
and land in front of the merit board and fired again, both Kurtz
and Linden said.  Smith declined to comment, as did merit board
Chairman James Nally.

Linden said the officers should be entitled to back pay from the
date they were first suspended without pay.

"The first thing the merit board does is review whether you're
suspended with or without pay while your case is pending," Linden
said.  "If the board is not legally constituted, those decisions
are void as well, I would think, and the average salary of these
officers is going to be around $70,000 or $80,000 with benefits."

Smith said it was not clear whether the ruling would require the
sheriff to reinstate officers fired for "egregious misconduct,"
such as Rico Palomino, a corrections officer fired after he
coldcocked a jail inmate in 2012. Palomino was later convicted on
criminal charges of aggravated battery and official misconduct.

Dennis Andrews, business agent for Teamsters Local 700, said the
union hadn't decided how it would challenge the merit board
decisions, a process he said would be a "massive undertaking."
Andrews, whose union represents corrections officers, said many of
the officers who have been fired during Dart's three terms lost
their jobs because of "attendance issues," not serious misconduct.

"They're saying, 'Oh no, all these bad officers might come back to
work!'" Andrews said.  "But the bottom line in all this is he
screwed up, and he's not standing up to taxpayers and media and
taking the blame.

"Our officers can't go [in front of the merit board] and say 'I
didn't know it was wrong' and [Dart] says, 'Go ahead.' No.  He
goes to fire them." [GN]


COWEN INC: Supreme Court Appeal Mulled in "Fletcher" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Cowen, Inc., intends to seek Supreme Court appeal of the ruling in
the lawsuit by Landol Fletcher, Cowen said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group,
LLC, Convergex Execution Solutions LLC, Convergex Global Markets
Limited and G-Trade Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Landol Fletcher and all others similarly situated v.
Convergex Group LLC, Convergex Execution Solutions LLC, Convergex
Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings LLC, G-Trade Services LLC,
& Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS). The suit alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under ERISA and seeks
to maintain a class action on behalf of all ERISA plan
participants, beneficiaries and named fiduciaries whose plans were
impacted by net trading by Convergex Global Markets Limited from
October 2006 to December 2011.

On April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr.,
filed an amended complaint raising materially similar allegations.
This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the
Company's previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group,
which was completed on June 1, 2017.

On February 17, 2016, the District Court granted Convergex's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and Department of Labor
filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf.

The appeal was argued on December 12, 2016. On February 10, 2017,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the District
Court, finding that plaintiff has constitutional standing in a
"representative" capacity to sue for damages to the ERISA defined
benefit plan in which he is a participant, and (2) remanded to the
District Court to reconsider, in light of the Circuit Court's
decision, the issue whether plaintiff has standing to pursue
claims on behalf of ERISA plans in which plaintiff is not a
participant. Convergex filed a petition for rehearing, and the
Court of Appeals denied the petition.

The Company intends to petition the United States Supreme Court
for a writ of certiorari in September 2017 requesting review of
the decision of the Court of Appeals.

On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice of motion and
memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the proceedings
in the District Court pending resolution of its petition for writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Company expects the
U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on whether to grant the writ
of certiorari in the fourth quarter of 2017 or first quarter of
2018, but cannot predict when the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a
decision.

"We are indemnified against losses arising from this matter
pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the purchase
agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex Group. Because
the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company cannot predict
the outcome at this time, but it does not currently expect this
case to have a material effect on its financial position or its
results of operations," the Company said.

Cowen Inc. (formerly Cowen Group, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
formed in 2009, is a diversified financial services firm and,
together with its consolidated subsidiaries, provides investment
management, investment banking, research, sales and trading, prime
brokerage, global clearing and commission management through its
two business segments: investment management and broker-dealer.


CU BANCORP: Shareholder Suits over PacWest Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class action lawsuits related to a merger deal
between PacWest Bancorp and CU Bancorp have been dismissed.

In orders dated September 21, 2017, the Hon. Fernando M Olguin of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
held that:

     (1) Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
         prejudice and the claims of the putative class members
         are dismissed without prejudice.

     (2) The court shall retain jurisdiction over the action for
         the sole purpose of adjudicating any claim for attorney's
         fees and expenses.

     (3) Any motion for attorney's fees and expenses shall be
         filed no later than Nov. 17, 2017.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal on Sept. 18.

According to CU Bancorp's Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, two shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company in connection with the pending merger
with PacWest. The first action, Parshall v. CU Bancorp et al., was
filed on June 9, 2017 and the second action, Klein v. CU Bancorp
et al., was filed on June 12, 2017. Both complaints allege that
the members of the CU Bancorp board of directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based upon
alleged omissions and misrepresentations in the initial S-4
registration statement filed by PacWest with the SEC on May 26,
2017, by approving the proposed merger for inadequate
consideration and by entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiffs in both of
these actions seek injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of
the merger, rescission and damages in the event the merger is
consummated, an accounting of damages suffered by the plaintiff
and the putative class, attorneys' fees and costs and other and
further relief.

The Company is unable to state whether the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of the lawsuits is probable or remote. The
Company is also unable to provide an estimate of the range or
amount of potential loss if the outcome should be unfavorable.


CVS HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Class Suit by Indiana Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery has commenced in the case, Indiana
State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky).

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated. The
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public
offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States
Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October
2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, and discovery commenced.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Corcoran and Podgorny Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
cases, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al.
v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in
July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in United
States District Court in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class
of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under the
consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states.
Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20
Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare
Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February
and August 2016. In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the
Company overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not
submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health
Savings Pass program as the pharmacy's usual and customary price.
In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an 11-state class without prejudice.
The Company continues to defend these actions.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Appeal in "Barchock" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that an appeal related to the case, Barchock et al.
v. CVS Health Corporation et al. (U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island), is pending.

In February 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard
Capital Management, Inc., by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and
Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and
participants in the Plan. The complaint alleged that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and
the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in
short-term money market funds and cash management accounts.

The court recently granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint.

In May 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that ruling
in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Bid to Transfer Bewley & Prescott Suits to NJ Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending these class action
lawsuits, Bewley et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and
Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (both pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington).

These putative class actions were filed in May 2017 against the
Company and other pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers of
glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott). Both
cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the
manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other
PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby
harming certain consumers. The primary claims are made under
federal antitrust laws, RICO, state unfair competition and
consumer protection laws, and ERISA. The Company is defending
these class action lawsuits.

On September 18, 2017, a Notice of Supplemental Authority regading
Motion to Transfer Case to District of New Jersey, was filed by
Defendants Express Scripts Holding Company and Express Scripts,
Inc.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Suit by Klein, et al.
----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending the case, Klein, et
al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota).

On October 18, 2017, a Motion to Dismiss/General Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint was filed by CVS Health Corp., CVS Health
Corporation, Caremark Rx, L.L.C., Caremark Rx, LLC, Caremark,
L.L.C., Caremark, LLC, CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., CaremarkPCS
Health, LLC.

In June 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of ERISA
plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.
Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managers are ERISA
fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly
causing higher inflated prices for EpiPen through the process of
negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer, Mylan.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Suit in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against a class
action complaint in the United States District Court of the
Western District of Arkansas.

The Company said, "In June 2017, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court of the Western District
of Arkansas against our subsidiaries EPI and EHSI and other
defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated
Arkansas deceptive trade practices law and have been unjustly
enriched by their alleged opioid sales and marketing practices,
and seeks an order requiring defendants to fund a medical
monitoring program to identify problematic opioid use. The
complaint also seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, other
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a motion to dismiss the case, Craig Friedman
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay, remains pending.

In May 2016, a putative class action entitled Craig Friedman v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. In
August 2016, the Steamfitters' Industry Pension Fund and
Steamfitters' Industry Security Benefit Fund were appointed lead
plaintiffs in the action.

In October 2016, a second amended complaint was filed, which added
Paul Campanelli as a defendant, and Endo filed a motion to dismiss
the case. In response, and without resolving the motion, the Court
permitted lead plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint. The
lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's revision of its 2016 earnings
guidance and certain disclosures about its generics business, the
integration of Par and its subsidiaries, certain other alleged
business issues and the receipt of a CID from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York regarding contracts
with Pharmacy Benefit Managers concerning FROVA(R).

Lead plaintiffs seek class certification, damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in
December 2016," the Company said. Briefing on that motion has been
completed but no ruling has been issued.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Mississippi Suit Remand to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi V.
endo international PLC et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01466 (E.D. Pa.),
has been remanded to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas,
pursuant to an August 28, 2017, Order by Judge Paul S. Diamond.
The Court cited "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" in remanding
the case.

Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that in February 2017, a putative class action
entitled Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Endo International plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Chester County, Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of
shares in our June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself
and all similarly situated purchasers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 against Endo, certain of Endo's current and former
directors and officers, and the underwriters who participated in
the offering, based on certain disclosures about Endo's generics
business.

In March 2017 defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In May 2017, the
plaintiff moved to remand the case back to Pennsylvania state
court.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: "Makris" Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the class action lawsuit by Phaedra A. Makris
remains pending.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.
The statement of claim generally seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged
violations of the Ontario Securities Act. The statement of claim
alleges negligent misrepresentations concerning the Company's
revenues, profit margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a
subpoena from the State of Connecticut regarding doxycycline
hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate,
methotrexate sodium and oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of
the Company's U.S. generic pharmaceutical business.


ENTEROMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a class action complaint against
EnteroMedics, Inc., remains pending, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On February 28, 2017, the Company received a
class action and derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017
in U. S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du,
one of the Company's shareholders. The complaint names as
defendants EnteroMedics, the board of directors and four members
of our senior management, namely, Scott Youngstrom, Nick Ansari,
Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and contains a purported class
action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of
directors and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the board of directors and unjust enrichment against our
senior management.  The allegations in the complaint relate to the
increase in the number of shares authorized for grant under our
Second Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"), which was approved by our shareholders at the Special
Meeting of Shareholders held on December 12, 2016 (the "Special
Meeting"), and to our subsequent grant of stock options on
February 8, 2017, to the Company's Directors and senior management
to purchase an aggregate of 1,093,450 shares of our common stock
(the "Option Grants")."

"In the complaint, the plaintiff contends that (i) the number of
shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the
board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent
recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach
of fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) our senior
management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the subsequent
Option Grants.  The plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an order
rescinding the Plan as approved by the shareholders at the Special
Meeting, an order cancelling the Option Grants, and an award to
plaintiff for his costs, including fees and disbursements of
attorneys, experts and accountants.

"On April 17, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
based on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy Delaware's demand
requirement for a derivative action and failure to state a valid
claim.  The motion is now fully briefed.  The Court has not ruled
on the request for oral argument.

"We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit,
and intend to defend the action vigorously.

EnteroMedics Inc. is focused on the development and
commercialization to treat obesity and metabolic diseases. The
Company was incorporated in the state of Minnesota on December 19,
2002 and was reincorporated in Delaware on July 22, 2004. The
Company is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. In January 2006,
the Company established EnteroMedics Europe S†rl, a wholly-owned
subsidiary located in Switzerland.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Two Data Breach Class Actions in Richmond
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
legal fallout from the massive identity data breach disclosed last
month by consumer credit agency Equifax is beginning to find its
way into Richmond.

Two lawsuits, both seeking class action status, were filed in
recent weeks in Richmond federal court against Equifax.  They're
among hundreds of similar class action cases quickly filed in the
days and weeks since the early September admission by the Atlanta-
based company -- which, along with Experian and Transunion act as
gatekeepers of the American consumer finance system -- that its
systems had been hacked and the personal information of 145
million consumers had been exposed.

As of press time, 274 federal complaints have been filed
nationwide against Equifax and its various subsidiaries since the
breach was announced Sept. 7, according to court records.

Some have single lead plaintiffs, others with multiple plaintiffs
already signed on and most allege similar claims: negligence and
violations of state and federal consumer protection laws as a
result of Equifax for not being more prepared to prevent a hack
and for not promptly notifying its customers of the breach sooner.

The first case to be filed in Richmond federal court was submitted
Sept. 21 with Henrico resident John Ogburn as lead plaintiff.

Purporting to be filed on behalf of Mr. Ogborn and "all others
similarly situated" -- the go-to wording in such class action
cases -- the suit alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, the Virginia
Personal Information Breach Notification Act, as well as
negligence and unjust enrichment against Equifax Inc. and
subsidiary Equifax Information Services LLC.

The suit says Equifax should have known its cybersecurity systems
were inadequate and invested more to ensure security, given its
business relies on maintaining records of consumers that include
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and other
information.

The suit cites admissions by the company that it discovered the
breach earlier this year, but didn't disclose it publicly until
Sept. 7.  It also cites news reports of Equifax executives selling
stock in the days following the internal discovery of the breach,
but before it was announced publicly.

Mr. Ogborn signed on to be represented by Washington, D.C. law
firm Sanford Heisler Sharp and its attorneys Grant Morris --
gmorris@sanfordheisler.com -- and Andrew Melzer --
amelzer@sanfordheisler.com.  The firm said it has filed similar
cases against Equifax in 25 states and Washington, D.C., since
Sept. 7 and it will be filing in more states in coming weeks.

"This case involves one of the largest betrayals of consumer trust
and confidence in history," The firm said in an email statement.
"Hundreds or thousands of individuals across the country have
stepped forward to hold Equifax accountable for its conduct and to
achieve redress on behalf of the victims and the public. We
represent many of those individuals in lawsuits across the
country."

The second suit filed in Richmond came Sept. 22, with 10
plaintiffs signed on.  That group includes residents of Richmond,
Petersburg, Norfolk, Charlottesville, Afton and Newport News, some
of whom had been part of previous class action against Equifax,
the settlement of which included the reward of the company's top-
tier fraud protection services.

The suit emphasizes the scope of Equifax's reach.

"The standard duty of care for Equifax was significant," the suit
states.  "It possessed -- for profit and resale -- the very
private personal identifiers and financial information on nearly
every consumer in the nation."

It also highlights the avenue the hackers used to enter Equifax's
system.

"Ironically, the identity thieves entered Equifax's systems
through the internet portal it uses to receive consumer disputes
of identity theft and other credit inaccuracies."

That suit is being handled by attorney Leonard Bennett, whose
Newport News-based firm Consumer Litigation Associates focuses on
the big three credit agencies.

Mr. Bennett said the Richmond division of the U.S. District Court
is likely to see more of the Equifax data breach suits.

"Richmond division is home to more Fair Credit Act and credit
bureau class actions than anywhere in the country," Mr. Bennett
said. "Richmond is ground zero for this stuff.  Our judges are not
sympathetic (to the bureaus). It's an efficient docket so that
cases don't linger for years."

Mr. Bennett warned of the prevalence of "class action mills,"
class action-hungry law firms compared by some as the white-collar
equivalent of "ambulance chaser" personal injury firms.

"There are scores of different law firms filing these cases just
because they can, but without any real expertise," Bennett said.

Ultimately, Mr. Bennett said, all of the hundreds, if not
thousands, of cases will be consolidated and centralized into one
massive case overseen by a panel of judges, in a process called
multi-district litigation. The Volkswagen emissions scandal is a
recent example of that process.

Mr. Bennett said the Equifax breach may have further-reaching
implications than a massive class action settlement.

"It just does lasting damage to the reliability of credit reports
generally, not just at Equifax," he said.

An Equifax spokesperson said in an email the company does not
comment on pending litigation, "but we remain focused on helping
consumers navigate this situation." [GN]


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Dougherty" Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal is pending in the class action lawsuit,  Kevin L.
Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al., according to its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of
our company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
against us and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit
alleges that we and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public
statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes
trial before approving our lead product candidate. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with
an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and
September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit
and on July 5, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted our motion to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in our favor. On
January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment.  In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.  On June 19,
2017, the plaintiff's filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are
unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."

The Company is the lipid management company, a late-stage
pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing
convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once-daily, oral
therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density
lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-C").


ETSY INC: Appeal in "Altayyar" Case Underway
--------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the plaintiff's appeal in the "Altayyar" lawsuit
remains pending.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company and certain officers. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and
including May 10, 2015. It asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with
respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement and actions taken by third-party brands
against Etsy sellers for trademark or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On April 5, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On March 24, 2017, the court entered a judgment
dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice,
based on an opinion filed March 16, 2017. On August 2, 2017,
Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy builds markets, services and economic opportunity for
creative entrepreneurs.


ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes & Weiss Actions in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that consolidated Cervantes and Weiss actions are in the
early stages.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On
December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants moved
to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. The Company and the named officers and directors
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these consolidated
actions. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated actions.

Etsy builds markets, services and economic opportunity for
creative entrepreneurs.


EXXON MOBIL: Court OKs Stipulated Protective Order in "Goldstein"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GOLDSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXXON
MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02477-DSF
(SKx) (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Steve Kim of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,
granted the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order.

The Plaintiffs have brought the class action lawsuit claiming,
inter alia, that they suffered both personal injuries and property
damage as a result of the operation of the refinery in Torrance,
California.

Discovery in the Action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and petition the Court to
enter the Protective Order.

The protections conferred by the Stipulated Protective Order cover
not only Protected Material, but also: (i) any information copied
or extracted from Protected Material; (ii) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or Case 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK Document 54 Filed Oct. 11,
2017 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:709 compilations of Protected
Material; and (iii) any testimony, conversations, or presentations
by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.
Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the
orders of the trial judge.  The Protective Order does not govern
the use of Protected Material at trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs.  "Final Disposition" will be deemed
to be the later of: (i) dismissal of all claims and defenses in
this Action with prejudice, or (ii) final judgment after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.  The Challenging Party will initiate the dispute
resolution process (and, if necessary, file a discovery motion
seeking to change the confidentiality designations) under Local
Rule 37-1, et seq.  Unless the Designating Party has waived or
withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all Parties will
continue to afford the material in question the level of
protection to which it is entitled under the Designating Party's
designation until the Court rules on the challenge.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by
the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any
Confidential Information only to: (i) the Receiving Party's
Outside Counsel in this Action, as well as employees of said
Outside Counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the
information for the Action; (ii) the officers, directors, and
employees (including In-House Counsel) of the Receiving Party to
whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the Action; (iii) the
experts of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably
necessary for this Action and who have signed Exhibit A; (iv) the
Court and its personnel; (v) the court reporters and their staff;
(iv) the professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and
Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary
for this Action and who have signed Exhibit A; (vii) the author or
recipient of a document containing the information or a Case 2:17-
cv-02477-DSF-SK Document 54 Filed Oct. 11, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Page
ID #:714 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew
the information; (viii) during their depositions, witnesses, and
attorneys for witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is
reasonably necessary provided; and (ix) any mediator or settlement
officer, and their supporting personnel, mutually agreed upon by
any of the Parties engaged in settlement discussions.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by
the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any Highly
Confidential Information only to the aforementioned parties,
except the officers, directors, and employees (including In-House
Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably
necessary for the Action or (ii).

If any Party or Counsel desires to disclose Protected Material to
any person other than those otherwise permitted access to such
information under the terms of this Protective Order, such Party
or Counsel must obtain written consent of the Designating Party or
the Court authorizing such disclosure.  Except as expressly agreed
in writing by the Designating Party or ordered by the Court, each
person to whom the Protected Material is to be disclosed under
this provision must execute Exhibit A.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/dBLLln from Leagle.com.

Arnold Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph Bass --
dbass@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Arnold Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Boxer --
info@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC, Matthew John
Matern, Matern Law Group PC & Tagore Subramaniam, Matern Law Group
PC.

John Covas, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph Bass, Matern
Law Group PC, Joshua D. Boxer, Matern Law Group PC, Matthew John
Matern, Matern Law Group PC & Tagore Subramaniam, Matern Law Group
PC.

Gisela Janette La Bella, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph
Bass, Matern Law Group PC, Joshua D. Boxer, Matern Law Group PC,
Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group PC & Tagore Subramaniam,
Matern Law Group PC.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by M. Randall
Oppenheimer -- roppenheimer@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP &
Dawn Sestito -- dsestito@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.

PBF Energy Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark Erik Elliott --
mark.elliott@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP.

Torrance Refining Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia
Elizabeth Stein -- julia.stein@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Mark Erik Elliott, Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP & Michael John Finnegan --
mfinnegan@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

PBF Energy Western Region, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia
Elizabeth Stein, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Mark Erik
Elliott, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Michael John
Finnegan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

PBF Holding Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia
Elizabeth Stein, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Mark Erik
Elliott, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Michael John
Finnegan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

PBF Energy Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark Erik
Elliott, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Michael John
Finnegan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Steven Steach, Defendant, represented by Mark Erik Elliott,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.


FCA US: Bid to File Third Party Suit v. J&E Auto Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion for
leave to file a third party complaint against J&E Auto Services,
Inc.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the purported class action complaint
based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped
with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause their vehicles'
clutches to fail and stick to the floor.  The Defendant designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells and
leases passenger vehicles, including the Plaintiffs' vehicles.

The Plaintiffs assert that the clutch pedal defect causes their
vehicles to stall, fail to accelerate, and results in premature
failure of the transmission's components, including, but not
limited to, the clutch master cylinder and reservoir hose, clutch
slave cylinder and release bearing, clutch disc, pressure plate,
and flywheel.  Their causes of action are based on the Defendant's
failure to disclose and/or intentionally concealed the defect in
the Clutch System.

The Defendant seeks to file a third party complaint against J&E
for equitable indemnity, comparative indemnity, contribution and
declaratory judgment based on J&E's failure to properly reconnect
a hydraulic hose or damaged the hose, causing some or all of
Tavitian's subsequent clutch-related issues and caused Tavitian to
incur damages which Tavitian seeks to recover from FCA US in the
lawsuit.  The Named Plaintiff filed an opposition on Sept. 22,
2017.  A reply was filed on Sept. 29, 2017.

Judge Curiel finds that the proposed third party complaint seeks
to impose liability on J&E for some or all of the damages sought
by the Plaintiffs.  However, the allegations in the proposed third
party complaint are not based on liability based on the causes of
action asserted in the FAC.  The proposed third party complaint
does not allege that J&E is partially or fully liable for a design
defect alleged in the FAC.  Thus, the Defendant has not
demonstrated that J&E may be secondarily or derivatively liable to
FCA for all or part of the Plaintiff's original claim, or in other
words, that J&E may be liable to the Plaintiffs on their causes of
action.

While there are similar underlying facts, the Defendant has not
demonstrated that J&E is secondarily or derivatively responsible
for the alleged failure to warn or intentional concealment of a
design defect in vehicles manufactured by FCA.  It does not seek
to transfer the design defect liability from it to J&E.  Since
there is no allegation that J&E is partially or fully liable for
FCA's failure to warn or its intentional concealment of the design
defect, Judge Curiel denied the Defendant's motion for leave to
file a third party complaint.  The hearing set for Oct. 13, 2017
will be vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YHK7ga from Leagle.com.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett,
Capstone Law APC.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie,
Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace, Capstone Law APC, Robert
Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Law
APC.

Adam Tavitian, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone
Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace,
Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek
H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski,
Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, pro
hac vice, William M. Low, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin
Mendelson Boniske, Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP.


FCA US: Sanction for Spoliation Partly Imposed in "Victorino"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion for sanctions for spoliation of
evidence by the Plaintiffs.

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint
alleging that there was a defect in the clutch system involving a
design flaw in the clutch master cylinder with collateral damage
to the slave cylinder and related components.

On June 14, 2017, in addressing the scope of the transmission
defect alleged in the complaint on the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, the Court concluded that while the Plaintiffs
asserted a defect with the clutch master cylinder causing
collateral damage to the slave cylinder, their allegation
concerning an independent defect in the slave cylinder due to the
use of a plastic base clip was not alleged in the complaint; and
granted them leave to file a first amended complaint ("FAC").

On June 19, 2017, the Named Plaintiffs filed a purported FAC based
on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a
Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause their vehicles' clutches
to fail and stick to the floor.  The Defendant designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells and
leases passenger vehicles, including the Plaintiffs' vehicles.

The Plaintiffs assert that the clutch pedal defect causes their
vehicles to stall, fail to accelerate, and results in premature
failure of the transmission's components, including, but not
limited to, the clutch master cylinder and reservoir hose, clutch
slave cylinder and release bearing, clutch disc, pressure plate,
and flywheel.  The Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on the
Defendant's failure to disclose and/or intentionally concealing
the defect in the Clutch System.

In its motion, FCA seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence and
requests that the Court (i) dismisses Plaintiff Tavitian's
individual claims or order that an adverse inference instruction
be given at trial on his claims; (ii) orders that an adverse
inference instruction be given at trial on the claims made by
Plaintiff Victorino; (iii) finds that the Plaintiffs are not
typical of, and are inadequate representatives of, the putative
class; and (iv) sanctions the Plaintiffs' counsel as the Court
deems appropriate.

Judge Curiel finds that based on the Plaintiffs' belief that the
slave cylinder, itself, was defective, Tavitian had a duty to
preserve the alleged defective clutch components, including the
slave cylinder, that J&E replaced.  Moreover, Tavitian knew he was
involved in litigation as a plaintiff representative in a class
action concerning his vehicle's clutch system, and knew or should
have known that FCA conducted an inspection of his clutch parts in
August 2016.  Therefore, Tavitian knew or should have known he had
a duty to preserve any parts that were repaired and replaced in
his vehicle especially in the midst of litigation.  Furthermore,
Tavitian should have known of his duty in light of the fact that
during this time period, the Plaintiffs' counsel requested, on
more than one occasion, that FCA preserve any parts that were
returned to FCA.  Tavitian's failure to preserve the parts when
J&E conducted the repairs in his vehicle satisfies the culpable
state of mind factor.

Based on the record before him, Judge Curiel says the dismissal of
Tavitian's claims is a drastic measure considering that prejudice
was mitigated when FCA inspected Tavitian's clutch system even
though it did not know the clutch slave cylinder, independently,
was at issue in the case, and the Defendant has not shown that
Tavitian acted in bad faith by failing to ask J&E to preserve the
clutch component parts removed from his vehicle.

He concludes that another less drastic sanction, an adverse
inference instruction, for Tavitian's spoliation of evidence is
more appropriate in the case.  He finds that the next level of
sanctions, a mandatory presumption should be imposed based on the
spoliation of relevant evidence by Tavitian.  He finds that a
mandatory presumption addresses the purpose of the spoliation
sanction to deter future spoliation of evidence, places the risk
on Tavitian for his failure to retain the relevant clutch
component parts that are dispositive to determining liability in
the case, and attempts to restore FCA to the same position it
would have been in if the clutch parts had not been disposed.

Judge Curiel also concludes that Victorino did not have a duty to
preserve the clutch component parts taken from his vehicle when
the dealership repaired his vehicle in January 2016.  Because
Victorino had no duty to preserve his clutch component parts when
his vehicle got repaired, he cannot be subject to sanctions for
spoliation of evidence.

Considering the consequences of a finding of inadequacy and that
Tavitian may be an atypical class representative, Judge Curiel
therefore defers ruling until fuller briefing by the parties when
the Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification.  He
notes the cases cited by the Defendant addressed the issue of
adequacy concerning the spoliation of evidence on a motion for
class certification.

Lastly, unlike the evidence to support attorney sanctions in
Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, in this case, the Defendant
provides no evidence, besides an inference, to support its
allegation that the Plaintiffs' counsel failed to adequately
oversee Tavitian's discovery efforts.  Accordingly, in the absence
of any evidence concerning the Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct
during discovery, Judge Curiel declines to impose sanctions on the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

Based on the reasons stated, Judge Curiel granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion for sanctions for spoliation
of evidence.  Specifically, he granted the Defendant's motion for
sanctions as to Tavitian in the form of an adverse inference
instruction.  He denied the Defendant's motion for sanctions as to
Victorino.  The hearing set for Oct. 13, 2017 will be vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mjGKTK from Leagle.com.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Carlos Victorino, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn
Wallace -- Karen.Wallace@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Robert Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Adam Tavitian, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett, Capstone
Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie, Capstone Law APC, Karen Lynn Wallace,
Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl, Capstone Law APC & Tarek
H. Zohdy, Capstone Law APC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott H. Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice,
Thomas L. Azar -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Jr., Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Low, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP &
Edwin Mendelson Boniske -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher
& Mack, LLP.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation continues to defend against hearing
loss cases in various courts, according to its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review
by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme
Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this
case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered
for these plaintiffs, which has resulted in final dismissal of
these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court
granted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints. Plaintiffs
have indicated that they will now file motions to certify classes
in these cases. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to
Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class
certification issues. The Company intends to continue its
objections to any attempt at certification. The Company has also
filed motions to dismiss cases involving firefighters who worked
for fire departments located outside of the state of Illinois
based on improper venue. On February 24, 2017, the Circuit Court
of Cook County entered orders dismissing the cases of 1,770 such
firefighter plaintiffs from the jurisdiction of the state of
Illinois. These cases may be refiled in jurisdictions where these
firefighters are located. The Company also has filed a venue
motion seeking to transfer to DuPage County cases involving 10
plaintiffs who reside and work in Illinois but outside of Cook
County. The Court granted this motion on June 28, 2017.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs
in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant
to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was
voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company
paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a
Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the
law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants,
on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the
"Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the
Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had
lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in
this case on May 31, 2016. The Company thereafter moved to recover
various fees and costs in this case, asserting that plaintiffs'
counsel failed to properly investigate these claims prior to
filing suit. The Court granted this motion on April 25, 2017,
awarding $0.1 million to the Company, Plaintiffs' counsel has
appealed this Order. With respect to claims of other out-of-state
firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The
Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November
5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another nine new
cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193
firefighters, most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania.
The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-
state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in
Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and
dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
regarding this decision. On May 13, 2016, four new cases were
filed in Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55
Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August
2016, the Company settled a case involving four Philadelphia
firefighters that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state
court during September 2016. During January 2017, plaintiffs filed
a motion to consolidate and bifurcate, similar to a motion filed
in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases.  The Company has filed an
opposition to this motion. Currently, there is one case involving
one plaintiff scheduled for trial in Philadelphia that may begin
in early September.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. During May 2016, two additional cases were filed against
the Company in Allegheny County involving 19 Pittsburgh
firefighters. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The
Court scheduled the first trials of these Pittsburgh firefighters
to occur in May, September and November 2016. Each trial will
involve eight firefighters. Prior to the first scheduled trial in
Pittsburgh, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiff
firefighters involved in this trial. Plaintiffs have appealed this
dismissal. The next trial involving six Pittsburgh firefighters
started on November 7, 2016. Shortly after this trial began,
plaintiffs' counsel moved for a mistrial because a key witness
suddenly became unavailable. The Court granted this motion and
rescheduled this trial for March 6, 2017.

During January 2017, plaintiffs also moved to consolidate and
bifurcate trials involving Pittsburgh firefighters. In particular,
plaintiffs seek one trial involving liability issues which will
apply to all Pittsburgh firefighters who have filed suit against
the Company. The Company filed an opposition to this motion. On
April 18, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion to
bifurcate the next Pittsburgh trial. Pursuant to a motion for
clarification filed by the Company, the Court ruled that the
bifurcation order will only apply to six plaintiffs who are part
of the next trial group in Pittsburgh. The Company thereafter
sought an interlocutory appeal of the Court's bifurcation order.
The appellate court declined to accept the appeal at this time. A
bifurcated trial involving six plaintiffs is scheduled to begin on
September 27, 2017. During March 2014, an action also was brought
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on
behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various
defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed
pretrial motions, 33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. All of the cases
filed in Erie County, New York have been removed to federal court
in the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to consolidate and bifurcate these cases, similar to the
motion filed in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases, as described
above. The Company has filed an opposition to the motion. During
February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter
plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as well as
several other parties as defendants. That case has been
transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York.
Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this case during May
2016. The Company also is aware that a lawsuit involving eight New
York City firefighters was filed in New York County, New York, on
April 24, 2015. The Company has not yet been served in that case.
During November 2015 through January 2016, 28 new cases involving
a total of 227 firefighters were filed in various counties in the
New York City area. During December 2016 through June 2017, three
additional cases, involving a total of 13 New York firefighters,
were filed in New York County state court. A total of 453
firefighters are currently involved in cases filed in the state of
New York.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New
Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal
court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from
January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in
various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these
cases reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire
departments. During December 2016, a case involving one New Jersey
firefighter was filed in the United States District Court of New
Jersey. A total of 105 firefighters are currently involved in
cases filed in New Jersey. On May 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
motion to consolidate and bifurcate in the pending federal court
case in New Jersey. This motion is similar to bifurcation motions
filed by plaintiffs in Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Philadelphia. The
Company has filed an opposition to this motion.

During May through October 2016, nine cases were filed in Suffolk
County, Massachusetts state court, naming the Company as a
defendant. These cases involve 194 firefighters who lived and
worked in the Boston area.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company recorded
$0.3 million and $0.1 million of reimbursements from CNA related
to legal costs, respectively.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Says 75% of Funds in Escrow Account
--------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said the remaining 75% of the settlement funds
in the Visa/Mastercard Merchant Interchange Litigation paid by the
Bancorp are maintained in the escrow account, according to its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation). The plaintiffs, merchants
operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade
associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-
issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and
unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the
Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation
of Visa as discussed in Note 16 and has also entered into judgment
and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain
other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the
litigation entered into a settlement agreement.

On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order
approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed
appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30,
2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class
settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings. In rejecting the settlement, the appellate court
found that counsel for plaintiffs was conflicted and thus could
not adequately represent the plaintiff-class members of the
separate monetary and injunctive relief settlement classes. The
appellate court decertified the settlement classes, ordered that
the case return to the trial court and directed the trial court to
appoint separate counsel for the separate plaintiff classes.

On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second
Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, the Bancorp previously paid $46 million into
a class settlement escrow account. Because the appellate court
ruling remands the case to the district court for further
proceedings, the ultimate outcome in this matter is uncertain.

Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class
settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned
settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class
settlement escrow account were already returned to the control of
the defendants. The remaining 75% of the settlement funds paid by
the Bancorp are maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of
the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed
separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain
other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These
individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the
Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual
lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification
arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted
above.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: No Trial Date in Cash Advance Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that no trial date has been scheduled in the case,
In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days.  On October 31, 2012, the case
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori
and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth
Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian
Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank).

Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of a
putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's
fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. No trial date
has been scheduled.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIRST HORIZON: Class Action Related to Merger Underway
------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the class action lawsuit related to a merger
transaction.

On July 14, 2017, a complaint captioned Robert Garfield v. First
Horizon National Corporation, et al., No. CH-17-1022, was filed on
behalf of a putative class of FHN shareholders against FHN, its
directors, and Capital Bank Financial Corp. ("Capital Bank
Financial") in the Court of Chancery of Shelby County, Tennessee
(30th Judicial District), in connection with FHN's agreement to
acquire Capital Bank Financial by merger. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the FHN director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the merger, that Capital Bank
Financial aided and abetted such breaches, and that FHN, its
directors, and Capital Bank Financial failed to disclose material
information in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as
other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees
(including attorneys' fees), and expenses.

In addition, Capital Bank Financial and the individual members of
the Capital Bank Financial board of directors have been named as
defendants in three substantially similar putative derivative and
class action lawsuits filed by alleged shareholders of Capital
Bank Financial. These actions are captioned: (1) Bushansky v.
Capital Bank Financial Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00422 (W.D.
North Carolina filed July 17, 2017); (2) Parshall v. Capital Bank
Financial Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00428 (W.D. North Carolina
filed July 19, 2017); and (3) Catherine McNamara v. Capital Bank
Financial Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00439 (W.D. North Carolina
filed July 25, 2017).

The Parshall complaint also names FHN as a defendant. The three
complaints allege that the registration statement on Form S-4
which FHN filed on June 29, 2017 omits and/or misrepresents
material information which renders it false and misleading.
Specifically, the complaints allege that the registration
statement omits material information regarding (i) the financial
projections of Capital Bank Financial, FHN, and the pro forma
combined company; (ii) material information regarding the
engagement of an investment banker; (iii) the holdings of certain
investment bankers in Capital Bank Financial and FHN; and (iv)
certain provisions of non-disclosure agreements between Capital
Bank Financial and prospective bidders, which included FHN. The
complaints further allege that an investment banker's valuation
analyses and fairness opinion were misleading. The complaints
seek, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well
as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs,
fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses.

The outcome of these pending matters, and any additional future
litigation concerning FHN's transaction with Capital Bank
Financial, is uncertain. Any of these suits, if fully or partially
successful, could prevent or delay completion of the transaction
and could result in substantial costs to FHN, including any costs
associated with the indemnification of FHN's directors and
officers and, after the transaction closes, indemnification of
Capital Bank Financial's directors and officers.

First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community
bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size.


FITBIT INC: Can Compel Arbitration for Opt-Ins in "McLellan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATE McLELLAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FITBIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Fitbit's motion to compel
arbitration for the Plaintiffs who did not opt out, and denied
Fitbit's motion to stay or dismiss Plaintiff Robb Dunn's claims.

In this putative class action, 13 Named Plaintiffs contend that
Fitbit misled consumers about the accuracy and reliability of the
heart rate monitoring functionality in Fitbit's wearable devices.

After the Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, the
parties submitted a joint statement indicating that Fitbit
intended to move to compel arbitration and proposing a briefing
schedule.  The question arose of whether the Court or an
arbitrator should decide the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs'
claims, and the Court directed the parties to address that
threshold issue first.

During oral argument on the arbitrability question, the Plaintiffs
raised contract formation concerns, and the Court directed the
parties to address these issues in another round of briefs.
Fitbit subsequently moved to compel arbitration for 12 of the
Named Plaintiffs who signed a terms of service agreement ("ToS")
containing an arbitration provision, which the Court took under
submission without a hearing.  Fitbit also moved to stay or
dismiss the claims of the remaining Plaintiff, Dunn, who opted out
of the arbitration provision.

While these briefs were under review, the Court allowed each side
to file sur-replies and supplemental briefs, which for the most
part discussed new decisions that one side or the other thought
germane to the arbitration questions.  All of the briefing is now
complete.  Judge's Donato's Order resolves the issue of who
decides the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claims, and sets a
course of action on Fitbit's request to stay or dismiss any claims
not subject to arbitration.

Judge Donato finds that the language of the parties' agreement is
the primary evidence of whether they intended to delegate
arbitrability.  In this case, the parties agree that Fitbit's ToS
is the center of gravity for this question.  In essential part,
then, the, ToS anticipates that any dispute arising out of the
Fitbit Service, or any other Fitbit products or services will be
resolved through arbitration pursuant to AAA rules.  A consumer
who, like Plaintiff Dunn, wants to opt out of arbitration
altogether can do that simply by advising Fitbit of the election
through the email link embedded in the ToS.

The Plaintiffs have not shown that they lacked the ability to
locate the incorporated arbitration terms or the delegation
provision within those arbitration terms, or the ability to reject
arbitration with the click of a mouse.  Consequently, Judge Donato
finds that the Plaintiffs agreed to a delegation clause.  Brennan
v. Opus Bank compels arbitration of arbitrability in this case.

Judge Donato also finds that the Plaintiffs' other challenges are
also unpersuasive.  In their view, the severability statement
creates an ambiguity about delegation that undermines its
effectiveness.  The point is not compelling, he says.  The
severability statement is entirely consistent with the ToS'
express recognition that some disputes may end up in the Court.
As a final point, the Judge says the Plaintiffs did not bring a
specific challenge to the validity of the delegation clause itself
that would warrant judicial as opposed to arbitral review.

The Plaintiffs were cautioned at the hearing of Nov. 10, 2016 to
offer contract defenses going to the validity of the arbitration
provision being challenged, not the validity of the entire ToS.
They have raised several challenges to the validity of the
agreement to arbitrate, but none specifically to the delegation
clause.  Consequently, their arguments must be considered by the
AAA arbitrator in the first instance.

As to Fitbit's stay or dismiss request the claims of Plaintiff
Dunn, Judge Donato denied the motion.  Dunn is the only Plaintiff
in this action who opted out of the arbitration provision.  He
opted out of arbitration in order to have access to courts.
Requiring Dunn to stay his claims while the remaining Plaintiffs
proceed with arbitration would undermine the effect of the opt-out
provision and improperly extend the arbitration agreement made by
the other Plaintiffs.  Delayed enforcement of an opt-out right,
just like belated enforcement of an arbitration provision, is a
less substantial interference than a refusal to enforce it at all,
but nonetheless significantly disappoints the expectations of the
parties and frustrates the clear purpose of their agreement.

Parallel proceedings may raise the risk of inconsistency, but the
FAA contemplates requiring piecemeal resolution when necessary to
give effect to an arbitration agreement.  Moreover, inconsistency
is possible even if the Court were to grant a stay: Fitbit has not
shown that the outcome of the arbitration proceedings will have
any effect on the Court's consideration of Dunn's claims.

For these reasons, Judge Donato granted Fitbit's motion to compel
arbitration for the Plaintiffs who did not opt out.  The
arbitrator will resolve those Plaintiffs' challenges to the scope
and enforceability of the arbitration clause.  The Judge denied
Fitbit's motion to stay or dismiss Plaintiff Dunn's claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OQCNoD from Leagle.com.

Kate McLellan, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Kate McLellan, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Kelly M. Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Leiff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP & Robert Howard Klonoff --
klonoff@usa.net -- Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice.

Teresa Black, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

David Urban, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Robert Dunn, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Rachel Saito, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Todd Rubinstein, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Rhonda Callan, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

James Schorr, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Bruce Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard Klonoff,
Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Fitbit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin McCalmon Bosman --
ebosman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Julie Yongsun Park --
juliepark@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, William Lewis Stern
-- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anna Erickson White
-- awhite@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Kai Shields
Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. continues to defend a shareholder
class action lawsuit, according to its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2,
2017. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding fee charges and the reasons for
its earnings and growth in certain press releases and other public
statements in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff
seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Fleetcor is a global provider of commercial payment solutions.


HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay the case captioned
MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO, Plaintiff, v. THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
(N.D. Cal.).

In April of 2017, the Plaintiff visited a Haagen-Dazs store in San
Jose, California.  The Haagen-Dazs cashier orally asked the
Plaintiff if she would like to enroll in a rewards program for
discounts on future purchases.  The cashier asked for her
telephone number, which she provided orally.

The same day, the Plaintiff received a text message from the
Defendants on her cellular telephone thanking her for joining the
Haagen-Dazs Rewards and that she may download their app.  The
"app" can be used to locate Haagen-Dazs stores, to place orders
online, and to get offers and coupons.  The Plaintiff alleges on
information and belief that her cellular-telephone number was
entered into a database and that the Defendants used equipment
capable of storing and/or producing telephone numbers and capable
of dialing such numbers to send the text to her.

The Plaintiff alleges that the text constitutes a telemarketing or
advertising message sent without prior express written consent,
and therefore it violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  She seeks to represent a class comprised of all persons
throughout the United States who, since Oct. 16, 2013, received at
least one text message from the Defendants on their cellular
telephones.  The Plaintiff seeks $500 in statutory damages for
each text message the class received, treble damages for the
Defendants' alleged willful and knowing violation of the TCPA,
injunctive relief, and interest, attorney's fees and costs of
suit, to the extent allowable by law.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., or in the alternative, to stay the
action pending the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
in ACA International v. FCC, et al., No. 15-1211.  They contend
that the text is not advertising or telemarketing because it does
not encourage the Plaintiff to purchase property, goods or
services.

The Plaintiff argues that the text advertises the commercial
availability of a service, namely the Defendants' app, and
therefore the text constitutes advertising within the meaning of
the TCPA.  She reasons that the app itself is one of the
Defendants' products, and that by explicitly including a link to
download that app, they are advertising the app's commercial
availability.

Judge Davila finds that if the registration for Haagen-Dazs
Rewards was completed before the receipt of the text and without
the need to download the Defendants' app, then their message to
"Download our app here," arguably constitutes an advertisement for
the commercial availability of their app.  Construing the alleged
facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, he finds the
Plaintiff's allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

As to the Plaintiff's allegation on information and belief that
her cellular-telephone number was entered into a database and that
the Defendants used equipment capable of storing and/or producing
telephone numbers and capable of dialing such numbers to send the
text to her, Judge Davila finds that these allegations are
sufficient at the pleading stage given the content of the message
and the context in which it was received.

With respect to their request to stay action pending the D.C.
Circuit's ruling in ACA International where the definition of an
ATDS is at issue, the Defendants urge the court to follow the lead
of numerous district courts, including courts in the Northern
District of California, that have entered stays pending
disposition of ACA International.

This Court, however, disagrees that a stay is justified.  Judge
Davila says that without knowing what type of technology the
Defendants used to send the Plaintiff the text, it is unclear
whether the decision in ACA International will be dispositive of
this case or even narrow the issues.  Furthermore, regardless of
the outcome of ACA International, it is likely that the Defendants
will be required to produce discovery to settle any factual
disputes regarding their technology.

In addition, although a decision from the D.C. Circuit may be
issued shortly, there may be further appeals.  It is impossible to
forecast when a final, binding decision in ACA International will
be rendered.  In the meantime, the Judge notes that delaying the
case would prejudice the Plaintiff.  The passage of time will make
it more difficult to reach the class members and will increase the
likelihood that evidence will dissipate.  In contrast, the
Defendants have not established that they will suffer hardship or
inequity if required to proceed with this litigation.

For these reasons, Judge Davila denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to stay the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MfrWE1 from Leagle.com.

Melanie G. San Pedro-Salcedo, Plaintiff, represented by Abigail
Ameri Zelenski -- abigail@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group.

Melanie G. San Pedro-Salcedo, Plaintiff, represented by David
Zelenski -- david@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group, Michael
Joe Jaurigue -- michael@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group, Ryan
A. Stubbe -- ryan@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group & Sehreen
Ladak -- sehreen@jlglawyers.com -- Jaurigue Law Group.

The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Geoffrey W. Castello -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye
and Warren LLP, pro hac vice, Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye Warren LLP, pro hac
vice & Miles Cooley -- mcooley@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye
Warren LLP.

Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company, Defendant, represented by
Geoffrey W. Castello, Kelley Drye and Warren LLP, pro hac vice &
Miles Cooley, Kelley Drye Warren LLP.

Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey W. Castello,
Kelley Drye and Warren LLP, pro hac vice & Miles Cooley, Kelley
Drye Warren LLP.


HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit are awaiting the court's
ruling on a mtoin to dismiss amended complaint, Horizon Pharma
Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action
lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the
"Officer Defendants").

On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions under
Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al. On June 3, 2016, the court
appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel.

On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiff
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidated
complaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016,
including additional current and former officers, the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwriters
involved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the
"Underwriter Defendants") as defendants. The plaintiffs allege
that certain of the Company and the Officer Defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about,
among other things: (a) the Company's financial performance, (b)
the Company's business prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c)
the Company's sales and promotional practices, and (d) the
Company's design, implementation, performance, and risks
associated with the Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. The
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the Director
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the
"Securities Act") in connection with the Company's April 2015
public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award
of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the putative
class, including a reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys'
fees.

On November 14, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition
to the motion to dismiss on December 21, 2016. Briefing on the
motion to dismiss was completed on January 27, 2017 and the
parties await the court's ruling.

Horizon is a biopharmaceutical company focused on improving
patients' lives by identifying, developing, acquiring and
commercializing differentiated and accessible medicines that
address unmet medical needs.  It markets 11 medicines through its
orphan, rheumatology and primary care business units.


HORTONWORKS INC: Settlement in "Monachelli" Case Wins Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00980 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston entered an order
dated October 10, 2017, granting a Motion for Settlement; and
approving a Plan of Allocation, Award of Attorneys Fees and
Expenses and Plaintiff Compensation Awards.

Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on February 29, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-00980-SI. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company,
Robert G. Bearden, and Scott J. Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations.

On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff
and another named plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hortonworks' securities between August 5, 2015 and January 15,
2016, inclusive, and seeking class certification, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

On December 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. The parties
thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations and have agreed to a
class-wide settlement that would not have a material effect on the
Company's financial statements.

On June 12, 2017, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  A final fairness hearing was
scheduled for September 22, 2017.

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://www.strategicclaims.net/hortonworks/


HSBC: Settles US Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg and The National report that a couple of months ago,
HSBC Holdings broke with more than a century of tradition and
tapped an outsider, Mark Tucker, as its chairman.

When it came to selecting a new chief executive, however, Europe's
biggest bank went with the ultimate insider.

On Oct. 12, the lender selected John Flint, the head of retail
banking and wealth management, to succeed Stuart Gulliver as chief
executive on February 21.

Born in Yorkshire, in northern England, Mr Flint attended
elementary school for a time in Saudi Arabia when his father
worked as a university lecturer in the kingdom.  In an era when
global banks are increasingly turning to new faces to manage their
fortunes in an unforgiving marketplace, he represents something
rare -- a banker who has spent his entire 28-year career in the
same institution, rising from a management trainee to the top job.

"John has worked in all our main markets, and he's worked in many
of the group's key roles," said Mr Tucker, 59, the former chairman
and chief executive of the insurer AIA.

"His experience enables him to know better than anyone what HSBC
is capable of."

While Mr Flint, 49, may be a familiar face inside the walls of
HSBC, he has cut a low profile outside the institution, according
to Bloomberg.  He does not maintain a LinkedIn page, nor does he
tweet.  The division he leads endured slumping income over the
past four years and has been called a fintech laggard. And he
lacks the prominence of his counterparts Jes Staley at Barclays or
John Cryan at Deutsche Bank.

Yet Mr Flint, a buttoned-down banker with a sweep of greying hair
and the analytical gaze of a numbers man, is intent on asserting
his authority in all areas of the bank, especially the trading
floor.  He will not hesitate to reassign or fire personnel who do
not fit his plans, according to a person familiar with his
management style.

A fan of endurance sports, he once finished Switzerland's Ironman
race, a punishing three-part competition that includes a full
marathon on top of a 14km bike ride and a 5km swim. Although too
busy to compete these days, he still runs shorter distances and
does open-water swims to unwind. Mr Flint declined to be
interviewed.

Returning from Saudi Arabia, he went on to earn an economics
degree with honours from Portsmouth Polytechnic, a small college
in Britain's maritime hub.  He had wanted to be a banker since he
was 15, and applied to HSBC's International Manager Programme on
the advice of his high school headmaster, according to a company
biography.

He has been rising through the ranks at HSBC since he joined the
bank in 1989, at the age of 21.  As a trainee, Mr Flint was
steeped in the 152-year-old institution's ways.  The boot camp
sends budding executives on two-year tours in HSBC's operations
around the world. Recruits are expected to learn the native
language and to "demonstrate the ability to make an immediate
impact" on business.  Mr Flint completed his stint in Hong Kong
and Calcutta.

After labouring at various roles in Hong Kong, Bangkok, and
Singapore, Mr Flint was made the head of global markets in
Indonesia.  By 2004, he was running balance sheet management for
Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and two years later became the
group treasurer.  He then managed the global asset management unit
and in 2013 assumed his current role.

Under his watch, pretax profits at the retail banking and wealth
management division slumped almost 20 per cent between 2013 and
2016, to US$5.3 billion, as the company closed and sold businesses
against a backdrop of falling interest rates.  More recently, his
overhaul has shown signs of bearing fruit.  Earnings at the unit
jumped 36 per cent in the first half of 2017, to $3.4bn, from the
same period in 2016.

Mr Flint's rotations through HSBC's businesses served him well.
When the board started the search for a successor to Mr Gulliver,
Mr Flint placed his knowledge of the bank's culture at the centre
of his pitch to the new chairman.

Investors were not surprised that HSBC, which has never appointed
an outsider to the chief executive spot, tapped him to pick up
where his predecessor left off.  Under Mr Gulliver, who took the
helm in 2011, and the chairman Douglas Flint (no relation), HSBC
withdrew from 18 countries and about 100 businesses after the
global financial crisis, tougher capital requirements and stiffer
regulation prompted an industry-wide retrenchment.

HSBC's share price has climbed 68 per cent over the past five
years, compared with a 23 per cent gain in the 46-company STOXX
600 Banks Index.

"Stuart and Douglas did a good job tidying up," said Hugh Young,
the head of Asia at Standard Life Aberdeen, which holds HSBC
shares.  "Continuing their work makes a lot of sense, so we're
supportive of having an outsider appointed as chairman, and an
insider as CEO."

Now that much of the restructuring is done, Mr Flint must take
charge of one of the most influential banking giants in the world,
with $2.5 trillion in assets.  It is also one of the most
idiosyncratic. Founded in 19th century Hong Kong, HSBC has deep
roots in two home markets on either side of the globe: the UK and
China.  For all its international scope, HSBC has cultivated an
insular culture that prizes a go-slow approach over the racy
financial engineering that has driven many of its rivals.  It is
little wonder that the bank has opted over the decades to choose
chief executives from its own ranks.

Mr Flint, who was a senior executive at a time when HSBC was fined
in scandals ranging from market rigging to money laundering, will
have to ensure the bank's reputation does not sustain further
damaged from similar misconduct.

On Oct. 11, HSBC, along with Citigroup and Deutsche Bank agreed to
pay a combined $132 million to settle a US class action brought by
futures traders accusing them of manipulating the Libor benchmark
interest rate, Reuters reported a US court filing as saying.

Citi, Deutsche Bank and HSBC agreed to pay $33.4m, $80m and
$18.5m, respectively, according to the filing in Manhattan federal
court.

Another potential source of trouble is the former HSBC currency
trader and the bank's former global head of foreign exchange, Mark
Johnson's ongoing court case.

On Oct. 12, Mr Johnson sought to distance himself from a $3.5bn
foreign-exchange transaction at the centre of a US fraud case,
saying he left his London colleague Stuart Scott in charge of the
deal.

Mr Johnson's testimony came on his second day on the witness stand
in a case where he and Mr Scott are accused of trading ahead of a
customer order in 2011.  Mr Scott remains in London where he is
fighting extradition to the US.

"I put Stuart in charge of a deal at this stage," said Mr Johnson,
who was in HSBC's New York offices on December 7, 2011, when the
order was executed primarily by traders in London. "Stuart was
there, as opposed to being 3,000 miles away."

Mr Johnson is also accused of tipping off bank currency traders to
buy, according to Bloomberg.  That caused the client, Cairn
Energy, to overpay and resulted in an $8 million profit for the
bank, prosecutors say.  On Oct. 12, Mr Johnson denied knowing many
of the details of the transaction for which HSBC was hired to
convert the proceeds of a Cairn unit sale into pounds from
dollars.

When it comes to financial technology, Mr Flint will have a lot of
work to do to catch rivals such as Barclays, UBS or Banco
Santander, which have invested aggressively in fintech start-ups
and apps to bring digital banking services to their retail
customers and wealth management clients.  In September, Autonomous
Research in London criticised HSBC's mobile banking app and called
the lender a "laggard" in innovation.

"The bank is well positioned for the future but we must continue
to innovate and accelerate the pace of change required to meet the
expectations of our shareholders, customers, employees, and
society at large," the new chief executive has said. [GN]


ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of "Riffey" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's refusal to certify the class the case captioned
THERESA RIFFEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUCE V. RAUNER,
in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, and
SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
6-3487 (7th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs are personal assistants, who provide in-home care
for individuals through the Illinois Department of Human Services
Home Services Program.  The State of Illinois pays the Plaintiffs,
and they are represented by Defendant SEIU Healthcare Illinois &
Indiana for purposes of collective bargaining with the state.  The
Plaintiffs are not members of the union (nor are they public
employees), but until recently, they were compelled to pay to the
union a "fair-share" fee in order to support its collective
bargaining efforts.

In April 2010, they filed the suit, in which they contend that the
involuntary deduction and collection of the fair-share fees
violates their First Amendment rights and entitles them to relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The district court dismissed
their claim and Appellate Court affirmed.  But the Supreme Court
agreed with the Objectors and reversed in Harris v. Quinn. In
accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Harris, the
Appellate Court remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

Once back in the district court, the Objectors amended their
complaint to substitute new Named Plaintiffs for their proposed
class and to reflect the fact that the Governor of Illinois is now
Bruce V. Rauner.  They then sought certification of a class of all
non-union member assistants from whom fair share fees were
collected from April 2008 until June 30, 2014 (the date of the
Supreme Court's Harris decision), when the state stopped the fair-
share deductions.  The Objectors contend that their proposed
class, which numbers around 80,000 members, is entitled to a
refund of the total of the fair-share fees paid by its members--
approximately $32 million.

The Union opposed the motion for class certification; the Governor
took no position on the class issue and is not participating in
this appeal.  The district court decided that class certification
was inappropriate for several reasons: (i) the class definition
was overly broad in light of evidence (detailed by the court) that
a substantial number of class members did not object to the fee
and could not have suffered an injury; (ii) the Named Plaintiffs
were not adequate representatives; (iii) the individual questions
regarding damages predominated over common ones; and (iv) the
class faced serious manageability issues; and a class action was
not a superior method of resolving the issue.

The parties then stipulated to a judgment permanently enjoining
the future collection of fair-share fees and awarding money
damages to the named plaintiffs.  The district court entered final
judgment, and the appeal followed.

Whereas the Seventh Circuit understands that the Named Plaintiffs
objected to the collection of the fair-share fees and to
collective bargaining representation, it has no way of knowing
whether or how many of the remaining class members shared that
opposition.  Nothing in Harris said that people could not
voluntarily join a union, or voluntarily pay a fair share fee.
Its focus was exclusively on compelled participation.

The Seventh Circuit cannot accept that characterization in the
face of direct evidence from the supposedly injured class members
that they did not feel injured at all, and that they would have
happily paid the fair-share fee without complaint.  The premise of
the Objectors' argument -- that these funds were taken without
consent -- stands on shaky ground.  They presume that silence was
equivalent to non-consent, while the Union argues that silence
against the backdrop of the earlier legal regime in which there
was no obligation to signify consent is at worst uninformative,
and if anything suggests consent.

The Seventh Circuit can assume that the taking of money without
consent or legal justification is enough to give rise to some kind
of a tort, but it is less clear that such a taking implicates the
First Amendment.  Compelled subsidization can violate the First
Amendment because it impinges on First Amendment rights.

The Seventh Circuit finds that the case has always been about the
decision whether to support collective bargaining representation
and pay the fair-share fee, and the personal assistants were never
asked to express a preference on that point.  The differences in
opinion regarding the Union and its activities go to the heart of
both the question of consent to the fee collection and to the
motivation to seek monetary damages against the Union.

The Seventh Circuit says the Plaintiffs' suggestion to certify the
class that they have proposed and allow members with competing
interests (i.e., those who would have supported the Union
willingly, or who have since become full Union members) to opt out
of the action attempts to foist the burden of fashioning an
appropriate class on those who would be required to opt-out.  This
the Seventh Circuit cannot allow.  It is worth noting, too, that
the district court repeatedly invited the Objectors to suggest a
more tailored class, but they let that opportunity pass. The
Seventh Circuit therefore has no trouble finding that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proposed
class representatives failed the adequacy requirement of Rule
23(a)(4).

The Seventh Circuit agrees with the district court that the
question whether damages are owed for many, if not most, of the
proposed class members can be resolved only after a highly
individualized inquiry.  This suggests not only that the
individual questions predominate at this stage of the litigation,
but also that it would be difficult to manage the litigation as a
class.  The Plaintiffs offered no plan to make class-wide
determinations about support for the collective bargaining
representation.  The district court was well within the bounds of
its discretion to reject class treatment on these bases as well.

The Seventh Circuit reviews of both the facts and the legal
arguments the Objectors have presented leaves Judge Wood satisfied
that the district court's decision not to certify their proposed
class was a sound one. The Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed the
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/G0rsUa from Leagle.com.

Nadine J. Wichern -- nwichern@atg.statel.il.us -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

William L. Messenger, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Scott A. Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Frank Henry Bieszczat, for Defendant-Appellee.

Amanda Kae Freeman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Donato" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties await a ruling from the court on the motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit against Insys Therapeutics, Inc., according
to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint
(captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona against us and certain of our
current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations
and compliance with laws during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock.  On June 3,
2016, the court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead plaintiff.
On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as an
additional defendant and extending the class period.  On December
22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment of Michael
L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced on
December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August 12,
2014 through December 8, 2016.  On January 12, 2017, the
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.  Oral
arguments were heard by the court on July 28, 2017 and the parties
await a ruling from the court on the motion to dismiss.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We
continue to vigorously defend this matter."

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Motion Conference Held in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01954 (S.D.N.Y.), a Pre-Motion Conference was
held before Judge Paul A. Crotty on Oct. 11, 2017.

Shannon Hopkins and Gregory Potrepka appeared on behalf of the
plaintiffs. Daniel Slifkin, David Stuart, and Morgan Cohen
appeared on behalf of the defendants.

The Court set an amended pleading deadline and motion schedule.
Amended complaint due by Oct. 27.  Defendant's motion due by Nov.
3.  Response is due by Jan. 12, 2018. Reply is due by Jan. 22.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., continues to defend against the
consolidated Currier and Erdmann lawsuits, according to its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint
(captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our
officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of purchasers of our securities between February 23, 2016
and March 15, 2017. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and financial results during the
class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our
securities."

On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court.

On May 31, 2017, the court consolidated the first and second
complaint and lead counsel in the consolidated action. On July 31,
2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated complaint. The
plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

"We continue to vigorously defend this matter," the Company said.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Says Merger Class Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that class action lawsuits
related to a merger agreement have been voluntarily dismissed.

On February 13, 2017, the Company and GigPeak announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
February 13, 2017. On February 17, 2017, a purported class action
was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, (Carbajal v.
GigPeak, Inc., et al, Case No. 17-cv-306571). On March 8, 2017, a
purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court of Delaware (Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. GigPeak, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00241-VAC SRF). On March 13, 2017, a purported class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Mendoza v. Gigpeak, Inc. et al,
Case No. 3;17-cv-01351-WHO). On March 16, a second purported class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Travis v. GigPeak, Inc. et al,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01441-LKH). The Company was named as a defendant
in the Carbajal and Gusinsky complaints. The Carbajal complaint
asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, including that defendants have
failed to secure adequate deal consideration as well as various
other breaches of duty. The Gusinsky, Travis and Mendoza
complaints asserted claims under Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Gusinsky, Mendoza and Travis
complaint alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by GigPeak
contained material omissions and misstatements, and sought to
enjoin and/or rescind the Offer as well as certain other equitable
relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Carbajal complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 7, 2017.
Each of the remaining complaints was voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiffs on or around April 7, 2017, and the actions were closed
by the Court on or around May 15, 2017 after Plaintiffs' fees were
agreed to by the parties.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (IDT or the Company) designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of integrated
circuits for the advanced communications, computing, consumer and
automotive industries.


ITERIS INC: Settlement of Stockholder Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ionni v. Bergera et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00807 (D.
Del.), Judge Richard G Andrews held a hearing on the Motion for
Class Certification, Final Approval of Class Action and Derivative
Settlement, and Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses.  Following the hearing, the Court entered an Order and
Final Judgement, and closed the case.

Iteris, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on September 15, 2016, a stockholder class
action and derivative action (captioned Ionni v. Bergera, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv00807-RGA) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") against certain
of the Company's current and former directors and officers (the
"Individual Defendants") and the Company as a nominal defendant
(together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"). The
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff contends that, in 2014 and 2015, the
Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue purportedly
false and misleading proxy statements in connection with the
Company's annual meeting of stockholders in 2014 and 2015
(collectively, the "Proxy Statements").

In those Proxy Statements, the Company's stockholders were asked
to approve amendments (the "Amendments") to increase the number of
shares of the Company's common stock reserved for issuance under
the Iteris, Inc. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "2007 Plan").
Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statements
were materially false and misleading because they affirmatively
represented that no person could receive more than 500,000 stock
options or SARs under the 2007 Plan in any fiscal year (the "Share
Limit") and failed to disclose that the Compensation Committee had
the discretion to approve an annual grant to a 2007 Plan
participant in excess of that amount.

Plaintiff contends that, in voting to approve the Amendments, the
Company's stockholders were not fully informed and, therefore, the
Amendments were not valid. Plaintiff seeks rescission of any stock
options granted pursuant to the Amendments, including the option
to purchase up to 1,350,000 shares of the Company's common stock
that was granted in September 2015 to Mr. Bergera (the "CEO
Option") in connection with his appointment to serve as President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

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

On April 28, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement and Compromise (the "Stipulation") that provides for,
among other things, a release of claims against Defendants. Under
the Stipulation, Defendants agreed not to oppose any award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff up to $215,000. On May
2, 2017, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement. On May 11, 2017, the Court issued an order
requesting briefing from the parties regarding the scope of the
proposed release in the settlement, and on May 22, 2017,
Defendants and Plaintiff each filed a letter brief to the Court in
response to the order.

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

An immaterial accrued liability for the settlement is included in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017
and March 31, 2017.

Iteris, Inc. is a provider of applied informatics for both the
traffic management and global agribusiness markets.


JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Retirement Plan Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. continues to defend
against the Retirement Plan Litigation, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under ERISA, by a
participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan
participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and
monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October
12, 2016, which was denied in part and granted in part on January
26, 2017. The claim against JFC was dismissed. All other claims
remained in the case.

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

The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz
plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated
complaint on April 28, 2017.  On May 26, 2017, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which has been fully
briefed by both parties and is pending.

                           *     *     *

On July 11, 2017, a Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss Case
was filed by Defendants Linda Banniester, Brett Bayston, Ken
Blanchard, Bonnie Caudle, Jess Dechant, Ann Echelmeier, Edward D.
Jones & Co., L. P., Edward Jones Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Administrative Committee, David Gibson, Juli Johnson, Jason
Jonczak, Jan-Marie Kain, Glenn Kolod, Curtis Long, Julie Rea,
Peggy Robinson, The Edward Jones Investment and Education
Committee, Asma Usmani, Mark Vivian, Stina Wishman.


KEMET CORP: Discovery in Antitrust Case to End by Dec. 29
---------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery in the case, In Re: Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, is scheduled to be completed by
December 29, 2017.

In July 2013, TOKIN was named as one of eight defendants in two
purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuits (In Re: Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 13-MD-02420-YGR, United States
District Court, Northern District of California) regarding the
sale of lithium ion batteries brought on behalf of direct product
purchasers and indirect product purchasers.

On April 12, 2017, motions to approve class certification on
behalf of the direct product purchasers and indirect product
purchasers plaintiffs were denied by the Court; plaintiffs were
given leave to amend. Discovery in the actions is scheduled to be
completed by December 29, 2017, and summary judgment motions are
due by January 16, 2018.

All of the other defendants have settled with the direct product
purchasers plaintiffs, and four of the defendants have settled
with the indirect product purchasers plaintiffs.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors,
and, with the recent acquisition of TOKIN, electro-magnetic
compatible devices, sensors and actuators.


KEMET CORP: Says TOKIN Paid Initial Installment Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that TOKIN has paid the initial installment
payments into the two plaintiff classes' respective escrow
accounts.

On May 2, 2016, TOKIN reached a preliminary settlement, followed
by definitive settlement agreements on July 15, 2016 which are
subject to court approval, in two antitrust suits filed with the
United States District Court, Northern District of California as
In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the
"Class Action Suits"), which was approved by the court on April 6,
2017 (for the purported direct purchaser plaintiffs), or is
subject to court approval (for the purported indirect purchaser
plantiffs). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in
consideration of the release of TOKIN and its subsidiaries
(including TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the Class
Action Suits, TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a
settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a
settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors. Each of the
respective class payments is payable in five installments, the
first of which became due on July 29, 2016, the next three of
which are due each year thereafter on the anniversary of the
initial payment, and the final payment is due by December 31,
2019.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors,
and, with the recent acquisition of TOKIN, electro-magnetic
compatible devices, sensors and actuators.


LAUREATE EDUCATION: Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Laureate Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion to transfer has
been denied.

The Company said, "On October 5, 2016, a student filed suit
against us and Walden University in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the matter of Latonya
Thornhill v. Walden University, et. al., claiming that her
progress in her program was delayed by Walden University and
seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of
purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims
include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer
fraud under the laws of Maryland and Ohio, and unjust enrichment.

"We and Walden University were served on October 17, 2016. On
December 16, 2016, we and Walden University filed a motion to
dismiss the claims and a motion to strike the class action
certification request. On January 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, making modifications to supplement some of the
factual allegations and seeking to change the governing law of the
case to the law of Minnesota. A substantive response to the
amended complaint was filed on February 9, 2017.

"The Thornhill court temporarily stayed this case in its entirety
until May 1, 2017, pending the outcome of the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") proceeding discussed below. Following denial of
the MDL transfer motion, the Thornhill court has temporarily
stayed discovery until at least October 1, 2017, pending the
determination on the motions to dismiss the complaint as well as
the request for class action certification which remains pending.
Walden University and we intend to defend against this case
vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class.

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

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

"On December 29, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and
Walden University in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota in the matter of Aaron Bleess, et al v.
Walden University, et. al (Case No. 16-CV-4402), claiming that his
progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and
seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of
purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims
include, under the laws of Minnesota, breach of contract, consumer
fraud, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, fraudulent
inducement, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Fraud Act. Laureate
and Walden University were served on January 5 and January 6,
2017, respectively.

"On January 17, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to the first-filed rule,
based upon the fact that the Thornhill case was filed first in
Ohio. The Bleess court stayed the proceedings pending a ruling on
this motion to dismiss.

"Walden University and we intend to defend against this case
vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class.
This case appears to be nearly identical in allegations, including
the same alleged class, as Thornhill and Wright. The court issued
an order on April 21, 2017 granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss (without prejudice). The plaintiffs may seek leave to join
the Thornhill case or may file individual cases without class
allegations.

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

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


LIONS GATE: Trial in Stockholder Suit to Commence 2019
------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that trial in the case, In re Starz
Stockholder Litigation, will commence in the second half of fiscal
2019.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions have
been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016. The complaint names as defendants
the members of the board of directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and
Leslie Malone; Mr. Bennett and Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey L.
Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments, LLC
("Hilltop"); Dr. Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. It alleges,
among other things, that the members of the Starz board of
directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders
of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and
related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling stockholder
of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz
stockholders in connection with the merger and related
transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against former Starz directors Irving
Azoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and Jeffrey
Sagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone,
Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone Trust
A.

On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky. The remaining
defendants filed answers to the verified consolidated class action
complaint on January 24, 2017.

The court has entered a scheduling order providing for a trial to
commence in the second half of fiscal 2019. Defendants intend to
defend the action vigorously.


LIPOCINE INC: Utah Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss "Lewis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lewis v. Lipocine Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00182
(D. Utah), District Court Judge Dee Benson denied Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that, "On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of
its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., 3:16-
cv-04009-BRM-LHG, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. This initial action was followed by
additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey. The
lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and allege
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that our filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021 to the
FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants'
statements about our business and operations were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and
unspecified equitable relief."

"On December 2, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the various lawsuits and appointed Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel and Lipocine Investor Group as lead plaintiff. The
court also stated that all filings shall bear the caption In re
Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On March 14, 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the
action to the United States District Court for the District of
Utah.

"On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah. This is a
purported class action seeking relief for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations in the Amended
Complaint are substantially similar to those in the complaint
filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages of an unspecified amount, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees, and unspecified other costs, as well as any further
relief the court deems just and proper.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 12,
2017, in compliance with the scheduling order entered by the court
on December 20, 2016, and on July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss.

"We believe that the claims in the lawsuits are without merit and
will defend against them vigorously. We maintain insurance for
claims of this nature, which management believes is adequate.
Moreover, we believe, based on information currently available,
that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits will not have
a material impact on our financial position, although we will have
to pay the insurance retention amount in connection with the
lawsuit."

Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on applying
oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.


LUMOS NETWORKS: Class Suits over EQT Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits related to the EQT merger against the
directors of Lumos Networks Corp. have been dismissed, according
to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On April 4, 2017 and April 11, 2017, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Court") against the Company's
directors, EQT Partners Inc., Parent and Merger Sub. The
plaintiffs in the actions allege that the Company's disclosures in
its preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC
on March 31, 2017 contained false and misleading statements and
omitted material information and further that the individual
defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and
omissions. The actions sought, among other things, to enjoin the
Merger or, if the Merger has been consummated, to rescind the
Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs. Following the Company's filing of its
definitive proxy, the plaintiffs in the actions filed stipulations
of voluntary dismissal asserting that their claims had been
rendered moot.

On June 12, 2017 the Court issued a Stipulation of Dismissal and
Withdrawal Order for each action, in which the Court retained
jurisdiction over the action solely for purposes of further
proceedings related to the adjudication of the plaintiffs' fee and
expense application.  Although it is not possible to predict the
outcome of litigation matters with certainty, the Company believes
that this adjudication will not result in fees and expenses that
will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.

Lumos Networks Corp. is a fiber-based bandwidth infrastructure and
service provider in the Mid-Atlantic region with a network of
long-haul fiber, metro Ethernet and Ethernet rings offering end-
to-end connectivity in 26 markets in Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and Kentucky. The
Company serves carrier, enterprise and residential customers over
its fiber network offering data, voice and IP services.  The
Company's principal products and services include Multiprotocol
Label Switching ("MPLS") based Ethernet, Metro Ethernet ("Metro
E"), Fiber to the Cell ("FTTC") wireless backhaul and fiber
transport services, wavelength transport services, IP services and
other voice services.

In January 2017, the Company completed its acquisitions of Clarity
Communications, LLC and DC74, LLC, for total consideration of up
to approximately $15 million and $29.5 million, respectively,
which expanded the Company's operations into additional states in
the southeastern region of the United States. See Note 4. Business
Acquisitions for more information.

On February 18, 2017, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement ("Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, MTN
Infrastructure TopCo, Inc. ("Parent") and MTN Infrastructure
BidCo, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which the Company will be
acquired by EQT Infrastructure investment strategy ("EQT
Infrastructure"), subject to stockholder approval, regulatory
approval and other customary closing conditions ("the Merger" or
"EQT Merger"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, each outstanding
share of common stock of the Company prior to the effective time
of the Merger shall be automatically converted into the right to
receive $18.00 in cash.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Motion to Dismiss Rockford Suit Due Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City Of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-50107 (N.D. Ill.), the City of Rockford filed on
Oct. 9, 2017, a First Amended complaint against All Defendants.

Following a hearing on Oct. 6, the Honorable Iain D. Johnston
granted the parties' agreed motion for a briefing schedule,
continuance, and leave to file oversized briefs.   The schedule
provides that the plaintiff must file the amended complaint as a
separately-docketed entry by Oct. 10. The defendants' anticipated
motions to dismiss shall be filed by Dec. 11, responses shall be
filed by Jan. 22, 2018 and replies by Feb. 20, 2018.

Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on April 6, 2017, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and
United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City
of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in
the U.S. and its Territories that paid for Acthar from August 2007
to the present. The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in
anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise
and maintain the price of Acthar.

To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC
and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling Acthar through an
exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on consumers by
failing to correctly identify Acthar's active ingredient on
package inserts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Plaintiff City Of Rockford, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

     Donald E Haviland , Jr, Esq.
     Haviland Hughes
     201 S. MAPLE AVENUE, Suite 110
     Ambler, PA 19002
     Tel: (215) 609-4661
     E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com

          - and -

     Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
     Meyers & Flowers, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Tel: (630) 232-6333
     E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com

Defendant Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., formerly known as: Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is represented by:

     George Patrick Watson, Esq.
     Bryan Cave LLP
     14th Floor
     1201 West Peachtree Street
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: (404) 572-6846
     E-mail: patrick.watson@bryancave.com

          - and -

     Herbert R. Giorgio, Esq.
     Bryan Cave LLP
     211 N. Broadway
     Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Tel: (314) 259-2417
     E-mail: herb.giorgio@bryancave.com

The Defendant was initially represented by:

     George Cary, Esq.
     Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
     Suite 9000
     2000 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 974-1500
     E-mail: gcary@cgsh.com

Cleary Gottlieb's engagement was terminated effective June 16,
2017.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suits Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SOLOMON v. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01827 (D.D.C.), has been consolidated with the
case, Shenk v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-145, pursuant
to an order dated Oct. 24 by D.C. Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan.

According to a Minute Order, the Solomon case is consolidated with
Shenk v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-145; Patel v.
Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-171; Schwartz v. Mallinckrodt
PLC, Civil Case No. 17-cv-447; and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-534.  The
Docket entry says, "Because the "actions before the Court involve
a common question of law or fact, the Court may consolidate the
actions." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Accordingly, the five cases
are hereby consolidated. All filings in these consolidated cases
should be made, with separate captions for each case, only in
Civil Case No. 17-cv-145. The parties shall make no additional
filings in Civil Case No. 17-cv-1827, and the Clerk of the Court
is directed to close Case No. 17-cv-1827."

The Solomon case was initially filed in the Eastern District of
Missouri district court in July 2017.

Solomon then filed a complaint before the D.C. Court on Sept. 6.

A notice of voluntary dismissal was entered in the Missouri case
on Sept. 12.

Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on July 20, 2017, a
purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt's
Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"), filed a derivative
lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of
Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C. Trudeau ("CEO") ,
its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh ("CFO"), its
Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors
of the Company.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between
November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, in the ESPPs. In the
alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same
purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non-
disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in a putative class action securities litigation.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Securities Class Suits Underway in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against four putative class action securities
litigation.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on
a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18,
2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to Acthar and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. In
particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar revenues, and the exposure of Acthar to
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same
period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts
claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.,
was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The
Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its
CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set
forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those
set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MERCK & CO: Sales Force Litigation Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the Sales Force Litigation remains pending.

In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales
representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales
representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory
policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement,
(b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work
environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state
discrimination laws. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to
file an amended complaint.

In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four
additional named plaintiffs. In October 2014, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as
premature. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions,
including a motion for conditional certification under the Equal
Pay Act; a motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and
constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named
defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers
in opposition to the motions.

On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification but denied plaintiffs' motions to extend
the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June
2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April
2012, at the earliest.

On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs'
request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company
subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii)
an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named
plaintiffs. Approximately 700 individuals have opted-in to this
action; the opt-in period has closed.

On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. This motion seeks to certify a Title VII pay
discrimination class and also seeks final collective action
certification of plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act claim.


MERCK & CO: Hearing Held on Settlement of K-DUR Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the final approval hearing was scheduled for
October 5, 2017, on the settlement of the K-DUR Antitrust
Litigation.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation
(Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively,
relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough's long-acting
potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients,
for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications (ANDAs). Putative class and non-class action suits
were then filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were
consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

In February 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers' claims
concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all of the
direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Lederle.

In February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in
principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to
the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the
aggregate towards the overall settlement.

On April 5, 2017, the claims of the opt-outs were dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to a written settlement agreement with those
parties. On May 15, 2017, Merck and the class executed a
settlement agreement, which received preliminary approval from the
court on May 23, 2017. The final approval hearing was scheduled
for October 5, 2017, following notice of the settlement to the
class members.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in "Owens" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00074-RWS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons
for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established a
retained asset account, known as a total control account ("TCA"),
to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan.  The action alleges
that the Company's use of the TCA as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates the Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA.  As damages,
the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that the Company
realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class.

The appellate case is captioned as Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
v. Laura A. Owens, Case No. 17-90023, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent LAURA A. OWENS, Individually and on behalf of
a class of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          M. Scott Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT WYLIE, LLC
          PO Box 5233 S100
          320 W 8th St.
          Bloomington, IN 47407-5233
          Telephone: (812) 334-2600
          E-mail: scott@barrettwylie.com

               - and -

          John C. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          Lee W. Brigham, Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          457 Greene St.
          PO Box 1547
          Augusta, GA 30903-1547
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com
                  lee@bellbrigham.com

               - and -

          William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
          MORRISS LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
          830 Mulberry St., Suite 201
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (478) 745-7700
          Facsimile: (478) 745-4888
          E-mail: wgd@lddlawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael Jordan Lober, Esq.
          MORRISS LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
          500 Sun Valley Drive, Suite D4
          Roswell, GA 30076-5636
          Telephone: (678) 461-9800
          E-mail: mjlober@lddlawyers.com

               - and -

          Todd Lord, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
          PO Box 901 4 Courthouse Sq.
          Cleveland, GA 30528
          Telephone: (706) 219-2239
          Facsimile: (706) 348-8100
          E-mail: attytllord@windstream.net

               - and -

          James W. Oxendine, Esq.
          JOHN OXENDINE, P.C.
          4370 Peachtree Road NE S400
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 734-5738

Defendant-Petitioner METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Brendan Ballard, Esq.
          Irene A. Firippis, Esq.
          Phillip Edward Stano, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          700 6th Street NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 383-0100
          E-mail: brendanballard@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  phillipstano@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Curvin, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 853-8314
          E-mail: tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com


MGM RESORTS: Says Appeal over Class Action Settlement Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that an appeal related to the settlement of a
class action lawsuit is ongoing.

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

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

In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

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

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

On March 25, 2016, the sole objector to the adequacy of the
settlement filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Final Judgment and
related orders entered by the court concerning the plan of
settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees and expenses
to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. The case was scheduled for oral
argument on September 13, 2017.

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

MGM's primary business is the ownership and operation of casino
resorts, which offer gaming, hotel, convention, dining,
entertainment, retail and other resort amenities.


MOYA HOLDINGS: Indonesian Supreme Court Dismisses Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Lee, writing for The Business Times, reports that
Moya Holdings Asia -- an Indonesian water company -- on Oct. 16
said the Indonesian Supreme Court has dismissed a class action
lawsuit against a unit of Moya's recent acquisition, Acuatico.

The decision dismisses a class action lawsuit launched in November
2012 by 12 individuals, who had sought to terminate the policy on
privatisation of drinking water in Jakarta.

With the acquisition of Acuatico, Moya -- formerly known as Dayen
Environmental -- is now the largest water company in Indonesia.
[GN]


NL INDUSTRIES: Says Appeal in Lead Pigment Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that an appeal related to the lead pigment
litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "Our former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  We, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and
the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints.  Certain of these actions have been filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims."

"The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the
defendants or the plaintiffs.

"We believe that these actions are without merit, and we intend to
continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and
to defend against all actions vigorously.  We do not believe it is
probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to all
of the lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, and
liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be
reasonably estimated, because:

* we have never settled any of the market share, intentional tort,
fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,
conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, or statutory cases,

* no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered
against us, and

* we have never ultimately been found liable with respect to any
such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-
year period for which we were previously a party and for which we
have been dismissed without any finding of liability.

"Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the
pending lead pigment and lead -- based paint litigation cases
filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as
class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to
us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated
because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on
which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive
information available upon which an estimate could be based.

"In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 we were served
with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of
California government entities against the former pigment
manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers.  The
County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for
funds the plaintiffs have expended or would in the future expend
for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other
costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,
disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages.  In July 2003, the
trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining
claims.  Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court
reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and
fraud claims in March 2006.  A fourth amended complaint was filed
in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County
Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and
Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego
and Oakland.  That complaint alleged that the presence of lead
paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting
jurisdictions and sought its abatement.  In July and August 2013,
the case was tried.  In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment
finding us, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery
Products Company jointly and severally liable for the abatement of
lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an
aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California
to fund such abatement.  In February 2014, we filed a motion for a
new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion.
Subsequently in March 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the
appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. The California
Sixth District Court of Appeal has scheduled on August 24, 2017
the oral argument in the appeal of the lower court decision.  NL
believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law
and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will defend vigorously
against all claims.

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time
that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been
entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was
ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld).  In addition, liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to
have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as
discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is
no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is
reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process,
that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position and liquidity.

"New cases may continue to be filed against us.  We do not know if
we will incur liability in the future in respect of any of the
pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent
uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings.  In the future,
if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us
(such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or
otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such
matters), at that time we would consider such information in
evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to
whether it might then have become probable we have incurred
liability with respect to these matters, and whether such
liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable.  The
resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition
of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse
impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during
which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact
on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity."


NOVELION THERAPEUTICS: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Novelion Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that a fairness hearing is scheduled for
November 30, 2017.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Aegerion and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court")
alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the
marketing of JUXTAPID and Aegerion's financial performance in
violation of the federal securities laws. The case is captioned
KBC Asset Management NV et al. v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., No. 14-cv-10105-MLW.  On March 11, 2015, the Court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Co-lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015. Aegerion filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on July 31, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second
amended complaint.  On September 4, 2015, Aegerion moved to strike
the second amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure
to seek leave of court to file a second amended pleading. Oral
argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016. On
March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend.
Aegerion opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing on
April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement.  On May
13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion
wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs could file
a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion, which the
Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting defendants' pending
motion to strike the second amended pleading and co-lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended pleading.
The Court also entered a briefing schedule for defendants to file
responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition,
and defendants to file reply briefs.

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

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

On June 29, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. Aegerion and its insurance carriers have
contributed their respective portions of the settlement fund as of
July 14, 2017. Class members will have until October 31, 2017, to
object to or opt out of the settlement. A fairness hearing is
scheduled for November 30, 2017.

The proposed settlement remains subject to a number of procedural
steps and is subject to final approval by the Court. There is also
the possibility that significant numbers of class members may
object to or opt out of the proposed settlement. Aegerion has the
right to terminate the settlement if a certain percentage of class
members elect to opt out of the settlement. Accordingly, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this action or when it will
be resolved.  The Company previously recorded a liability of $22.3
million and an insurance proceeds receivable of $22.0 million,
representing the current balances at June 30, 2017.

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


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Ongoing in SEPTA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that document discovery is
ongoing in a class action lawsuit by SEPTA.

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

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

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

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

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States
Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The
Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Company, headquartered in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, is a
one-bank holding company that has elected status as a financial
holding company.


PBF HOLDING: Says Potential Amount of Claims Not Determinable
-------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC and PBF Finance Corporation said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as a result of
an appellate court's judgment, the potential amount of the claims
in a lawsuit is not determinable.

The Company said, "On September 2, 2011, prior to our ownership of
the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent Caruso, et al. v.
Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself
and other Louisiana residents who live or own property in St.
Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly
contaminated and who allegedly suffered any personal or property
damages as a result of an emission of spent catalyst, sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the Chalmette refinery on
September 6, 2010. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries,
symptoms, and property damage as a result of the release.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and
costs."

"In August 2015, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for
property damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning. On April
12, 2016, the trial court rendered judgment limiting damages
ranging from $100 to $500 for home cleaning and $25 to $75 for
vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs. The trial court found
Chalmette Refining and co-defendant Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"),
to be solitarily liable for the damages.

Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of the
judgment on the mini-trial. On June 28, 2017, the appellate court
unanimously reversed the judgment awarding damages to the
plaintiffs. On July 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing
of the appellate court judgment, which was denied on July 31,
2017. As a result of the appellate court's judgment, the potential
amount of the claims is not determinable. Depending upon the
ultimate class size and the nature of the claims, the outcome may
have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows.

PBF Holding Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and operates oil
refineries and related facilities in North America.


PBF HOLDING: Protective Order Entered in "Goldstein" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Arnold Goldstein et al v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02477 (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Steve
Kim signed off on a Stipulation for Protective Order on Oct. 11.

PBF Holding Company LLC and PBF Finance Corporation said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

The Company said, "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Inc. and PBF
Energy Company LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western
Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of
our Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were
named as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela
Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability,
ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a
permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon."

"The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

"While we are evaluating the allegations and cannot currently
estimate the amount or the timing of the resolution of this
matter, we believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners
and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil,
petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products
in the United States.


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Court Awards $52.7K Attys' Fees in "Brown"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA
LABUSZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-05272-
VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
and the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation
Expenses, Settlement Administration Expenses, and Class
Representative Service Awards as modified.

On Oct. 5, 2017, a hearing was held on the joint motion of the
parties, and on the separate motion of the Plaintiffs and the
Class Counsel.  The parties have submitted their Settlement, which
the Court preliminarily approved by its order entered on June 9,
2017.  In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the
Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the
Settlement and the opportunity to object to it or to exclude
themselves from its provisions.

Judge Chhabria confirmed as final the appointment of Brown, Morton
and Labuszewski as the Class Representatives of the FLSA
Collective and the California Rule 23 Class.  Accordingly, he
approved payment of the Class Representative service awards in the
amount of $10,000 each to Brown, Morton and Labuszewski.

The Judge also confirmed as final the appointment of the following
law firms and attorneys as the Class Counsel for the Rule 23 and
FLSA Classes: Kevin Stoops and Jason Thompson of Sommers Schwartz,
P.C., Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten & Golden LLP.  He awarded the
Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,876,500 and
reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $52,715.52.

Judge Chhabria finds and determines, pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement, that within seven days of receipt of the Total
Settlement Amount from TPMG (which must be paid within 14 days of
the Settlement becoming Final), the Settlement Administrator will
wire transfer (i) the attorneys' fee award of $1,876,500 to
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., and Sommers Schwartz, P.C., will be
responsible for distribution of fees to the Class Counsel
including Outten & Golden LLP; and (ii) the fees expenses to
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., and Sommers Schwartz, P.C., will be
responsible for distribution of litigation expenses to the Class
Counsel including Outten & Golden LLP.

Judge Chhabria awarded the Settlement Administrator, Simpluris,
Inc., reimbursement in the amount of $26,600 from the Total
Settlement Amount for the work it has performed and will perform
in the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1QVscS from Leagle.com.

Debra Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

Debra Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse L. Young --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- One Towne Square, pro hac vice, Kevin
Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice
& Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN
LLP.

Sandra Morton, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, One Towne
Square, pro hac vice, Kevin Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice
& Jahan C. Sagafi, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Barbara Labuszewski, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, One Towne
Square, pro hac vice, Kevin Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice
& Jahan C. Sagafi, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin
Marian Wang -- caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings
LLP & Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP.


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Settlement in "Brown" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA
LABUSZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-05272-
VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the parties' joint
motion for final approval of their class settlement and payment to
the Settlement Administrator.

On Oct. 5, 2017, a hearing was held on the parties' joint motion.
The parties have submitted their Settlement, which the Court
preliminarily approved by its order entered on June 9, 2017.  In
accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Members
have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the
opportunity to object to it or to exclude themselves from its
provisions.

Judge Chhabria granted final approval of the Settlement.  He
ordered that the Class is finally approved and certified as a
class for purposes of the Settlement.

The Judge also gave final approval to and ordered the payment, in
accordance with the Settlement, (i) of the Settlement Shares be
made to the Class Members who did not timely submit valid
elections not to participate out of the Net Settlement Amount;
(ii) to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
under the Settlement, in the amount of $75,000 out of the Total
Settlement Amount; and (iii) of the fees and expenses in
administrating the Settlement, in the amount of $26,600, out of
the Total Settlement Amount.

Judge Chhabria determined by separate order the request by the
Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel to the Class Representative
Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment.

Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the
Settlement Administrator will provide written certification of
such completion to the Court and the counsel for the parties.  The
parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement.

The Judge entered the final judgment in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement filed on June 9, 2017, and the
Order.  The parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees
except as otherwise provided by the Court's order granting the
Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/V4GlIk from Leagle.com.

Debra Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

Debra Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse L. Young --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- One Towne Square, pro hac vice, Kevin
Stoops --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice & Jahan C.
Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Sandra Morton, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, One Towne
Square,
pro hac vice, Kevin Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice & Jahan
C. Sagafi, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Barbara Labuszewski, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, One Towne
Square, pro hac vice, Kevin Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice
& Jahan C. Sagafi, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin
Marian Wang -- caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings
LLP & Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP.


POPULAR INC: Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Banco Popular De Puerto Rico continues to
defend against the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation.

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular
Defendants") have recently been named defendants in a putative
class action complaint captioned Perez D°az v. Popular, Inc., et
al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The
complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular
Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-
PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies").
Plaintiffs essentially allege that the Popular Defendants have
been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for
commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the
insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims
were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand
the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an estimated
$400,000,000, plus legal interest, for the "good experience"
commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies
during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief
seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying
commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to
pay those fees directly to the insured. A hearing on the request
for preliminary injunction and other matters was held on February
15, 2017, as a result of which plaintiffs withdrew their request
for preliminary injunctive relief. A motion for dismissal on the
merits, which the Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly
before hearing, was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery. On March 24, 2017, the Popular
Defendants filed a certiorari petition with the Puerto Rico Court
of Appeals seeking a review of the lower court's denial of the
motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals denied the Popular
Defendant's request, and the Popular Defendants appealed this
determination to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which declined
review. A motion for reconsideration is pending resolution.
Separately, a class certification hearing was held in June and the
Court requested post-hearing briefs on this issue, which are due
in August.


POPULAR INC: "Ramirez Torres" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, has been dismissed.

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

Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers
to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in anti-
monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between
late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive
relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against
Antilles Insurance Company.

A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing
originally scheduled for April 6th was subsequently postponed,
pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. On July 31, 2017,
the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs may
decide to appeal this judgment.


POPULAR INC: Says "Morales" Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Banco Popular De Puerto Rico continues to
defend against the case, Morales v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al.

A putative class action also tangentially related to hazard
insurance policies and captioned Morales v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al., was filed in May 2017. Plaintiffs aver that
BPPR forced-placed hazard insurance on their mortgaged properties
in violation of Puerto Rico's implied covenant of good faith,
BPPR's alleged fiduciary duties as the escrow account manager of
their mortgage loans, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Plaintiffs seek class certification, an order enjoining BPPR and
other unnamed defendants from maintaining their allegedly
fraudulent practices concerning forced-placed hazard insurance,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 19, 2017, BPPR filed a motion for summary judgment.


POPULAR INC: BPPR to Seek Dismissal of "Gonzalez Camacho" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Banco Popular De Puerto Rico intends to file a
motion to dismiss the case, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.

Banco Popular De Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al.
v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers. Plaintiffs essentially contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel. Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate HAMP,
HARP and other loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto
Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and TILA. For the alleged
violations stated above, Plaintiffs request that all Defendants
(over 20 separate defendants have been named, including all local
banks), jointly and severally, respond in an amount of no less
than $400,000,000.  BPPR waived service of process in June and
intends to file a motion to dismiss and to sever by August.


POPULAR INC: Costa Dorada Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Banco Popular de Puerto Rico continues to face
the case, Costa Dorada Apartment Corp., et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Costa Dorada Apartment Corp., et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed by the same
counsel who filed the Gonzalez Camacho action referenced, on
behalf of commercial customers of the defendant banks who have
allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan
modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs
essentially contend that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(dual tracking), all in violation of TILA, RESPA, ECOA, FCRA,
FDCPA and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. They
demand in excess of $1,000,000,000 in damages. Banco Popular has
not yet been served with summons in connection with this matter.


POPULAR INC: Says "Fernandez" Suit Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., is now
concluded.

Popular Securities was named a defendant in a putative class
action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors
in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial
Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is
the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR, who was
originally named in the complaint as well, was co-sponsor,
together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular
Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against
BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint
sought unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and
attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a
virtually identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that
the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial
Services Securities Litigation, a class action then pending before
the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities were
parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the
consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the
SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the
parties contained a choice of forum clause, with New York as the
selected forum. The Popular defendants joined the opposition and
motion filed by UBS. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate.

By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants'
motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in the SDNY containing virtually identical allegations
with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June 18, 2015. On
December 7, 2016, Judge Stein largely granted the motion to
dismiss of BPPR and Popular Securities. Judge Stein's order (the
"Order") dismissed all claims against BPPR and all but two breach
of contract claims against Popular Securities brought by one named
plaintiff. The Court granted Plaintiffs 21 days to amend the
complaint for the 2012 claims only, but plaintiffs chose not to
replead. On March 24, 2017, however, the sole named plaintiff's
counsel filed a Notice of Death, reporting that such plaintiff had
passed away. On July 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation and
proposed order, which the court entered that same day, providing
that such plaintiff's claim was dismissed with prejudice and that
no party would seek to appeal from the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims asserted against Popular
Securities and BPPR. As a consequence, that matter is concluded.


POPULAR INC: Says "Valle" Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the case, Josefina Valle v. Popular Community
Bank, remains pending.

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

A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25,
2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the
putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014,
the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's motion to
dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item processing
policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies
noted in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a
motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and
further sought to compel arbitration. In June 2015, this matter
was reassigned to a new judge and on July 22, 2015, such Court
denied PCB's motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the complaint to replead certain claims
based on item processing reordering, misstatement of balance
information and failure to notify customers in advance of
potential overdrafts. The Court did not, however, allow plaintiffs
to replead their claim for the alleged breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On August 12, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2015,
PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to the order granting leave to
file the second amended complaint and on September 17, 2015, it
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs'
unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent
it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September
2011. On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an answer to second amended
complaint and on April 7, 2016, it filed a notice of appeal on the
partial denial of PCB's motion to dismiss. A mediation session
held on September 21, 2016 proved unsuccessful. On January 3,
2017, PCB filed a brief with the Appellate Division in support of
its appeal of the lower Court's prior order that granted in part
and denied in part PCB's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint. Oral argument was held on April 4, 2017.

On April 25, 2017, the Court issued an order denying PCB's appeal
from the partial denial of our motion to dismiss. The parties have
since, been engaged in significant written and oral discovery. The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due August 1, 2017,
although that date may be extended to accommodate the assignment
of a new judge, as well as continuing discovery issues.


PTC INC: Settlement of "Crandall" Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1,
2017, that the settlement of the case, Matthew Crandall v. PTC
Inc. et al., has received final court approval.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16-
cv-10471, was filed against us and certain of our current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, ostensibly on behalf of purchasers of
our stock during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29,
2015. The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that,
during that period, PTC's public disclosures concerning
investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the U.S. Department of Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act matters in China (the "China Investigation") were false and/or
misleading."

"The parties settled the lawsuit for an amount that is not
material to our results of operations. The associated liability
was accrued in our fiscal 2016 results and was paid into escrow in
the third quarter of 2017. The settlement received final court
approval on July 14, 2017 and all claims against PTC and the other
defendants have been dismissed with prejudice."


QWEST CORPORATION: Facing Suits over Improper Billing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against class action
lawsuit over improper sales and billing practices.

In June 2017, a former employee of CenturyLink filed an employment
lawsuit against CentuyLink claiming that she was wrongfully
terminated for alleging that CenturyLink charged some of its
retail customers for products and services they did not authorize.
Shortly thereafter, and based in part on the allegations made by
the former employee, a series of consumer and shareholder putative
class actions were filed against CenturyLink and it received a
shareholder derivative demand. The Minnesota Attorney General also
filed a civil suit on behalf of Minnesota consumers alleging that
the Company and certain of its affiliates engaged in improper
sales and billing practices.

The filing of additional related lawsuits is possible. Although
CenturyLink and/or various of its subsidiaries are named in these
lawsuits, Qwest Corporation is a named defendant in only the
Minnesota Attorney General civil suit.

In late June 2017, CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a
special committee of outside directors to investigate the alleged
improper sales and billing practices and related matters. The
special committee is in the early stages of its investigation.

Qwest is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in
providing an array of communications services to our residential
and business customers.


RINGCENTRAL INC: SPS Brief on Appeal Due Nov. 6
-----------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC's opening brief on
appeal must be filed by November 6, 2017, the Company's opposition
brief must be filed by December 5, 2017, and SPS's optional reply
brief must be filed within 21 days of the Company's opposition
brief.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC
("SPS") filed a putative class action against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging common law conversion and violations of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover
sheets used by our customers when sending facsimile transmissions
over our system ("Lawsuit").  SPS seeks statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA
claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection
with its conversion claim.  On July 6, 2016, we filed a Petition
for Expedited Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling
clarifying certain portions of its regulations promulgated under
TCPA at issue in the Lawsuit ("Petition").  The Petition remains
pending.  On July 8, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss
or stay the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on our Petition.
On October 7, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint.  The Court concurrently
dismissed our motion to dismiss or stay as moot.  Plaintiff filed
its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging essentially
the same theories and claims.  On November 21, 2016, we filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with a renewed
motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the FCC
Petition."

"On July 17, 2017, the Court granted our motion to dismiss with
prejudice and concurrently dismissed our motion to dismiss or stay
as moot. SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on July 28, 2017.  SPS's opening brief on appeal must
be filed by November 6, 2017, our opposition brief must be filed
by December 5, 2017, and SPS's optional reply brief must be filed
within 21 days of our opposition brief.  It is too early to
predict the outcome of this Lawsuit. Based on the information
known by us as of the date of this filing and the rules and
regulations applicable to the preparation of our condensed
consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide
an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may
occur."

RingCentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS,
solutions for the way employees communicate and collaborate in
business.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Request for Medical Records in PFOA Case OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the
judge in a proposed class-action suit over PFOA contamination of
properties around the former ChemFab Corp. plants has partially
allowed a defense request seeking medical records from the
plaintiffs.

However, U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford termed the request
from the defendant firm, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, for 50
years of medical records "excessive," and reduced the scope to 20
years in a motion ruling last month in U.S. District Court in
Rutland.

The suit was filed in May 2016 after widespread PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination was detected in private
wells and soil around two former ChemFab factories in Bennington.
From 1968 through 2002 those factories coated fiberglass and other
fabrics with Teflon.

PFOA was used in the manufacture of Teflon, and state officials
believe the chemical spread through emissions from the factory
stacks, settling in soils over a wide area and working its way
into groundwater.

"We were not surprised by the judge's ruling," said
Emily Joselson -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- of Langrock Sperry &
Wool, of Middlebury, one of several attorneys from four firms
representing the multiple plaintiff households.

Ms. Joselson said it's rare for a court to deny a defense request
for medical records in a suit seeking medical-related damages,
adding that she doesn't believe the ruling will have any negative
impact on the suit.  She said the plaintiffs' legal team was
pleased that Crawford limited the discovery to release of 20 years
of primary care physician records.

In this aspect of the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking the costs
of long-term medical monitoring for those who drank PFOA-
contaminated water and have learned through testing that they have
elevated levels of the substance in their blood.

"If these [records] reveal any reasonable basis for a belief that
other doctors or hospitals have information about potential
exposure to toxins or treatment for conditions related to PFOA
exposure, the defense may follow up with additional requests
within the 20-year period," Judge Crowford wrote in his decision.

The decision covers only named plaintiffs who drank PFOA-
contaminated water and have elevated PFOA blood levels, and
requires that they "shall answer interrogatories concerning all
places they have received medical treatment and the condition for
which they sought treatment in the last 20 years."

The plaintiffs also must answer questions about their employment
during their lifetimes.

"It seems unlikely that a school teacher because contaminated with
PFOA through her employment," the judge wrote.  "A factory or
construction worker may not be so fortunate.  Defendant [Saint-
Gobain] is entitled to seek disclosure of all employers over the
course of the named plaintiff's work history and to request
records from those employers which have some reasonable potential
for being the source of exposure to PFOA."

Any workers' compensation claims involving those plaintiffs also
must be submitted.

Asked Oct. 13 for a comment on the medical records aspect of the
suit, Dina Pokedoff, the director of branding and communication
for Saint-Gobain, stated in an email, "We believe the district
court judge made the right decision in directing the plaintiffs to
provide the records for the proposed class representatives."

She added, "This information is important as the court evaluates
whether a class can be certified."

Seeking class certification

While the complaint now lists eight residents living within the
designated contamination zone around the former ChemFab plants as
plaintiffs, the suit also seeks class-action status to include an
estimated 300 plaintiffs.

That aspect of the complex suit has yet to be certified by the
judge. According to the trial schedule, a hearing on the contested
question is set for March 2018.  The trial itself is tentatively
schedule to begin on Oct. 1.

The medical monitoring claim is only one of several being pressed
against Saint-Gobain in the suit.  The plaintiffs also seek
damages concerning alleged negative effects on property values,
and over trespass, nuisance and assault issues in the form of PFOA
entering the soil and groundwater of plaintiffs' properties, PFOA
entering residents' bodies through exposure to water or other
methods, and emotional stress.

Saint-Gobain attorneys have denied the allegations and have listed
multiple defense arguments against the claims.

Those include that the company didn't own Chem-Fab when all or
most of the contamination occurred; that the business was
following current state and federal guidelines in operating the
plants; that the plaintiffs can't establish that there was a
"significant concentration" of PFOA contamination to reasonably
relate them to the alleged injuries; that the alleged negative
effects on property values cannot be shown, and that a nuisance
allegation requiring damages cannot be claimed under state law in
this instance.

Concerning the proposed class action, attorney Mark Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, of New York, one of the attorneys representing Saint-
Gobain, previously argued that the residents' claims are too
diverse to fit into a single class and should be pursued as
individual lawsuits.

The medical monitoring aspect of the complaint focuses in part on
Vermont Department of Health-organized blood testing of about 500
residents in the affected areas of town that found an average of
10.0 micrograms per liter of PFOA in blood.  That compares to the
estimated national average of 2.1 micrograms per liter.

Past medical studies involving PFOA exposure found a link to
testicular and kidney cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol
and ulcerated colitis, among other diseases and conditions.

The current suit is not directly focused on health effects from
exposure to PFOA, only on the cost of the medical monitoring
sought by the plaintiffs.  However, individual suits are expected
to follow in state courts to address those medical issues,
attorneys have said.

In ongoing state-supervised testing of 570 local wells as of the
spring, 276 were found to have PFOA levels above 20 parts per
trillion, the state's advisory standard for safe drinking water.

ChemFab formed in Bennington in 1968 on Northside Drive site and
moved to a North Bennington plant on Water Street in 1977. The
buisness was acquired by Saint-Gobain in 2000, and the local
operation was moved to New Hampshire in 2002. [GN]


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Suit by West and Hopson Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. continues to defend second amended
complaint in lawsuit by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their amended
complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims seeking relief
for damages, including the reimbursement of past and future
earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic activity
allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater
disposal wells. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended
complaint on May 12, 2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.

On July 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint making allegations substantially similar to those
contained in the amended complaint that was previously dismissed.
An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not
established any reserves relating to this action.

Sandridge is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus
on exploration and production activities in the U.S. Mid-Continent
and North Park Basin of Colorado.


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lee" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Lee filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Daniel Lee v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01080-CAP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on April 1, 2016. The nature of suit is stated as
consumer credit.

Select Portfolio Servicing operates a mortgage servicing company
in the United States.  The Company specializes in the servicing of
single-family residential mortgage loans.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Lee v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Case No. 17-14591, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before November 21,
      2017;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before November 9, 2017, as to Appellee Select Portfolio
      Servicing, Inc.[BN]

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

          Harlan S. Miller, III, Esq.
          PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, PC
          75 14th Street NE, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3604
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Harlan S. Miller, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HARLAN S. MILLER, III
          3646 Vineville Avenue
          Macon, GA 31204
          Telephone: (404) 931-6490
          Facsimile: (866) 704-3161
          E-mail: hmiller@millerlegalpc.com

Defendant-Appellee SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., is
represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Christopher Allen Riley, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree Street NW, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-4249
          E-mail: mike.barry@alston.com
                  chris.riley@alston.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss
an amended complaint remains pending.

In August 2015, a person purporting to represent a class of
persons who purchased securities of the Company between February
19, 2015 and July 23, 2015 filed a lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The lawsuit asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that certain of the Company's public statements
concerning its projected revenue for 2015 were false and
misleading.

In March 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including
additional allegations challenging certain statements in addition
to those concerning the Company's projected revenue for 2015. The
class period in the amended complaint runs from February 27, 2014
to July 23, 2015.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and is
defending itself vigorously. In June 2016, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Although the Company believes it is reasonably possible for a loss
to occur, the Company cannot estimate an amount of loss or a range
of loss, if any, or whether the impact will be material and, as of
June 30, 2017, had no amounts accrued for potential damages in
this case.

Spectranets develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
single-use disposable medical devices and a proprietary laser
system used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lawsuits over Philips Transaction Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to face
stockholder actions related to a merger agreement with Philips
Holding USA Inc.

On June 27, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Philips Holding USA Inc.
("Parent"), and HealthTech Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the proposed Philips Transaction. These actions,
Aviles v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01767, and
Parshall v. Spectranetics Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01776,
were filed on July 21, 2017 in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. The complaint in the Aviles action
alleges that the Company and its directors violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the
Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement filed by the Company in
connection with the Philips Transaction (the "Schedule 14D-9").
This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger; (ii)
rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and the
Merger are consummated; (iii) damages; and (iv) an award of
plaintiffs' expenses and attorneys' fees. The complaint in the
Parshall action alleges that Spectranetics, its directors, and
other defendants including Philips  violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose material information in the Schedule
14D-9. This complaint seeks, among other things, (i) injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger;
(ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the Offer and
the Merger are consummated; and (iii) an award of plaintiffs'
expenses and attorneys' fees.

On July 24, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. On
July 26, 2017, the plaintiff in the Aviles action withdrew his
motion for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction. At
this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the
proceedings or their impact on the Company or the Philips
Transaction.

Spectranets develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
single-use disposable medical devices and a proprietary laser
system used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system.


SUNRUN INC: Fink et al. Suits Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------
Sunrun, Inc. is defending against Fink et al. class action
lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by
making false or misleading statements in connection with public
filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017
regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after
signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest,
attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than
the defendants who purchased the Company's securities between
September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On May 4, 2017, a purported
shareholder class action captioned Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California. On May 18, 2017,
a purported shareholder class action captioned Sanogo, et al. v.
Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern California District of
California. The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially
similar to the Fink complaint, and seeks similar relief against
similar defendants on behalf of a substantially similar class.

Sunrun provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at a significant
savings compared to traditional utility energy.


TIGER NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss "Fishman" Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EMILY FISHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIGER
NATURAL GAS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05351-JCS
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Fishman's initial complaint without
prejudice to any argument that any Defendant might raise in
response to the amended complaint.

Fishman has since filed an amended complaint pursuant to Rule
15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which
supersedes the previous complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AxjGeo from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Balsam --
legal@daldanbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam.

Emily Fishman, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob N. Harker --
jacob@harkercounsel.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker & Kimberly
Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law
Group.

Susan Faria, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Balsam, The Law
Offices of Daniel Balsam.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by John W. Amberg
-- jwamberg@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Nancy Franco --
nancy.franco@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Robert E. Boone,
III -- reboone@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


TIME INC: Discovery in "Perlin" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Time Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Perlin v. Time Inc.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages. On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to
dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state
claims for relief and because the named plaintiff lacked standing
because she suffered no injury from the alleged conduct.

On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim
but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On
November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the
named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents
who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a
subscription to Time, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any
website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On
July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the
class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000
consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved
for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed
briefs in opposition to their adversaries' motions. On February
16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff
filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District
Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. On May 26, 2016, Time
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that
plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims. On September 22,
2016, the Motions Part of the Circuit Court issued an order
directing that Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the appeal should be
decided by the appellate panel that was assigned the plaintiff's
appeal on the merits.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief and on
December 21, 2016, Time Inc. filed its opposition to Plaintiff's
appeal and a cross-appeal to the District Court's order certifying
the class. Plaintiff filed a reply and opposition to Time Inc.'s
class certification appeal on February 6, 2017 and Time Inc. filed
a sur-reply on February 20, 2017. Oral argument on the appeal was
heard on April 26, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the Circuit Court
affirmed the District Court's decision granting Time Inc. summary
judgment.

On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Coulter-Owens
filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
alleging violations of the VRPA as well as a claim for unjust
enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents
who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc. On May 6, 2016
and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint. Perlin
filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and Time Inc. filed its
reply brief on July 11, 2016. On February 15, 2017, the Court
denied Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss and on March 1, 2017, Time
Inc. answered the Complaint. Discovery is currently ongoing, and
there is currently no date by which it is expected to be
completed.

"We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters,"
the Company said.


UNITED CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Stay "DeClue" TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TREVER DECLUE and KATHERINE DECLUE,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16cv2833 JM (JMA) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey
T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings
pending the D.C. Circuit's opinion in ACA International v. Federal
Communications Commission, No. 15-1211.

On Nov. 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Their operative first amended
class action complaint ("FAC") alleges that the Defendant
repeatedly called Mr. DeClue on his personal cell phone, which was
included as part of Ms. DeClue's subscription with her service
provider, after he revoked consent to do so.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") to make the calls, and at least one of the calls
used an artificial or prerecorded voice.  They seek to represent a
nationwide class of similarly situated persons who received calls
from Defendant through the use of an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice.

On July 11, 2017, the Defendant moved to stay the matter pending
the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA International.  The Plaintiffs
oppose a stay.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued a
ruling clarifying various provisions of the TCPA.  In the Matter
of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("2015 FCC Order").  The Defendant
highlights the FCC's rulings on ATDS and revocation of consent,
arguing that the definitions of these terms are at issue in this
case, and requests a stay while those definitions are contested.

The 2015 FCC Order is currently under review by the D.C. Circuit
in ACA International.  The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in
October 2016.

Judge Miller concludes that the Defendant has not shown that the
case presents those "rare circumstances" that warrant a stay.
Discovery on the Defendant's dialing system and the Plaintiffs'
method of revoking consent will be necessary regardless of the
outcome of ACA International; accordingly, a stay will not
significantly promote judicial economy.

Moreover, almost a year has passed since the D.C. Circuit heard
oral arguments for ACA International, which means that it will
likely render a decision that could guide the parties before
discovery ends and issues are put before the court for a final
determination.  For these, Judge Miller denied the Defendant's
motion to stay proceedings pending the D.C. Circuit's opinion in
ACA International.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IHHOPA from Leagle.com.

Trever Declue, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC.

Trever Declue, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART Hyde & Swigart,
Veronica McKnight, Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G. Shay, Law Offices of
Daniel G. Shay.

Katherine Declue, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde & Swigart,
Veronica McKnight, Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G. Shay, Law Offices of
Daniel G. Shay.

United Consumer Financial Services Company, Defendant, represented
by Michael Dominic Meuti -- mmeuti@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler & Teresa Carey Chow -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP.

United Consumer Financial Services Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Michael Dominic Meuti, Baker & Hostetler & Teresa
Carey Chow, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Katherine Declue, Counter Defendant, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde &
Swigart, Veronica McKnight, Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G. Shay, Law
Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

Trever Declue, Counter Defendant, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde &
Swigart, Veronica McKnight, Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G. Shay, Law
Offices of Daniel G. Shay.


UNITED STATES: ACLU's 2nd Amended Complaint vs. HHS Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03539-LB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Laurel
Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, denied ACLU's motions for
leave to amend, and for a TRO without prejudice to Jane Doe's
asserting it in a different lawsuit.

The ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit in June 2016,
based on taxpayer standing, challenging federal grants to
religious organizations for the care of unaccompanied immigrant
minors and trafficking victims.  Its claim initially was that the
Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") violates the Establishment
Clause by its grants to religious groups that refuse to provide
unaccompanied minors and trafficking victims with "information
about, access to, or referrals for contraception and abortion"
services.

To challenge the grants, it sued, in their official capacities,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), the Acting
Assistant Secretary of the HHS subdivision called the
Administration for Children and Families ("ACF"), and the Director
of ORR, which is a subdivision of the ACF.

In February 2017, the ACLU amended its complaint to add a similar
Establishment Clause challenge to ORR's funding of religious
organizations providing services to victims of human trafficking.
Thus, the lawsuit, as the ACLU framed it in the complaint and the
first amended complaint ("FAC"), was about the religious
organizations.

The charge was that ORR, in granting funds, authorized grantees to
impose religiously based restrictions on access to reproductive-
health care that the young women were entitled to receive by law.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is one such
religious organization that receives ORR funding and issues
subgrants to Catholic Charities.  The ACLU sought an injunction
ordering the Defendants to issue grants without the imposition of
religiously based restrictions.

The ACLU now proposes its second amended complaint ("SAC") to add
(i) Jane Doe as class representative for a nationwide class of
pregnant unaccompanied minors and (ii) the class claims
challenging the government's obstruction of access to abortion,
compelled counseling, and compelled disclosure of the abortion
decision to crisis pregnancy centers, parents, and immigration
sponsors.

The claims are based on the government's new policies promulgated
in March 2017 that prevent shelters from taking any actions
facilitating access to abortions without signed approval from the
Director of ORR.  The government also allegedly forces counseling
at anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and compels minors to
disclose their identities and abortion decisions to those centers,
their parents, and their immigration sponsors.

The proposed class claims, which seek only injunctive relief,
allege violations of the minors' Fifth Amendment right to privacy
and liberty and First Amendment right to be free from compelled
speech (by being forced to discuss their decision to have an
abortion with a crisis pregnancy center).  The proposed amended
complaint keeps the earlier Establishment Clause challenge to the
federal government's expenditure of funds but recasts it slightly
as a claim by all plaintiffs (as opposed to the earlier claim by
the ACLU based on taxpayer standing).

The ACLU also moves for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (i)
directing the federal Defendants to transport Ms. Doe to the
abortion provider closest to her shelter to obtain (a) counseling
(required by state law) on Oct. 2, 2017, and (b) the abortion
procedure on Oct. 13, 2017; (ii) temporarily restraining the
federal Defendants from interfering with or obstructing Ms. Doe's
access to abortion; and (iii) temporarily restraining the federal
Defendants from further forcing Ms. Doe to reveal her abortion
decision to anyone, or revealing it to anyone themselves.

The government asks the Court to deny the motion to amend the
complaint on several grounds, including lack of venue and improper
joinder, and it asks the Court to deny the motion for a TRO.

Judge Beller finds that the Doe Plaintiff is not in this district,
hence, the wrongful acts for the new claims did not take place in
this district.  Moreover, the new claims are not "closely related"
to the venued Establishment Clause claim, and concerns of judicial
economy and fairness do not support pendent venue.  For similar
reasons, permissive joinder is not appropriate under Rule 20(a).

Finally, discovery is closed, the deadline to amend the pleadings
has passed, and the proposed amended complaint transforms the case
at a late date to add new claims and new theories of recovery.
The case is better brought as a new lawsuit.

Therefore, Judge Beeler denied the motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  Because she denied ACLU's motion for leave to
amend, the Judge denied Ms. Doe's motion for a TRO without
prejudice to her bringing it in a different lawsuit.  Judge Beeler
accordingly denied the motion for class certification as moot and
granted the motion for leave to file an amicus brief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wq22lQ from Leagle.com.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Plaintiff,
represented by Brigitte Amiri, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel Mach, American Civil Liberties Union, pro
hac vice, Elizabeth O. Gill, American Civil Liberties Union of No.
Calif., Jennifer Ling Chou, American Civil Liberties Union
Northern California, Melissa Allison Goodman, ACLU of Southern
California & Mishan Raini Wroe -- mwroe@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Defendant, represented by Peter Joseph
Phipps, United States Department of Justice & Martin Tomlinson,
United States Department of Justice.

Mark Greenberg, Defendant, represented by Peter Joseph Phipps,
United States Department of Justice & Martin Tomlinson, United
States Department of Justice.

Robert Carey, Defendant, represented by Peter Joseph Phipps,
United States Department of Justice & Martin Tomlinson, United
States Department of Justice.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Intervenor Dft,
represented by Robert Edward Dunn -- rdunn@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn Crutcher LLP, Daniel Stanley John Nowicki --
dnowicki@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher & Eugene
Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher,
LLP.

Texas, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

Louisiana, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

Missouri, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

Nebraska, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

Ohio, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

Oklahoma, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker, Office of
Attorney General of Texas.

South Carolina, Amicus, represented by David Jonathan Hacker,
Office of Attorney General of Texas.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Trial to Begin Jan. 30 in Allergan Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that trial has been
scheduled to start on January 30, 2018 in the Allergan shareholder
class action lawsuits.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of
Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan
shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square,
PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman.

The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class
of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and
April 21, 2014, against all defendants contending that various
purchases of Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning a
potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and
asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the
Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, various
Pershing Square affiliates, William A. Ackman and J. Michael
Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court
denied that motion. On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an order
certifying a plaintiff class comprised of persons who sold
Allergan common stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan
common stock made or caused by defendants during the period
February 25, 2014 through April 21, 2014.

On March 28, 2017, defendants filed a motion with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal
from the class certification order and on June 12, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit denied that request. On July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs
moved for partial summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved
for summary judgment. Those motions remain pending.

Trial has been scheduled to start on January 30, 2018 in this
matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: October 2018 Trial in Timber Hill Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that trial has been
scheduled for October 2018 in the case, Timber Hill LLC v.
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al.

On June 28, 2017, Timber Hill LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
company that allegedly traded in Allergan derivative instruments,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of derivative
traders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Michael Pearson,
Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A.
Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Timber Hill LLC v. Pershing Square Capital Management,
L.P., et al., Case No. 17-cv-04776-DOC).

The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of
investors who sold Allergan call options, purchased Allergan put
options and/or sold Allergan equity forward contracts between
February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants
contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by PS
Fund were made while in possession of material, non-public
information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for
Allergan stock, and asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and
Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing
Square, various Pershing Square affiliates, William A. Ackman and
Michael Pearson. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 25, 2017, the Court decided not to consolidate this
lawsuit with the Basile action.  Trial has been scheduled for
October 2018 in this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: U.S. Securities Case Underway
------------------------------------------------------
The Valeant U.S. Securities Litigation remains pending, Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current
or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned
Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-
cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various
time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The
allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information
about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to
drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint naming additional defendants and asserting additional
claims based on allegations of false and misleading statements
and/or omissions similar to those in the initial complaints.
Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company,
and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain current
or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The
lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's equity securities and
senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and
March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company's
securities in the United States in the Company's debt and stock
offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's
motion was completed on January 13, 2017.

On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out
of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied
the motions to dismiss. Defendants' answers to the consolidated
complaint were filed on June 12, 2017.

In addition to the consolidated putative class action, ten groups
of individual investors in the Company's stock and debt securities
have filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors. These actions are captioned: T.
Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-5034); Equity Trustees Limited
as Responsible Entity for T. Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127);
Principal Funds, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128); BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212);
Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD
Torchlight Partners, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven
Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Case No. 16-cv-7328); Incline Global Master LP v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC
Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
16-cv-7496); and Janus Aspen Series v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497) ("Janus Aspen").

These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections
10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act, and negligent misrepresentation
under state law, based on alleged purchases of Valeant stock,
options, and/or debt at various times between January 4, 2013 and
August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to
those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action.

Plaintiffs in the Janus Aspen action amended the complaint on
April 28, 2017. Defendants filed motions for partial dismissal in
the ten individual actions on June 16, 2017. Briefing of those
motions is expected to be completed on August 25, 2017.

The Company believes the individual complaints and the
consolidated putative class action are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian securities class actions against Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. remain pending, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et
al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-
00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d)
O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and
Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current
or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-
Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior
Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate
to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures
to disclose material information about the Company's business and
prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and
accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies
and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor. The
Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law
claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim
additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims
under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including
the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci
action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the
Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of
liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i)
Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of
British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v
Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed
November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The
Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do
not intend to pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be
consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave
and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in
any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage
motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the
class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the
O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action.

On September 15, 2016, in response to an arrangement between the
plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the O'Brien action, the
court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action be consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that the consolidated action be stayed in
favor of the Catucci action pending either the further order of
the Ontario court or the determination of the motion for leave in
the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, motions for leave under the Quebec
Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding were
heard the week of April 24, 2017, with the motion judge reserving
her decision. Prior to that hearing, the parties resolved
applications by the defendants concerning jurisdiction and class
composition, with the plaintiffs agreeing to revise the definition
of the proposed class to exclude claims in respect of Valeant
securities purchased in the United States.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss RICO Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a motion to dismiss
RICO Class Actions remains pending.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various third
parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class
of certain third party payors that paid claims submitted by
Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between January 2, 2013
and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry
Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, Plumbers Local
Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-05663).

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-
03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December
14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire
fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription
reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding
(1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy;
(2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-
pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5)
the insured's consent to renew the prescription.  The complaint
further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of
racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO
statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified
damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
February 13, 2017. Briefing of the motion was completed on May 17,
2017. That motion remains pending.

On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the
RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings
against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. The Company did not
oppose the motion to stay. The Company believes these claims are
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. continues to defend
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
("Medicis"), Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("VPII")
and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging
that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to
exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride
extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of
acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The
plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that
the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other
damages, including attorneys' fees. By order dated February 25,
2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
centralized the suits in the District of Massachusetts, under the
caption In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge
Denise Casper. After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the
End-Payor Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly
moved to dismiss those complaints.

On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section
2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other
state laws. VPII was dismissed from the case, but the litigation
continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the
remaining claims. A subsequent effort to re-plead claims under
Sherman Act, Section 2 was denied on September 20, 2016.
Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with two of three generic
manufacturer defendants, and, on April 14, 2017, the Court granted
the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' motions
for preliminary approval of those settlements. Fact discovery in
these actions has concluded. The remaining parties are currently
engaged in expert discovery and class certification briefing; the
Court will hear oral argument on class certification on September
14, 2017.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to
dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional
non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain
retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs")
making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that
sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been
centralized with the class action suits in the District of
Massachusetts.

Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to
dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints
on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A
third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy
against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March
28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these
actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Contact Lens Antitrust Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. still defends against
the contact lens antitrust class actions, according to its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.
The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees. By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML
centralized the suits in the Middle District of Florida, under the
caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District Judge Harvey E.
Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected
consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015, the
defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On June 16,
2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. The
actions are currently in discovery.

On March 3, 2017, the Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification. On June 15, 2017, defendants filed a motion
to oppose the plaintiffs' class certification motion, as well as
motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert reports. Defendants likewise
have requested an evidentiary hearing on the motions. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower Products Suits Underway in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. continues to defend
against the Shower to Shower Products Liability Litigation in the
U.S., according to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017.

The Company has been named in over eighty lawsuits involving the
Shower to Shower body powder product acquired in September 2012
from Johnson & Johnson. The Company has been successful in
obtaining dismissals as to the Company and/or its subsidiary,
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC ("VPNA"), in some of
these cases. The Company continues to seek dismissals in these
cases and to pursue agreements from plaintiffs to not oppose the
Company's motions for summary judgment.

These lawsuits include one case originally filed on December 30,
2016 in the In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation,
Multidistrict Litigation 2738, pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company and
VPNA were first named in a lawsuit filed directly into the MDL
alleging that the use of the Shower to Shower product caused the
plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. On March 24, 2017, the
plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all claims against the Company
and VPNA without prejudice, and neither the Company nor VPNA have
been named in any further lawsuits in the MDL.

These lawsuits also include a number of matters filed in the
Superior Court of Delaware alleging that the use of Shower to
Shower caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer. The
Company has been voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of these
cases, and only claims against VPNA remain. These lawsuits also
include allegations against Johnson & Johnson, directed primarily
to its marketing of and warnings for the Shower to Shower product
prior to the Company's acquisition of the product in September
2012. The allegations in these cases specifically directed to VPNA
include failure to warn, design defect, negligence, gross
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil
conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation,
wrongful death, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental
anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment, loss of
enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment
interest, exemplary and punitive damages, treble damages, and
attorneys' fees.

These lawsuits also include a number of cases filed in certain
state courts in the United States (including the California
Superior Courts, the Superior Courts of Delaware, the New Jersey
Superior Courts, the District Court of Louisiana, the Supreme
Court of New York (County of Niagara) and the District Court of
Oklahoma City) alleging use of Shower to Shower and other products
resulted in the plaintiffs developing mesothelioma. The Company
has been successful in obtaining voluntarily dismissals in some of
these cases or the plaintiffs have not opposed summary judgment.
The allegations in these cases generally include design defect,
manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive
damages, and in some cases breach of express and implied
warranties, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for loss of services,
economic loss, pain and suffering, and, in some cases, lost wages
or earning capacity and loss of consortium, in addition to
punitive damages, interest, litigation costs, and attorneys' fees.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower Products Suit Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. continues to defend
against the Shower to Shower Products Liability Litigation in
Canada, according to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

Two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the
Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of
Quebec). The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to
Shower product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012.
In the British Columbia matter, the plaintiff seeks to certify a
proposed class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and
Canada who have purchased or used Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower
to Shower, including their estates, executors and personal
representatives, and is alleging that the use of this products
increases certain health risks. In the Quebec matter, the
plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of
persons in QuÇbec who have used Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to
Shower, as well as their family members, assigns and heirs, and is
alleging negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn
of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the
market in a timely manner. The plaintiffs in these actions are
seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive
damages. The likelihood of the authorization or certification of
these claims as class actions cannot be assessed at this time.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in each of the
remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to
a grant of summary judgment. The Company believes that its
potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs)
arising out the Shower to Shower lawsuits filed against the
Company is subject to certain indemnification obligations of
Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company. The Company has provided
Johnson & Johnson with notice that the lawsuits filed against the
Company relating to Shower to Shower are, in whole or in part,
subject to indemnification by Johnson & Johnson.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Afexa Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in the Afexa
Class Action remains pending.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The
proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On
November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil
claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims
and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8,
2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the
Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of action. In
response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim.

The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended
claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain
amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the
class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on November 16, 2016, the
Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiff's application for
certification of this action as a class proceeding.

On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to
dismiss the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its
appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal
factum on April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was scheduled for
September 19, 2017. The Company denies the allegations being made
and is continuing to vigorously defend this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Makes $210MM Payment in Salix Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a payment of $210
million was made in the second quarter of 2017 related to the
settlement of the Salix Securities Litigation.

Beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which
generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers
and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with
respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory
levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal
controls.

Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn
Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No:
1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et
al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been
consolidated under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
(Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)).

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of August 3,
2015. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss in an order dated
March 31, 2016 for the reasons stated in an opinion dated April
22, 2016. Defendants' Answers to the operative Complaint were
filed on May 31, 2016. On October 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.

A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v.
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but
was subsequently voluntarily dismissed. On February 8, 2017, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated action, pursuant to which Salix will make a payment
of $210 million and, on April 5, 2017, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

A hearing to grant final approval of the settlement was heard on
July 28, 2017 and the settlement was approved by the Court. The
settlement amount has been fully accrued for in the Company's
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016 and a
payment of $210 million was made in the second quarter of 2017 (in
total, the Company expects to receive a total of $60 million of
insurance refund proceeds related to this matter, a portion of
which has already been received by the Company). Included in Other
expense (income) in the statement of loss for 2016 is a $90
million charge in the fourth quarter for this matter.


VCA INC: Motion to Prevent Duran's PAGA Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that VCA's motion to prevent Duran from pursuing his PAGA
action is pending.

The Company said, "On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant
at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action
lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Duran moved to certify a meal
period premium class, a rest period premium class and a class
under California's Business and Professions Code Sec.17200 et
seq., on January 9, 2014.

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
four of eight claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. On June 24, 2015, the
Court denied Plaintiff's Motion. The plaintiff continues to have a
Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA") claim. On or about January
10, 2017, VCA filed a motion to prevent Duran from pursuing his
PAGA action. That motion is currently pending before the court.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining
claim in this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our
results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."

VCA is a North American animal healthcare company.


VCA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suit by Bradsbery & Brakensiek
------------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that discovery is proceeding in the case, La Kimba Bradsbery
and Cheri Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et. al.

On July 16, 2014, two additional former veterinary assistants
filed a purported class action lawsuit against VCA in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek vs. Vicar
Operating, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of current and former veterinary assistants, kennel
assistants, and client service representatives employed by us in
California, and alleges, among other allegations, that VCA
improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, improperly failed
to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to reimburse for
certain business-related expenses, and engaged in unfair business
practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and
other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. This lawsuit
and the Duran case above are related and are before the same
Judge.

In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit. On or about August 23, 2016, the Court lifted
the stay and discovery is proceeding.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the Bradsbery action. At
this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss
or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole," the Company said.

VCA is a North American animal healthcare company.


VCA INC: Appeal in "Graham" Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the appeal in the case, Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech,
Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., remains pending.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit sought to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleged, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the
Southern District of California."

"Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February
12, 2016. On May 16, 2016, VCA filed its opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

"On June 10, 2016, VCA filed a motion for summary judgment as to
all of plaintiffs' individual claims. The Honorable Christina
Snyder issued her decision on September 12, 2016, granting
Defendants' summary judgment motion and denying Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification as moot.

"On April 26, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 26, 2017,
VCA filed its opposition to the Appeal. The Appeal is currently
pending.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this
time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on our results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole."

VCA is a North American animal healthcare company.


VCA INC: "Campbell" Employee Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. continues to defend against the case, Marvin Campbell vs.
Antech Diagnostics, Inc., according to VCA's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On July 17, 2017, a former employee of our
laboratory division filed a purported class action lawsuit against
us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of
Queens, titled Marvin Campbell vs. Antech Diagnostics, Inc. The
lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and former
employees by us in New York, and alleges, among other allegations,
that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages. The
lawsuit seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

"At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole."

VCA is a North American animal healthcare company.


VCA INC: Class Suits over Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Moran, Krieger and Hight class actions related to a
merger agreement have been dismissed.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, three putative stockholder class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California relating to the proposed Merger with Mars: (1) Hight
vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00289, filed February 15,
2017, which named the Company, the Company's Board of Directors,
Mars, Merger Sub and Acquiror, as defendants, and which alleges,
among other allegations, that (a) the consideration to be paid to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger
is inadequate, (b) the Company's Board of Directors and management
have a conflict of interest due to continued employment and/or
change in control payments, (c) the proposed Merger contains deal
protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for the Company, and (d) the
disclosures included in the proxy statement filed by the Company
contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions;
(2) Moran vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01502, filed
February 23, 2017, which named the Company and the Company's Board
of Directors as defendants, and which alleges, among other
allegations, that the disclosures included in the proxy statement
filed by the Company contain materially false or misleading
statements or omissions; and (3) Krieger vs. VCA Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01790, filed March 6, 2017, which named the
Company and the Company's Board of Directors as defendants, and
which alleges, among other allegations, that the disclosures
included in the proxy statement filed by the Company contain
materially false or misleading statements or omissions.

On May 9, 2017, May 10, 2017 and May 16, 2017, the parties in the
Moran, Krieger and Hight actions, respectively, filed stipulations
to dismiss each of the respective actions with prejudice.
Following the court's orders granting the parties' stipulations to
dismiss each of the actions with prejudice, the court further
ordered each of the actions fully resolved and closed for all
purposes on July 31, 2017.

VCA is a North American animal healthcare company.


VECTRUS INC: Still Defends Employment Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
Vectrus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against a
purported class action employment lawsuit.

The Company said, "we are defending a purported class action
employment lawsuit that was initiated in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington in April
2010 against the predecessor of our Former Parent by individuals
who worked on a particular contract in Kuwait after April 12,
2009. The plaintiffs are alleging a breach of employment contract
by the predecessor of our Former Parent due to an alleged
violation of Kuwait labor law. In November 2016, following an
interlocutory appeal by Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision certifying a class
of plaintiffs. Vectrus continues to vigorously defend the case,
and filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on
the class certification decision in March 2017."

Vectrus -- https://vectrus.com/ -- delivers global infrastructure,
IT and logistics support services with cost-effective operational
excellence.  Vectrus is headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Expert Discovery Underway in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that expert discovery is
ongoing in the case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.
Securities Litigation; formerly Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment
Partners Inc., et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and
certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including
the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiffs and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint,
which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015
(the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse
facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared
Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf
of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing
Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The
remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was
filed on August 5, 2016. Plaintiff's motion for class
certification was granted on May 15, 2017. Fact discovery is
completed, and expert discovery is ongoing. The Company believes
that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss
that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim.

Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services
to individuals and institutions.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Against "Youngers" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al., is
ongoing, according to Virtus' Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (the "District Court") by an individual who
alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual
funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the
AlphaSector Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and
certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds
between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff,
and on July 27, 2015, the District Court appointed movants as lead
plaintiff. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint which, among other things, added a
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus
Opportunities Trust.

On October 19, 2015, the District Court entered an order
transferring the action to the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"). On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the
Company and affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court
dismissed four causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of
action with respect to a portion of the Class Period. The Court
also dismissed all claims against ten defendants named in the
Complaint. The Court held that the Plaintiffs may pursue certain
securities claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The remaining
defendants filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on
August 5, 2016.

A Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the claim under Section 12
of the Securities Act was filed on September 15, 2016. The
defendants filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of
the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on August 26, 2016. The motion was denied on January 6,
2017. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on May
15, 2017.

On July 28, 2017 Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend
their complaint to address deficiencies identified by the Court in
its orders dismissing, in part, plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint and denying class certification. Defendants' response
was due on August 18, 2017, and a hearing on the motion was
scheduled for September 7, 2017.

The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there
is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.

Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services
to individuals and institutions.


VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of a class action complaint.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015.

In May 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and in December 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

In January 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2017, the Court of
Appeals issued its opinion affirming the District Court's
dismissal of the complaint.

To date, the plaintiffs have not filed a petition for review in
the U.S. Supreme Court, but the time in which they are permitted
to do so has not elapsed. If the Supreme Court were to consider
the appeal and an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is
possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in any period in which such an outcome
becomes probable and estimable.

Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company.


VIVINT SOLAR: Class Action Under Arbitration Administered by JAMS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a class action case will now proceed to an
arbitration administered by JAMS.

In September 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689
of the California Civil Code. The complaint sought: (1) rescission
of their PPAs along with restitution to the plaintiffs
individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief.

In October 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
PPAs, which the Court granted and dismissed the class claims
without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the Court's order.

On July 26, 2017, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate
District ruled that all issues concerning the interpretation,
validity, or enforceability of the PPAs, including the
arbitrability of class claims, must be submitted to arbitration.

The appellate court vacated the portion of the trial court's order
dismissing class claims, requiring that issue to be determined by
an arbitrator. The case will now proceed to an arbitration
administered by JAMS. The Company is unable to estimate the amount
or range of potential loss, if any, at this time.

Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company.


VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Arbitration of New Plaintiff's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company has moved to compel arbitration of
the new plaintiff's claims.

In November 2016, a customer of the Company filed a putative class
action lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, California,
purportedly on behalf of all customers of a particular Company
sales representative in California, claiming that the
representative's sales practices were improper under California
consumer protection law. The Company moved to dismiss that action
to compel arbitration.

In March 2017, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, purporting to expand the proposed
class to include all customers who are eligible for the California
Alternate Rates for Energy program, and adding claims of
misconduct in the Company's sales practices apart from the
individual representative identified in the original complaint.

The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the new plaintiff's
claims as well. The Company disputes the allegations in both the
original and amended complaints and intends to defend itself in
the action.

Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company.


WAYFAIR INC: Settlement of "Zouzout" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the parties in the case, Naomi Zouzout v.
Wayfair LLC, are awaiting approval of a settlement.

In September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of
Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809-
166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of
various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other
remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money
damages, costs, and various fees.

In June 2017, the Company entered into a settlement of the
litigation, subject to judicial approval. The parties will present
their proposed settlement to the court for review and approval in
September 2017. This settlement is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operation or financial
condition.

Wayfair, Inc. is an American e-commerce company that sells home
goods.  It is formerly known as CSN Stores.


WESTAR ENERGY: Defending Merger Class Suit
------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
related to a merger agreement, according to its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Following the announcement of the original merger agreement, two
putative class action complaints (which were consolidated and
superseded by a consolidated complaint) and one putative
derivative complaint challenging the merger were filed in the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas.

The Company said, "The consolidated putative class action
complaint, filed on July 25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar
Energy, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457. This
complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the members of our
board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts
that the members of our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the
original merger. It also asserts that Westar Energy and Great
Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the original
merger consideration deprived our shareholders of fair
consideration for their shares, (ii) the original merger agreement
contained deal protection provisions that unfairly favored Great
Plains Energy and discouraged third parties from submitting
potentially superior proposals, (iii) the disclosures were
misleading and/or omitted material information necessary for our
shareholders to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor
of the original merger and (iv) if the original merger were to
have been consummated, certain of our directors and officers may
have received significant benefits. The complaint seeks, among
other remedies, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the original
merger, (ii) rescission of the original merger agreement or
rescissory damages, (iii) a directive to members of our board of
directors to account for all damages caused by them as a result of
their breaches of their fiduciary duties and (iv) an award for
costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees."

"The putative derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, and as
amended on August 25, 2016, is captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et
al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This putative derivative action
names as defendants the members of our board of directors, Great
Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, with Westar
Energy named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that
the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our shareholders in connection with the original merger.
It also asserts that Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great
Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of our
board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price for
our shareholders in the original merger because of a flawed
process that discouraged third parties from submitting potentially
superior proposals, and that the disclosures are false or
misleading due to the omission of certain information. The
complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i) a direction that the
director defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction which is in the best interests of us and our
shareholders, (ii) a declaration that the original merger was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, (iii) rescission of
the original merger agreement, (iv) the imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of us,
upon any benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a
result of their wrongful conduct, (v) award for costs, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and (vi) the imposition of an
injunction against the defendants and others from consummating the
original merger on the terms proposed.

"On September 21, 2016, the parties in the consolidated putative
class action and the putative derivative complaint independently
agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief and otherwise
agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with prejudice and
to providing releases. In exchange, the parties in the putative
derivative complaint agreed that we would make supplemental
disclosures to the shareholders, which disclosures were made in a
Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and the parties in the
consolidated putative class action agreed that we would (i) make
the disclosures in the Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and
(ii) grant waivers of the prohibition on requesting a waiver of
the standstill provisions in the confidentiality and standstill
agreements executed by the bidders that participated in the our
sale process. These agreements do not constitute any admission by
any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims. The
September 2016 agreement in principle may be null and void as a
result of entering into the amended and restated merger agreement
in July 2017. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
and we cannot predict how existing litigation will progress, or
whether additional claims may result from the amended and restated
merger agreement. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or
claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger closes may
adversely affect the combined company's business, financial
condition or results of operation."

Westar is the largest electric utility in Kansas.


WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
class action alleging Westpac overcharged thousands of life
insurance customers will likely hinge on "forensic" analysis of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policies, as well as
premiums, a leading expert says.

Shine Lawyers claimed Westpac breached its duty to act in the
interests of clients, because customers who bought insurance
through the bank's financial advisers were charged premiums 4.5
per cent higher than if they had bought the cover elsewhere.

The plaintiff law firm argues the bank knowingly took advantage of
customers, and tens of thousands of clients may have claims
against the bank that could be worth up to $100 million.

Westpac's BT Financial Group vowed to defend the matter, saying
the gap in premium prices reflected different underwriting
practices and service levels.

Prominent insurance lawyer John Berrill --
john@berrillwatson.com.au -- principal at Berrill & Watson, said a
key issue for the case would be whether it was comparing "apples
with apples", and this would require "forensic analysis".

He stressed the wide variation in insurance policies' terms and
conditions, which can make comparisons very difficult. For
example, policies may or may not have exclusions for suicide,
different types of pre-existing conditions, or mental health
issues.

"Their sales pitch is effectively their terms and conditions,"
Mr Berrill said.

"It's going to be a difficult exercise to do that comparison, to
convince a court that the policy was mis-sold or that the terms
and conditions were not competitive."

The statement of claim for the action says Westpac charged
premiums on policies sold through its advice network that were 4.5
per cent higher compared with premiums on "identical" policies
sold by independent financial advisers.

ASX-listed litigation funder Just Capital is funding the case.  It
is being run as an "open class", which means all customers who
bought Westpac life insurance based on recommendations from
Westpac-owned advisers after 2011 would be entitled to any payout.
There were more than seven group members of the action when it was
filed, the statement of claim says.

Westpac-owned BT Financial Group argues it charged higher premiums
for customers who came through its planners because the bank
accepted a wider range of clients through this sales channel.

"Through our financial planners we accept customers who may have
conditions such as high cholesterol or blood pressure and who
would otherwise find themselves with a higher premium if they
tried to purchase it through an independent adviser," BT chief
executive Brad Cooper on Oct. 13.

"As a result some customers will pay substantially less, and
others will pay a little bit more, but that is how insurance
works."

Mr Berrill said the case also highlighted the ongoing consumer
group concerns about vertical integration in banking -- where
banks act as both the manufacturers and distributors of financial
products.

Critics say this model leads to bank workers being given
incentives to cross-sell the bank's products, rather than those
that are best for customers.

"This is classic vertical integration stuff," Mr Berrill said.

Philippa Heir, a senior solicitor at the Consumer Action Law
Centre specialising in insurance, said a key problem in life
insurance was the role of commissions.  Financial advisers are
banned from receiving commissions on new investment and
superannuation products, but life insurers still pay commissions
to advisers.

"Too often it seems that advisers and other people selling
insurance are motivated by commissions and other incentives,"
Ms Heir said.

A BT spokesman on Oct. 15 said in the past year its advisers had
used non-Westpac insurers 1200 times, using seven insurance
providers, and its advisers "regularly" use other insurers when
they thought it was in the customer's best interest.

Banks have been winding back their sales targets for frontline
staff in response to concerns about vertical integration, with
Commonwealth Bank becoming the latest lender to say it would
remove financial measures from performance targets for 2000
tellers. [GN]


WOLVERINE WORLD: Law Firms Eyes Class Action Over Toxic Waste
-------------------------------------------------------------
FOX17 News reports that Belmont residents plan to file a lawsuit
against Wolverine World Wide in Rockford.

Aaron Phelps, a partner with the Varnum law firm in Grand Rapids,
issued the following statement:

"We put Wolverine on formal notice that Belmont residents intend
to file a lawsuit to enforce the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.  Our position has been, and still remains, that
Wolverine is not acting efficiently or effectively to remedy the
situation, regardless of their recent 'voluntary' responses.  We
have notified Wolverine that we intend to sue them for violating
this federal law by handling hazardous waste in a manner that
presents an imminent and substantial danger to the environment and
human health.  The primary relief we have requested is that
Wolverine clean up all of its dump sites, and provide a permanent
solution for clean water.  This ensures that Wolverine either acts
now or faces further legal action in the future."

The Miller Law Firm out of Metro Detroit said it's also eyeing a
class-action lawsuit.  The firm will seek compensation for a loss
in home values and for the company to right other wrongs.

Sharon Almonronde, a partner with Miller told FOX 17, "We would
also seek relief under federal and state environmental statutes.
We would also attempt to have some type of monitoring their health
issues that they could have potentially as a result of the
exposure to these toxic chemicals."

Wolverine World Wide is now distributing bottled water to dozens
of families as they test private wells across the area. [GN]


XBIOTECH INC: Jan. 2018 Status Conference in "Rezko" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
XBiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a status conference is tentatively scheduled
for January 2018 in the case, Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc.

The Company said, "On December 1, 2015, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed
against us, certain of our officers and directors and the
underwriter for our initial public offering in the Superior Court
for the State of California, Los Angeles County.  On December 2,
2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Linh
Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han was filed
against us and certain of our officers and directors in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuits are
based on substantially similar factual allegations and purport to
be class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from April 15, 2015 through November
23, 2015. The complaint filed in California state court alleges
that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the complaint filed in federal
court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), in each case by
making materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's Phase III clinical trial conducted in Europe to assess
Xilonix(TM) as a treatment for colorectal cancer. The California
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the federal complaint
purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Both complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief."

"In September 2016, a stay was granted at the Superior Court for
the State of California, Los Angeles County, in Yogina Rezko v.
XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co.,
LLC, in light of the ongoing case, Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard and Queena Han, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, leaving plaintiffs with an opportunity
re-file a complaint in Texas. In October 2016, the Texas
securities class action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

"At the June 7, 2017 hearing at the Superior Court for the State
of California, Los Angeles County, we were granted a motion on the
grounds of forum non conveniens. The judge ruled that the case
belonged in Texas, not in California. The case is nevertheless
stayed, due to California procedural rules, and not dismissed. A
status conference is tentatively scheduled for January 2018.

On July 6, 2017, plaintiffs proceeded to re-file in Travis County
district court (located in Austin, Texas). A hearing date has yet
to be scheduled.

"We are unable to estimate the outcome of the Texas state court
matter or the resulting financial impact to us, if any," the
Company said.


XOMA CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Against "Markette" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al., remains pending, XOMA
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017.

On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al.
(Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that
all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5,
by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21,
2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
July 8, 2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former
director as a defendant. On September 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint.
The plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on
October 7, 2016. The defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2016.
The judge in the case has advised that he will rule on the motion
based on those pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling. On May
26, 2017, the judge ordered supplemental briefing on the motion to
dismiss based on a recent decision issued in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, City of Dearborn Heights
Act 345 Police & Retirement Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc., 2017 WL
1753276 (9th Cir. May 5, 2017).  The parties filed supplemental
briefs on June 9, 2017.

Based on a review of allegations, the defendants believe that the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does
not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial condition. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from this lawsuit.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit over Symbol Acquisition Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend
against a class action lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Symbol Technologies.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions.  A
putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the
New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April
26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel
on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages. The court has certified a class of
investors that includes those that purchased Symbol common stock
between March 12, 2004 and August 1, 2005.

The parties have substantially completed fact and expert
discovery. However, there is one (1) discovery motion pending that
could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in
abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the
filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial.

The current lead Directors and Officers ("D&O") insurer continues
to maintain its position of not agreeing to reimburse defense
costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter, and
the Company disputes the position taken by the current D&O
insurer.

Zebra Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
is a global leader providing innovative Enterprise Asset
Intelligence ("EAI") solutions in the automatic information and
data capture solutions industry.


ZILLOW GROUP: To Make Settlement Payments During 2017
-----------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company expects to make voluntary payments
contemplated by a class action settlement agreement during 2017.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, with the caption
Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleged, among other
things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of
employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions
to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act."

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On May 5, 2016, the
parties agreed to settle the lawsuit, which was later memorialized
in a settlement agreement executed by the parties on December 2,
2016, with payment by Zillow, Inc. of up to $6.0 million.

"On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our
petition for permission to appeal the order granting class
certification. The settlement does not contain any admission of
liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.

"On April 10, 2017, the parties executed an amendment to the
settlement agreement providing that the settlement class includes
all current and former inside sales consultants employed by
Zillow, Inc. in (i) its California offices from November 19, 2010
through the date on which the court granted preliminary approval
and (ii) its Washington offices from March 1, 2013 through the
date on which the court granted preliminary approval.

"On May 26, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement of the class action lawsuit.

"We expect to make the voluntary payments contemplated by the
settlement agreement during 2017. We have recorded a liability
related to the settlement for $6.0 million as of June 30, 2017 and
December 31, 2016. We do not believe there is a reasonable
possibility that a material loss in excess of amounts accrued may
be incurred."


ZIMMER BIOMET: Still Defends "Shah" Class Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., remains
pending, according to Zimmer Biomet's Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah
v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us, two of our
officers and one of our now former officers as defendants.  On
June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint,
naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named,
current and former members of our Board of Directors, one
additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with
secondary offerings of our common stock by certain selling
stockholders in June and August 2016.

"The corrected amended complaint relates to a putative class
action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between
June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016.  The corrected amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or omissions about our compliance with U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regulations, the integration of legacy
Zimmer and legacy Biomet manufacturing facilities and quality
systems, and our ability to continue to accelerate our organic
revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
other relief."

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the
individual defendants are defending it vigorously."


ZODIAC US: $952K Settlement in "Cuzick" Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KYLE CUZICK, Plaintiff, v. ZODIAC U.S. SEAT
SHELLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03793-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the action against the
Defendant in Alameda Superior Court, alleging that its pay, meal,
and rest break practices violated the California Labor Code,
California Unfair Competition Law, and the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiff then filed the operative First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 22, 2016.

The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action: (i) failure to
provide meal periods; (ii) failure to provide rest breaks; (iii)
failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; (iv) failure to provide
accurate written wage statements; (v) failure to timely pay all
final wages; (vi) unfair and unlawful business practices; (vii)
failure to compensate for all hours worked; and (viii) statutory
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in an hourly wage position
as a non-exempt employee from approximately November 2015 to March
2016.  During this time, he alleges that the Defendant had a
policy of requiring its employees to return to their work stations
on or before the 30th minute of their 30-minute meal break and on
or before the 10th minute of their 10-minute rest period.

Moreover, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant would deduct
meal break and rest periods from his and other non-exempt
employees' timecards, regardless of whether the Defendant actually
provided them.  On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, as well as whatever relief the Court deems just
and proper.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
private mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
The key terms are:

     a. Class Definition: All individuals who were employed at any
time by the Defendant in California as non-exempt employees
between May 25, 2012, and the date of the order.  The parties have
represented that there are approximately 1,168 individuals who
fall within the class period.

     b. Monetary Relief: The Defendant will establish a gross
settlement fund consisting of $952,000.  The parties have
estimated that individual class members' gross recovery, before
deductions for taxes, fees, and other costs, will be approximately
$800.  They propose that civil penalties of $10,000 will be paid
to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
as penalties related to the Plaintiff's PAGA claim.  The gross
settlement fund accordingly includes Court-approved attorneys'
fees and costs, settlement administration fees, the LWDA payment,
and any additional incentive award to the Plaintiff as class
representative.  The cash payments to the class will be based on
the individual class members' gross wages during the relevant
class period.

     c. Release: The class will release the Defendant from all
claims against Defendant from May 25, 2012, to the date of the
order, that are based on the same operative facts as those in the
complaint, including claims for the seven wage and hour causes of
action stated in the complaint.

     d. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
send class notices via first-class U.S. mail to each member of the
class, using the most current known address.  The notice will
include the nature of the action; a summary of the settlement
terms; instructions on how to object to and opt out of the
settlement, including relevant deadlines; and the released claims.

     e. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative
class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement
must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion to the
settlement administrator within 60 days from the mailing of the
class notice.

     f. Incentive Award: The Plaintiff will file a motion for a
$10,000 incentive award, subject to Court approval, following the
Order.  The Plaintiff's counsel states that he was actively
involved in the litigation and settlement negotiations and
contributed more than 50 hours of his time to the prosecution of
this matter.  The Defendant does not oppose the request.

     g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiff will file an
application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 33.33% of the gross
settlement amount and for costs not to exceed $10,000.  The
Defendant does not oppose the request.

Judge Gilliam finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3) have been met in the case.  He also finds that the
proposed class counsel and the Plaintiff have prosecuted the
action vigorously on behalf of the class to date, and will
continue to do so.  The adequacy of representation requirement,
therefore, is satisfied.

Because the Judge finds that the Plaintiff meets the commonality,
typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), he appointed
him as the class representative.  In light of the Plaintiff's
counsel's extensive experience litigating class actions in federal
court, and their diligence in prosecuting the action to date, the
Judge appointed Setareh Law LLP as the class counsel.  Having
weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam finds that the
settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

At the hearing held on Oct. 5, 2017, the Court directed the
parties to confer regarding modifications to the proposed process
for administration of the Notice.  The parties conferred, and the
Plaintiff submitted a supplemental brief that addressed the
resolution of concerns identified by the Court, including
extending then notice period to 60 days and adding skip tracing to
send notice packets.

The parties have agreed that a third-party settlement
administrator will send class notice via first-class U.S. mail to
each absent class member at their last known address, as provided
by Defendant and updated by the administrator as appropriate.  Any
notice packets returned as undeliverable will be sent to any
updated address provided with the returned mail.  Moreover, the
administrator will conduct "skip tracing" to identify current
addresses for returned notice packages.

The parties have attached a copy of their proposed class notices
to the settlement agreement.  In addition to describing the
information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the
notice also informs class members that class counsel will request
the Court to authorize payment of their attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the total Settlement Fund, or $317,333.33, and costs
of up to $10,000.  It also provides that the Plaintiff will
request that the Court award a class representative enhancement
payment to the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.

To enable class members to review the class counsel's motion, the
class counsel will also include language in the settlement
notices: (i) indicating the deadline for filing the attorneys'
fees motion and request for the Plaintiff's incentive award; (ii)
specifically stating the deadline for any class member objections
to these motions; and (iii) informing class members that the
motion and supporting materials will be available for viewing on
class counsel's website.  That motion will be filed with the Court
and posted on the class counsel's website not later than 20 days
before the class members' objections are due.  With those changes,
Judge Gilliam finds that this is the best practicable form of
notice under the circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.  He
directed the parties to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted
to the Court along with a proposed order within seven days of the
date of the Order: (i) deadline for the Settlement Administrator
to mail notice to all putative class members; (ii) filing deadline
for attorneys' fees and costs motion; (iii) filing deadline for
incentive payment motion; (iv) deadline for the class members to
opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys'
fees and costs and incentive payment; and (v) filing deadline for
final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on
motions.  The parties are further directed to implement the
proposed class notice plan with the edits identified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wq22lQ from Leagle.com.

Kyle Cuzick, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Kyle Cuzick, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Zodiac U.S. Seat Shells, LLC, Defendant, represented by Caryn F.
Horner, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Greg Stephen
Labate -- glabate@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin & Stephen
Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.


* CFPB's Richard Cordray Lashes at Arbitration Rule Opponents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cordray, director of the U.S. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, in an opinion article posted at The Hill, said
"This summer, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a
rule that prevents financial companies from using arbitration
clauses to deny groups of consumers the ability to pursue their
legal rights in court.  We put this rule in place after conducting
a comprehensive study that found that these clauses were
effectively blocking billions of dollars of relief for millions of
harmed consumers.  Opponents of our rule are now doing everything
they can to prevent these protections from taking effect. "

"The latest effort is outlined in a recent column by Keith
Noreika, the acting comptroller, which is his second gratuitous
attempt to undermine the evidence that supports our rule. Both
times he has relied on so-called analysis that is simply
embarrassing.

"He first went out of his way to opine on our rule when he
claimed, out of the blue, that it threatened the safety and
soundness of the banking system.  His agency had consulted with us
repeatedly through the rule writing process without raising such
objections.  Yet he abruptly asserted that the banks were
existentially threatened by this simple rule, which does not even
ban arbitration in consumer disputes.

"Instead, it simply prevents mandatory pre-arbitration clauses
from blocking consumers from banding together to pursue their
legal rights in court.  People can still opt out of group lawsuits
if they want to pursue their claims on their own, and they can
agree to arbitrate individual disputes on a voluntary basis.

"We pointed out the farfetched nature of those claims at the time.
The total costs of the arbitration rule are pegged at under $1
billion per year, compared to bank profits of $171 billion last
year and an asset base of many trillions of dollars. The acting
comptroller ultimately stood down and decided not to challenge the
rule before the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

"Now he presents a new claim that the rule will impose high costs,
in the form of a 3.43 percent increase in credit card interest
rates, on consumers.  This claim is demonstrably bogus. Based on
an analysis that our economists have produced, the claim rests on
a rudimentary statistical error of confusing the inverse of a p-
value with the probability that a hypothesis is true.  In laymen's
terms, this claim is the equivalent of flipping a coin twice,
having both come up heads, and declaring that the coin is "very
likely" to have heads on both sides.  It does not hold water.

"His claim that the arbitration rule is expected to cause a 3.43
percent increase in credit card rates also flunks basic economics.
As part of a 2009 settlement, some large firms covering a
significant part of the market stopped using arbitration clauses.
The data did not show this led to any jump in the rates they
charge to consumers or that they have been charging much higher
rates than their competitors ever since.

"In fact, the orders imposed by the lawsuit expired years ago and
none of the companies has reinstituted an arbitration clause,
which suggests they are at no tangible competitive disadvantage
and are not suffering any significant loss of profits.  He also
incorrectly claims there is no evidence that banks will change
their behavior if they are more likely to be sued.  When banks
were sued for reordering bank debits to charge more overdraft
fees, or for manipulating foreign currency conversion fees, many
banks changed their practices accordingly.

"The acting comptroller's claim that the arbitration rule is
somehow harming community banks and credit unions is also plainly
wrong.  Over 90 percent of the community banks and credit unions
we studied do not even have these clauses in their checking
account contracts. Our analysis showed that community banks and
other small businesses had a less than one in 1,500 chance of a
new class action due to the rule.  They are focused on
relationship banking and great customer service, not on blocking
group lawsuits.

"A tremendous effort is being made to shift the focus away from
the large companies most affected by the arbitration rule.  But
recent scandals make it hard to defend denying justice and relief
to groups of people who have been wronged.  Why should Wells Fargo
be able to block groups of customers from suing over fake
accounts? Why should Equifax be able to force people to surrender
their legal rights when the company put their personal information
at risk?

"While most small institutions do not use arbitration clauses,
they do file group lawsuits.  Like consumers, they often lack the
resources to engage in legal battles against big companies. Just
last month, a credit union filed a group lawsuit on behalf of all
credit unions against Equifax for damages caused by the data
breach.

"Big companies do it as well.  Ironically, the Chamber of
Commerce, a staunch opponent of the arbitration rule, has now sued
to block it, banding together on behalf of many companies to keep
consumers from banding together to assert their own rights in the
courts.  The fight thus will now be decided in the courts and need
not be decided in the Senate.  Wherever it is decided, however,
the acting comptroller's errant claims have no legitimate part to
play in the ultimate determination." [GN]





                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *