CAR_Public/180129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, January 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 21



                            Headlines


226 WILD GINGER: Delivery Personnel Seeks OT Pay, Retained Tips
3M CO: Says Peterson Air Force Base PFCs Health Claims No Merit
ACT II: June 6 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Appeal Process Postponed
AK STEEL: Faces Nelson's ERIS Class Action in Michigan

AMPLIFY SNACK: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Violations Probed
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Given Until Feb. 9 to Answer "Jones" FLSA Suit
APPLE INC: Faces "Aburos" Class Action in Florida
APPLE INC: Faces "LaNasa" Class Suit in Louisiana
APPLE INC: Faces "Batista" Class Action in California

APPLE INC: Faces "McInnis" Class Suit in Mississippi
APPLE INC: Faces "Burton" Class Suit in Missouri
APPLE INC: Class Actions Over iPhone Battery Issue Rise to 30
APPLE TEN FL: "Black" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ATBCOIN LLC: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Likely to Approve LIBOR Class Settlement
BAZAARVOICE INC: King Files Suit Over Marlin Merger Deal
BEST DOCTORS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Thomas" Suit Says
BETWEEN THE BREAD: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
BIG PHARMA: Newton County Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action

BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Barrera" Suit Underway in N.D. California
BMW NORTH AMERICA: Parker Claims Dismissed
BONNEVILLE BILLING: Litigation and Discovery Plan Due Feb. 20
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: "Dhuy" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination
BUFFALO WILD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Arby's Merger

CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Class Action Dismissed
CAMERON COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Suit Threat Over Topless Bar Case
CANADA: More WRPS Female Officers Allege Discrimination
CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Calls on Sexual Harassment Oversight
CAPCO PIZZA: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

CARTER DISTRIBUTING: Hill Moves for FLSA Collective Action Cert.
CORECIVIC INC: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action
COREY HILL: Refused to Make Condo Repairs, Decataldi Says
CRYPTO CO: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DELTIC TIMBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

EI DUPONT: Cohen Milstein, Susman Godfrey Tapped as Class Counsel
EMPIRE BIG: Up to 900 Plaintiffs Join Fraud Class Action
FIAT CHRYSLER: Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Used Cars
FIAT CHRYSLER: Uconnect Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
FLINT, MI: Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Case

FLINT, MI: Judge to Nominate Levin as Water Crisis Case Mediator
FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certification Sought
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Analyzes Seven Factors in Interns' Case
GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN: Jones' Bid for Class Certification Denied
GERMANY: Jan. 28 Hearing Set for Nama Genocide Class Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: Sexual Harassment Class Action Pending
GOOGLE INC: Former Engineer Files Discrimination Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Urged to Review Privacy Case Settlement
GURU NANAK AUTO: "Ventura" Suit Pending in E.D. New York
HARVARD COLLECTION: "Gamble" Class Cert. Bid Now Due March 2

HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Foster-Care Payments
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over GDI Engine Defects
INTEL CORP: Suits Pile Up Over Melton, Spectre Security Holes
INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action in California Over CPU Defects
INTEL CORP: Class Action Mulled in Korea Over CPU Security Flaws

INTEL CORP: Securities Law Firms Mull Class Suits Over Chip Flaw
JUST FOR LAUGHS: Rozon to Challenge Sexual Assault Class Action
KENYA POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Incorrect Electric Billing
LG CHEM: May 8 Lithium Batteries Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Derivative Actions

LOBLAWS COS: $25 GC Won't Impact Consumers' Class Action Right
LOBLAW COS: Judge Favors Consumers in Price-Fixing Case
LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Bordeaux" Suit Granted
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Settles Storage Tank Explosion Class Action
MDL 2800: Credit Union Suit over Consumer Data Breach Underway

MDL 2800: Feb. 9 Hearing on Bids to Appoint Case Leaders
MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Blanchard" Suit in S.D. Illinois
MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Answer to "Hobbs" TCPA Suit Due Feb. 16
MEMPHIS, TN: Special Master Appointed in Untested Rape Kits Case
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Jones" Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Grapples with Gender Salary Inequality Lawsuits
MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Class Certification in Gender Bias Case
MISSISSIPPI FARM: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Suit
MONKEY CAPITAL: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lashock Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

NASA SERVICES: "De Leon" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway
NCCA: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set
NEW YORK: Crime Drops After Stop-and-Frisk Policy Halted
NORTH HIGHLAND: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Boose" Suit Says
NORTHERN CONCRETE: Morgan's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Denied

NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Sued Over Dilapidated Housing Complex
OREGON: Discovery in Class Suit Against Prison Doctors Underway
PALATINE, IL: Collins Ruling Ammunition for Defendants
PARKWAY TROPICS: Former Exotic Dancer Files Wage Class Action
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: $2.9B Settlement Sets Records

PPG INDUSTRIES: Union Retirees Get ERISA Class Certification
PRATT & WHITNEY: Acreage Residents Seek Cancer Case Class Status
PRATT & WHITNEY: Expert Disputes Cancer Cluster Hurt Home Values
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
RJ REYNOLDS: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Graham Case

ROYAL BANK: Vange Consulting Files Class Action Over Fees
SACRAMENTO BASKETBALL: April 12 Case Conference in "Smith" Suit
SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Wickham Securities Class Action Settled
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied
SCANA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over V.C. Summer Project

SETJO LLC: Files Answer to "Willis" Suit in N.D. Ohio
SIGNET JEWELERS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Vacated
SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING: May Face Suit Over TV License Fees
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Okays $15-Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Tosses Latte Under-filling Class Action

SYNERGY GLOBAL: Failed to Pay "Hollender" Overtime, Commissions
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Action Not Certified
TIME INC: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action in New York
TOWN SPORTS: "Santos" Suit Goes Back to New Jersey State Court
TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Driver Service Fees
UNITED STATES: ACLU Plans to Support Pro-Abortion Candidates
VU FOOD SERVICES: "Carrion" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
W AVIATION: Dean Seeks to Send Notice to Service Technicians
WALMART CORP: Shoppers Sue Over Shell Egg False Advertising

WV AMERICAN: Feb. 1 Water Crisis Settlement Approval Hearing Set

* AARP Wants Tech Cos to End Age Bias on Facebook Recruitment Ads
* Class Action Rulings Impact Farm, Ranch Businesses
* Consumer Protection Bill Includes Grounds for Class Actions
* Issue on Whether ICOs Implicate Securities Laws Up for Debate
* Ont. Class Action Law Review Must Consider Environmental Claims







                            *********



226 WILD GINGER: Delivery Personnel Seeks OT Pay, Retained Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jianhui Hu, Zhizhong Liu, Jinquan Yin, and Xing Xing, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 226
Wild Ginger Inc. (d/b/a Wild Ginger), 51 Wild Ginger Inc. (d/b/a
Wild Ginger), Wild Ginger NY Inc. (d/b/a Wild Ginger), Yong Qiu,
Shan You Chen (a/k/a Hsan You Chen) and Fei Chen, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-10161, (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours compensation, illegally-retained tips, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in New York serving
Asian fusion cuisine named "Wild Ginger." Plaintiffs were
employed as delivery personnel. They use their own vehicles to
deliver and incurred expenses that were not reimbursed, thus
rendering their pay below mandated minimum wage rates, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M CO: Says Peterson Air Force Base PFCs Health Claims No Merit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that for 25 years, Dan Cruz delivered mail at
the Peterson Air Force Base and drank the water.  Then came
cancer -- thyroid, prostate, testicular -- he said never before
seen in his family.

"I'm the only one that's been diagnosed with cancer not once, not
twice, but three times.  People on my route . . . cancer has come
upon them and sometimes stage 4," Mr. Cruz told CBS News
correspondent Barry Petersen.

The cause could be firefighting foam used since the 1970s at Air
Force bases and airports across the country, something meant to
save lives that may have harmed them instead.  The foam contains
highly fluorinated chemicals, known as PFCs.  It is suspected of
causing some cancers and underweight births.

Mica Ullum has lived near Peterson Air Force Base for a quarter
century, in a town where the foam has contaminated the water.
Sadie, one of three children born to Mica, was born premature,
weighing a mere one pound six ounces.  She spent 94 days in the
neonatal intensive care unit.  Mica's four other pregnancies
ended in miscarriage or death.

"With what you know now, do you think any of this has to do with
the effects, potential effects, of what's in the water?"
Mr. Petersen asked.

"Possibly, yeah," Ms. Ullum responded.

"Why?"

"Because if you continue to pump poison into your body, something
has to respond," Ms. Ullum said.

Mr. Peterson is one of 190 Air Force bases where PFCs may have
leached in the ground and surrounding areas.  One study based on
EPA's test results shows as many as six million people may be
exposed nationwide to PFCs in their drinking water at higher
levels than the EPA now deems safe.

But the more than 60,000 people in the communities near Peterson
Air Force Base may be America's hardest-hit.  The EPA said
anything over 70-parts per trillion could be dangerous.  Some
water they tested here had over 1,300 parts per trillion.
Additionally, according to a proposed class action lawsuit filed
against the foam manufacturers, it has caused serious medical
conditions in hundreds of residents.

One foam manufacturing company, 3M, said there is no merit in the
health claims, adding they "sold these products with instructions
regarding their safe use and disposal. . . acted responsibly at
all times . . . and will vigorously defend this lawsuit."

But the Air Force has responded, spending more than $4 million to
provide bottled water and filtration systems.  Air Force
firefighters now train with water, and for real fires it uses a
different fluorinated foam, still containing another type of
PFCs, but believed to be safer.

But some of those who have studied the new foam say the Air Force
may have traded one evil for another.

"Our chemical regulation system makes us all guinea pigs . . .
because chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty and they
go out into the world . . . and we are exposed to them with no
health information," said Arlene Blum, researcher at the
University of California Berkeley.

Mark Correll is deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for
environment safety and infrastructure.

"Is it possible that you've replaced this with something that
could still have a long-term problem down the road?" Mr. Petersen
asked him.

"I've got to rely on the Environmental Protection Agency and on
the health agencies . . . to tell us whether or not that's going
to be a problem in the future," Mr. Correll said.

But for now, "We're going to treat it as if it were any other
hazardous material . . . so that we can prevent contamination in
the ground water and in the soil by cleaning it up immediately,"
Mr. Correll said.

"Why would you do that if it's deemed to be safe?" Mr. Petersen
asked.

"What we're saying is these still are chemicals that have
potentially toxic side effects," Mr. Correll said.

Mr. Cruz worries more illnesses may lie ahead because of
something as ordinary as a drink of water.

"If someone had told you this 25 years ago and you had never had
any of this water, do you think you'd be healthy now and not
going through these cancers?" Mr. Petersen asked him.

"I think I would have been perfectly healthy.  I don't I don't
believe that I would've gotten any of the of the cancers at all,"
Mr. Cruz said.

This area will be part of a federal study of contamination near
military bases around the country, which will hopefully outline
just how bad and just how far this contamination may have reached
into the lives of millions of people. [GN]


ACT II: June 6 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
You Could Be Eligible to Receive a Payment from a Class Action
Settlement if you Purchased or Sold Jewelry from Act II Jewelry,
LLC Formerly Known As lia sophia

The following statement is being issued by Siprut PC regarding
the lia sophia Class Action Settlement.

A Settlement has been reached in a lawsuit alleging that Act II
Jewelry, LLC f/k/a lia sophia ("Act II") breached its promise to
provide a lifetime warranty, and that Act II harmed its sales
advisors by misappropriating their customer information and
making false statements to those sales advisors concerning the
closing of its business.  Act II denies these allegations and
denies any wrongdoing.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The settlement covers Class Members of one or more of the
following Settlement Classes which include all individuals in the
United States who: Customer Class -- purchased jewelry from Act
II between June 23, 2011, and December 1, 2014; Sales Advisor
Class -- sold at least $250 of jewelry for Act II between
January 1, 2014, and August 17, 2014; New Sales Advisor Class --
purchased initial starter kits from Act II between August 1,
2014, and December 1, 2014.  In total, the classes contain
approximately 4 million members.  If the settlement is approved,
a settlement fund of $6.7 million dollars will be created for
distribution among those Class Members who submit Valid Claims,
attorneys' fees, incentive awards, and settlement administration
expenses.

To get a payment class members must submit a claim online or by
mail by April 9, 2018. Customer and Sales Advisor Class Members'
cash payments will depend on the amount of jewelry purchased or
sold from Act II, and the total number of Valid Claims filed.
New Sales Advisor Class Members will receive a full reimbursement
of the amount paid for his or her initial starter kit, which
ranged from $99 to $149, subject to a cap on total recovery for
the class.

Other Options. Class members that do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement's terms or who want to pursue their own case
against Act II, must Opt Out of the Settlement by April 9, 2018,
and will not get a payment from the Settlement.  If a class
member does not Opt Out, they may Object to the Settlement by
April 9, 2018.  The detailed notice available on the Settlement
Website explains how to Opt Out or Object.

The Court will hold a Hearing on June 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees of up to one third of the $6.7 million Settlement
Fund after settlement administration expenses (approximately
$1,800,000) and incentive awards of $2,500-$7,500 to the Class
Representatives.  The Motion for Fees will be posted on the
website after it is filed.  You may appear at the hearing, at
your own expense, but you don't have to. For more information,
call or visit the website.

This is only a summary of the information related to the
Settlement.  For detailed information, about the Settlement,
class member rights, and the benefits that may be available,
visit: www.LiaSophiaSettlement.com or call 1-844-412-1945. [GN]


AFRICAN RAINBOW: Silicosis Class Action Appeal Process Postponed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the silicosis class action appeal
proceedings have been postponed until further notice, the Chamber
of Mines has announced.

Attorneys representing all appellants and all respondents
involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in
respect of the silicosis and tuberculosis class action litigation
have written to the Registrar of the SCA asking that the appeal
proceedings be postponed until further notice.

The SCA has granted approval for the postponement.

The joint letter explains that good faith settlement negotiations
between the Occupational Lung Disease Working Group and
claimants' legal representatives have reached an advanced stage.
In view of that, all parties consider it to be in the best
interests of judicial economy and the efficient administration of
justice that the matter, currently scheduled to be heard from
March 19 to March 23, be postponed.

The Working Group represents African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo
American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye
Stillwater.  Richard Spoor Inc, Abrahams Kiewietz Inc and the
Legal Resources Centre represent the class members. [GN]


AK STEEL: Faces Nelson's ERIS Class Action in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Nelson, Robert Secrete, Kevin Ford and Thomas Lareau, on
behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class, The
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers Of America (UAW) and its Local
600, Plaintiffs, v. AK Steel Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-
cv-14209 (E.D. Mich., December 28, 2017), seeks relief for breach
of a collective bargaining agreement as well as declaratory and
other appropriate relief under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are retirees from Severstal North America, Inc. and/or
Severstal Dearborn, LLC (which was acquired by AK Steel in
September 16, 2014) and are affiliated with International Union
and UAW Local 600 labor organizations. AK Steel, as new owner, is
to be the plan sponsor and administrator of their vested lifetime
health care benefit plan. AK Steel allegedly and unilaterally
modified the plan and the retiree health care benefits of members
and claimed that some or all of the plan benefits were not
vested. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa M. Smith, Esq.
      MCKNIGHT, CANZANO, SMITH, RADTKE & BRAULT, P.C.
      423 N. Main Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Tel: (248) 354-9650
      Email: lsmith@michworkerlaw.com

             - and -

      Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
      LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
      306 S. Washington, Suite 600
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Tel: (248) 398-5900
      Email: israel@legghioisrael.com


AMPLIFY SNACK: Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach Violations Probed
----------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., is investigating potential claims against the board
of directors of Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. ("Amplify Snack" or
the "Company") (NYSE: BETR) concerning possible breaches of
fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the
Company's efforts to sell the Company to The Hershey Company in a
transaction valued at approximately $1.6 billion.

If you own shares of Amplify Snack and would like to learn more
about this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters
and have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844)
291-9299.  You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rm@maniskas.com

Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Amplify Snack
will receive $12.00 in cash for each share of Amplify Snack
common stock they own.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty
and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of
Amplify Snack or not acting in the Company's shareholders' best
interests in connection with the sale process.

RM LAW, P.C. -- http://www.maniskas.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional
investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts
nationwide. [GN]


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Given Until Feb. 9 to Answer "Jones" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHAN FLEMENS and GEORGE JONES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, WAI YUN AU, MICHAEL
WILLIAMS, and NORMAN FORBES, individually, the Plaintiffs, v. THE
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., THE ANTHEM COMPANIES INDIANA, AMERIGROUP
NEW YORK, LLC, d/b/a AMERIGROUP, and AMERIGROUP IPA OF NEW YORK,
LLC, d/b/a AMERIGROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07088-
AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The case is a collective action brought on behalf of Defendants'
current and former Recreational Vehicle Drivers. The Defendants
have operated an insurance company throughout the United States,
including New York. Amerigroup Defendants were acquired by Anthem
Defendants on December 24, 2012. The Defendants employed
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated RV Drivers to drive
Defendants' RVs to specific locations throughout New York. The
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated RV Drivers' workday
typically consisted of: picking up Defendants' RVs and driving it
to the required location, remaining at the location during the
workday while Marketing Representatives complete enrollments, and
then returning Defendants' RV to the required destination. The
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
RV Drivers' overtime pay for all hours worked over forty per
workweek. The Defendants made unlawfully deductions from
Plaintiffs' wages by forcing them to pay for parking tickets.

Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on Jan. 5, 2018, granted the
Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer requesting an
extension of time, until February 9, 2018, for defendants
Amerigroup IPA of New York, LLC, Amerigroup New York, LLC, The
Anthem Companies Indiana, The Anthem Companies, Inc. to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint.

On Jan. 3, 13, 15 and 23, 2018, Wai Yun Au, Stephan Flemens,
Norman Forbes, George Jones, Jose Rodriguez and Michael Williams
filed a "CONSENT to become party in a collective action".[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499 9100


APPLE INC: Faces "Aburos" Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
Yael Aburos, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
24712, (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief
and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform
consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1
(and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially
reduce the performance of these devices; restitution of illegally
acquired money; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; as well as
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or
fraudulent omission.

The complaint says Apple also failed to inform consumers that
phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the
phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying
a new phone.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard B. Rosenthal, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD B. ROSENTHAL, P.A.
     1581 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1408
     Miami, FL 33129
     Tel: (305) 992-6089
     Email: rbr@rosenthalappeals.com

            - and -

     Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq.
     Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 358-2800
     Email: srosenthal@podhurst.com


APPLE INC: Faces "LaNasa" Class Suit in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------
Alfred LaNasa, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
17878, (E.D. La., December 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and
damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform
consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1
(and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially
reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally
acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or
fraudulent omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone, says
the complaint.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com
             bruce@stecklerlaw.com

             - and -

      Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq.
      Robert W. Gifford, Esq.
      1717 Main Street, Suite 3000
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 974-8000
      Facsimile: (972) 474-1750
      Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com
             rgifford@johnstonpratt.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Batista" Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Aniledis Batista and Paul Sohayegh, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-07355, (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful
failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE
or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically
and artificially reduce the performance of these devices,
restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone.

Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
     BROWN NERI, SMITH & KHAN LLP
     11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2080
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Telephone: (310) 593-9890
     Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
     Email: nate@bnsklaw.com

            - and -

     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     Chantal Khalil, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: (914) 298-3281
     Facsimile: (914) 298-3329
     Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
            ckhalil@fbfglaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces "McInnis" Class Suit in Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------
Neill McInnis and J. Scott Archer, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-00358, (S.D. Miss., December 28, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful
failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE
or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically
and artificially reduce the performance of these devices,
restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone.

Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq.
      Robert W. Gifford, Esq.
      1717 Main Street, Suite 3000
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 974-8000
      Facsimile: (972) 474-1750
      Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com
             rgifford@johnstonpratt.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Burton" Class Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------
Kim Burton and William Ellis, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-07355, (W.D. Mo., December 28, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful
failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE
or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically
and artificially reduce the performance of these devices;
restitution of illegally acquired money; reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs; as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd C. Werts, Esq.
     Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
     LEAR WERTS LLP
     2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
     Columbia, MO 65203
     Telephone: (573) 875-1991
     Facsimile: (573) 875-1985
     Email: lear@learwerts.com
            werts@learwerts.com
            sowers@learwerts.com


APPLE INC: Class Actions Over iPhone Battery Issue Rise to 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that three new Class Action lawsuits were
filed against Apple from San Jose, California on Jan. 8.  There
have been 8 filed from San Jose alone since December 22, and 13
in total from Northern California collectively.  The total of
Class Actions filed against Apple on this one issue has now risen
to 30.

The first of three cases filed against Apple on Jan. 8 was from
Scott Grillo.  At one point in the segment of the complaint
titled 'Nature of the Action' Mr. Grillo stated: "On December 20,
2017, in response to widespread speculation about the impact of
iOS 10 on iPhone performance, Apple confirmed users' long-held
suspicions and finally admitted that its latest iOS software
updates deliberately slowed the performance of iPhones.

The effect of Apple's actions was to 1) purposefully reduce
device performance with time, and 2) deprive consumers of
material information concerning the cause of the decline in
performance of their iPhone.

Causes for Action

Count 1: Breach of Implied Contract

Count 2: Trespass to Chattel

Count 3: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Count 4: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law

Count 5: Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
[GN]


APPLE TEN FL: "Black" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Fredericka V. Black and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Apple Ten Florida Services Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-62571 (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks unpaid
regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs
and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Apple Ten Florida Services, Inc. operates Residence Inn Dania
Beach, also known as Residence Inn Fort Lauderdale Airport and
Cruise Port located at 4801 Anglers Avenue, Dania Beach, Florida
33312, where Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt full-time night
shift, hotel employee from approximately September 2015, to
October 17, 2017.

Plaintiff alleges that management intentionally manipulated time
records in order to lower her working hours and to avoid the
payment of overtime hours. Black regularly and consistently
worked in excess of 40 hours every week period with overtime,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ATBCOIN LLC: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased ATB Coins pursuant to
ATBCOIN LLC's Initial Coin Offering between approximately June
12, 2017 and September 15, 2017.  You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To
get more information go to:

            http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm-cc/atbcoin

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972.  There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint alleges that ATBCOIN violated the Securities Act of
1933, by engaging in interstate commerce for the purposes of
offering, selling, or delivering unregistered securities.  The
complaint alleges that ATB Coins constitute securities by virtue
of defendants' assertions in marketing and promotional materials
that the ATB Coins were an "investment" that would generate
"profit" for purchasers.

If you purchased ATB Coins pursuant to the ICO you have until
March 12, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Likely to Approve LIBOR Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the two law
firms leading antitrust litigation for over-the-counter investors
in financial instruments pegged to the benchmark London Interbank
Offered Rate unquestionably deserve hosannas for reaching two
proposed class action settlements totaling $250 million.  The
Libor litigation, which accuses more than a dozen of the biggest
banks in the world of colluding to manipulate the benchmark rate,
has been as complex as any class action in memory.

The case, which dates back to 2011, was devastated by U.S.
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's dismissal of antitrust
claims, then miraculously revived by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, but only after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way
for an interlocutory appeal.

Class counsel from Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey reached their
first proposed settlement, a $120 million agreement with
Barclays, in March 2016. Judge Buchwald granted preliminary
approval to the Barclays deal in December 2016.  Hausfeld and
Susman Godfrey moved for approval of a second settlement, $130
million with Citigroup, last August.  The firms have requested a
total of $50 million in fees in the two settlements.

Investors in the Libor over-the-counter class have, in the main,
been quite satisfied with the settlements.  When Judge Buchwald
held a hearing on final approval of the Barclays agreement last
October, only two objectors raised qualms about the deal -- a
sign, Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey said, of the "phenomenal
result" they achieved. (Judge Buchwald has not yet ruled on the
motion for final approval.) The Citi settlement, which is
scheduled for a preliminary approval hearing on Jan. 23, has
prompted only one objection, from the Virgin Islands Public
Finance Authority.

There's little doubt Judge Buchwald will approve the Barclays and
Citi Libor settlements, given the overwhelming acquiescence of
the thousands of investors in the class, many of them extremely
sophisticated institutions.

That said, it's notable that both the lone objector to the Citi
settlement and one of the two final objectors to the Barclays
deal were represented not by typical objectors' firms nor even by
a typical plaintiffs' firm. The Virgin Islands Public Finance
Authority and Barclays objector Maimonides Medical Center are
represented by Arent Fox, a Washington, D.C., firm probably best
known for regulatory and defense work.

In fact, the Arent Fox partner working on the Virgin Islands and
Maimonides objections, Lester Jacobowitz, isn't a litigator at
all -- he's a finance lawyer who got into Libor because of a
longstanding client relationship with Maimonides. (Arent Fox
counsel Jennifer White, a litigator, is working with Jacobowitz.)

"This is not meant to be a new specialty," Mr. Jacobowitz said.
"The objections are specific to this case.  We believe the
classes are not being adequately compensated."

The Virgin Islands' objection, a 13-page letter to Judge
Buchwald, explained that theory. (Arent Fox's objection for
Maimonides to the Barclays settlement, by contrast, was a short
letter that Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey called "vague and
conclusory.") The objection asserts that class counsel have not
disclosed any estimate of the total damages to the class from
Libor manipulation, and that based on Arent Fox's inquiry, it
seems no damages estimate exists.  Arent Fox said that its
analysis shows damages to be at least $23 billion. In that
context, the Virgin Islands objection said, a $130 million
settlement with Citigroup is inadequate.

Class counsel justified the proposed settlement by calling it an
ice-breaker and highlighting Citi's promise to cooperate with the
ongoing case against other Libor banks.  Arent Fox, in the Virgin
Islands objection, said the Barclays Libor settlement already
broke the ice. As the second bank to settle, the objection said,
Citi should not get a big discount.

Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey were due to respond on Jan. 9 to the
Virgin Islands objection.  They will surely argue, as they did in
response to the Maimonides objection to the Barclays settlement,
that there are thousands of sophisticated investors in the Libor
class and almost none of them have expressed concerns about the
settlement.

To that, Mr. Jacobowitz said that many public funds and not-for-
profits, still reeling from the 2008 financial crisis, aren't
paying attention to the Libor litigation and don't realize
they're affected by the settlements. According to Arent Fox,
class members' failure to object to the proposed settlements does
not necessarily reflect investors' approval of the deals.

Reuters' Frankel said "That's an argument I suspect you wouldn't
hear from lawyers who regularly litigate class actions, in which
objections, or a paucity thereof, are widely accepted as a
barometer of class members' attitudes about a proposed
settlement.  Can Mr. Jacobowitz, as a class action outsider, see
a truth insiders have become blind to?" [GN]


BAZAARVOICE INC: King Files Suit Over Marlin Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Harold King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bazaarvoice, Inc., Thomas J. Meredith,
Gene Austin, Craig A. Barbarosh, Krista Berry, Steve H.
Berkowitz, Jeffrey Hawn and Allison M. Wing, Defendants., Case
No. 17-cv-01866, (D. Del., December 28, 2017), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger
between Bazaarvoice and certain affiliates of Marlin Equity
Partners, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Bazaarvoice shareholders stand to receive $5.50 in cash and stock
for each share of Bazaarvoice stock they own for a total value of
approximately $521 million.

Plaintiff claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate
in light of the company's recent financial performance and
prospects for future growth and that documents omit detailed line
items of the financial metrics of adjusted earnings, free cash
flow and unlevered free cash flows.

Bazaarvoice develops software solutions for the retail,
manufacturing, finance, pharmaceutical, travel and media
industries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

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


BEST DOCTORS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Thomas" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Doctors, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 12563 (D. Mass., December 28, 2017),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized
fax-based marketing activities, as well as an award of actual and
statutory damages, along with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant delivers health services to employers, health insurance
providers and financial services. It sends fax messages to
doctors encouraging them to join its network of healthcare
providers, usually without consent of the recipient. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 580-8270
      Fax: (617) 583-1905
      Email: erica@mirabellaLLC.com

             - and -

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Email: brichman@edelson.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


BETWEEN THE BREAD: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. BETWEEN THE BREAD 55TH INC.,
BETWEEN THE BREAD 40TH INC., BETWEEN THE BREAD II, LTD.,
BETWEEN THE BREAD LLC., BTB EVENTS & CELEBRATIONS, INC., d/b/a
BETWEEN THE BREAD, RICKY EISEN, LEONARD EISEN and SEAN MARTIN,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09541-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
unpaid spread of hours, tips improperly misappropriated by
Defendants, award equal to all surcharges illegally retained by
Defendants, unpaid call-in pay, statutory penalties, liquidated
damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State
Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all tipped employees (including
delivery workers, caterers and food preparers) employed by
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the
filing of the Complaint in this case. The Plaintiff and the other
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated,
have had substantially similar job requirements and pay
provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants'
decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful
failure and refusal to pay them the proper minimum wage for all
hours worked and an overtime premium at the rate of one and one
half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Plaintiff says his claims are essentially the same as those of
the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiff and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered because Defendants willfully
violated their rights by failing to pay their minimum wages in
the lawful amount. Furthermore, Defendants were not entitled to
take any tip credits under the FLSA because (i) Defendants failed
to properly provide notice to all tipped employees that
Defendants were taking a tip credit, (ii) management retained the
mandatory service charge without providing notice to customers
that management was sharing a portion of the mandatory service
charges, (iii) management retained tips earned by employees in
addition to the service charge, and (iv) tipped employees spent
at least 20% of their time in non-tipped activities.

The Defendants serve grab-and-go option serving a changing menu
of health-focused breakfast, sandwiches and lunch plates.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


BIG PHARMA: Newton County Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alice Queen, writing for The Citizens, reports that the Newton
County Board of Commissioners has set a spate of work sessions
early in the new year to discuss a variety of issues, including
the county's possible participation in two class action lawsuits.

County commissioners are considering taking part in class action
lawsuits addressing the opioid crisis as well as the recovery of
911 fees from telecommunications providers.

The scheduled work sessions and topics are as follows:

   * Feb. 6, 6 p.m. -- Updated employee policy and procedure
manual

   * Feb. 13, 6 p.m. -- Budget updates from appropriations

   * Feb. 20, 6 p.m. -- U.S. Highway 278 CID update

At the Jan. 16 work session, commissioners will hear a
presentation from attorneys representing other counties in
Georgia in an effort to recover 911 fees that were allegedly
underpaid by telecommunications companies.

Cobb and Gwinnett filed suit in December 2016 against both phone
and Internet companies, claiming underpayment of 911 fees.
According to a report by the National Association of Counties,
the counties claim they are owed $50 million in 911 fees from
BellSouth, Earthlink, Verizon and other phone services providers.
According to media reports, states across the country have filed
similar lawsuits.

Under Georgia law, telecommunication companies are required to
bill and collect $1 or $1.50 a month for each line or pathway
capable of dialing 911 -- whether a landline or wireless.  The
money collected is supposed to be returned to local governments
to help fund emergency 911 centers.

Newton County Manager Lloyd Kerr said commissioners will hear a
presentation on the class action lawsuit in order to determine if
they want to participate and to get a better picture of how much
money is involved.  The county would not be required to pay for
legal representation unless damages are recovered.

During the second half of the Jan. 16 meeting, commissioners will
discuss options available to the county regarding an opioid
epidemic-related class action lawsuit.  Commissioners in Rockdale
and other Georgia counties have already retained legal counsel in
the lawsuit that seeks to recoup costs related to the opioid
crisis -- for things such as substance abuse programs,
insurance/Medicaid expenses, lost productivity, foster care
costs, Narcan training and supply and increased law enforcement.
Claims made against the manufacturers of opioid pain medications
include deceptive business practices, false advertising, public
nuisance, violations of social services/Medicaid law, fraud and
unjust enrichment.

Mr. Kerr said commissioners have already heard a presentation
from a representative of the Napoli Shkolnik law firm in New
York.

"The board needs to have a discussion about who they might want
to represent them," said Mr. Kerr.   "Evidently, there is more
than one firm that is part of this . . . I have heard there are
some Georgia firms that were doing the same thing, so I think the
board wants to talk a little about that before they make a
decision."

All of the work sessions are scheduled to take place in the
commissioners board room at the Historic Courthouse. [GN]


BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Barrera" Suit Underway in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Barrera, the Plaintiff, v. BMW North
America, LLC; BMW AG; Audi AG; Andi of America Inc; Audi of
America LLC; Bentley Motors Limited; Daimler Aktiengesellschaft;
Mercedes-Benz US International; Mercedes-Benz USA; Mercedes-Benz
Vans, LLC; Dr. Ing h.c.F Porsche Ag; Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc.; Volkswagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group of America
Inc, the Defendants, remains pending in California.

The venue of the case was transferred from District of New
Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-05550, on October 6, 2017, to the U.S.
District Court for the California Northern District, Case No.
3:17-cv-05789-CRB, (N.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Charles R. Breyer for all further proceedings.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manufacturers deprive
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons of the
benefits of open, robust competition in the market of German
Luxury Vehicles.  Plaintiff states that he purchased a new German
Luxury Vehicle, specifically a Mercedes-Benz 2500 Sprinter,
manufactured by Daimler AG. The complaint alleges that the
Defendants have shared competitive and sensitive information and
have agreed and colluded concerning technology, costs, suppliers,
market, emissions equipment and other competitive attributes of
their luxury vehicles. Defendants' conspiracy has prompted
competition investigations in the United States and elsewhere.
The plaintiff contends that the Defendants and their co-
conspirators have entered into and have and are engaged in a
continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Further, the Defendants and their co-conspirators have and are
engaged in a continuing contract, combination or conspiracy with
respect to the sale of German Luxury Vehicles in unreasonable
restraint of trade and commerce and in violation of the various
state antitrust and other statutes.  The contract, combination,
or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize, and/or
maintain at artificially supra-competitive levels prices for
German Luxury Vehicles in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 584-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
     Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
     BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
     550 Broad Street, Suite 810
     Newark, NJ 07102-4599
     Telephone: (973) 273-9800
     Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
     Email: christopher.dalton@bipc.com


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Parker Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------
The venue of the case titled as Elizabeth Kaufman, Edna Parker
and Carroll Gibbs, the Plaintiffs, v. BMW AG, BMW North America,
LLC, Volkswagen A.G., Volkswagen Group of America Inc, Audi AG,
Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, Dr. Ing h.c.F Porsche Ag,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited,
Daimler AG, Mercedes Benz USA LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC and
Mercedes-Benz US International, the Defendants, was transferred
from the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-05440, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case
No. 3:17-cv-05787-CRB (N.D. Cal.) on October 10, 2017. The case
is assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for further proceedings.

The case was originally filed in New Jersey on July 25, 2017.

On Oct. 23, 2017, a notice of voluntary dismissal by Edna Parker
was filed.

The class action lawsuit alleges a massive two decade-long
conspiracy among German automotive manufacturers to unlawfully
increase the prices of German Luxury Vehicles. The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants agreed to share commercially
sensitive information and reach unlawful agreements regarding
German Luxury Vehicle technology, costs, suppliers, market,
emissions equipment and other competitive attributes thereby
causing injury to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
persons. Among the unlawful collusion of the Defendants was an
agreement on the size of AdBlue tanks to be used in German Luxury
Vehicles. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons
paid for the German Luxury Vehicles at unlawfully inflated prices
as a result of the overarching conspiracy. The business
activities of the Defendants substantially affected interstate
trade and commerce in the United States and caused antitrust
injury to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in the
United States.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
     Email: decklund@carellabyrne.com

          - and -

     Hollis Salzman, Esq.
     Kellie Lerner, Esq.
     Robyn R. English, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 980-7400
     Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
     Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
     Email: KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
     Email: REnglish@RobinsKaplan.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
     BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
     550 Broad Street, Suite 810
     Newark, NJ 07102-4599
     Telephone: (973) 273-9800
     Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
     Email: christopher.dalton@bipc.com

          - and -

     Israel Dahan, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     1185 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (212) 556-2114
     Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
     Email: idahan@kslaw.com


BONNEVILLE BILLING: Litigation and Discovery Plan Due Feb. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zachary Lehmkuhl, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc., a Utah Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00776, was removed from the Seventh
Judicial District for Madison County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:17-cv-00503-DCN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David C. Nye.

The Defendant filed its Answer to Complaint and Demand for Jury
Trial on Dec. 18, 2017.

On Dec. 29, Judge Nye entered a Litigation Order and set a
Telephonic Scheduling Conference for Feb. 27 at 10:30 a.m. in
Telephonic Hearing - Pocatello Chambers.  On or before Feb. 20,
the parties must file with the Court a joint Litigation Plan and
Discovery Plan.

Bonneville Billing & Collections offers information technology
and billing services for hospitals, utilities, municipalities,
medical offices, retail and grocery stores and restaurants. The
company provides calling and mail order services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350 3528
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Ryan Adam Ballard, Esq.
          BALLARD LAW, PLLC
          237 N. 2nd East, Suite 102
          Rexburg, ID 83440
          Telephone: (208) 359 5532
          E-mail: ryanballardlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          685 Spring Street, No. 104
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378 6496

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Donald J Farley, Esq.
          William Dustin Charters, Esq.
          POWERS TOLMAN FARLEY, PLLC
          345 Bobwhite Court, Ste. 150
          P. O. Box 9756
          Boise, ID 83707
          Telephone: (208) 577 5100
          Facsimile: (208) 577 5101
          E-mail: djf@powerstolman.com
                  wdc@powerstolman.com


BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: "Dhuy" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raena Dhuy, individually, and on behalf of themselves And all
others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Booz Allen
Hamilton, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01386, (E.D. Cal.,
December 28, 2017), seeks all legal and equitable relief
available pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964,
Equal Pay Act of 1963, California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California Government Code Sec. 12940, California Equal Pay
Act, California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200.

Booz Allen is a management consulting firm with contracts
including those with the Department of Defense. Dhuy was a Lead
Associate who managed Booz Allen's Authentication Services Team,
located in Virginia. The company discriminated against Mrs. Dhuy
as a result of her gender and complaints about pay disparity,
despite her exemplary performance, says the complaint. Dhuy
claims that all of her female subordinates were paid
substantially less than their male counterparts, despite their
similar or advanced qualifications.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
      SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      3900 W Alameda Ave., Suite 1200
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Tel: (213) 377-5200
      Fax: (561) 653-0008
      Email: LWagner@scottwagnerlaw.com
             Mail@scottwagnerlaw.com


BUFFALO WILD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Arby's Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
KSTP reports that a Buffalo Wild Wings shareholder has filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Minnesota alleging the Minneapolis-
based company omitted key information in the proxy it provided to
shareholders to solicit their vote in favor of a proposed merger
with Arby's Restaurant Group.

The deal, announced last November and valued at around $2.9
million, is based on a price of $157 per share.

But Brian Pascual, a public shareholder, contends in his lawsuit,
which he hopes to have certified as a class action on behalf of
other shareholders, that the proxy did not contain other
information he alleges to be relevant, including a Goldman Sachs'
Illustrative Present Value of Future Share Analysis that
"demonstrated an implied per share price of up to $176, which
illustrates that each share of Buffalo Wild Wings stock has an
inherent premium of approximately 112% over the Merger
Consideration."

It also alleges the "$157.00 Merger Consideration represents a
10.3% discount from the Company's 52-week high of $175.19 per
share of Buffalo Wild Wings common stock."

The lawsuit, which names both the company and the individual
members of the board of directors as defendants, alleges the
omissions represent a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

"In sum, it appears Buffalo Wild Wings is well-positioned for
financial growth and that the Merger Consideration fails to
adequately compensate the Company's shareholders," the lawsuit
reads.

The lawsuit seeks the court stop the company from proceeding with
both the shareholder vote on the transaction, scheduled for Feb.
2, and the merger itself "unless and until the Company discloses
the material information discussed above which has been omitted
from the Proxy."

It also asks the court to declare the matter maintainable as a
class action, meaning Pascual would be certified as class
representative and his attorneys as class counsel.  And it asks
to direct the company to "account to the Plaintiff and the Class
for all damages suffered as a result of their wrongdoing," as
well as awarding "Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and
expenses."

It further requests that the court grant "such other and further
equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper."

"The immediate hope would be for full disclosure based on case
law interpretation of what fair disclosure should be," said
Russell M. Spence, the Edina-based co-counsel for the plaintiff.
"Whether or not a (shareholders') vote should proceed would
depend on what the subsequent disclosure entailed."

Spence said his side has reached out to attorneys representing
the company, but he is not aware of a response as of yet.

The company declined to comment on the matter, citing pending
litigation.

"Per company policy we do not comment on pending litigation," a
statement read.

The merger, which was unanimously approved by both companies'
board of directors, is expected to close during the first quarter
this year.  Once it does, Buffalo Wild Wings will be a privately-
held subsidiary of Arby's Restaurant Group and will continue to
operate as an independent brand.

Paul Brown, the chief executive officer of Arby's Restaurant
Group, would serve as chief executive officer of the parent
company.  Arby's Restaurant Group is a majority-owned affiliate
of Roark Capital Group and is based in Atlanta. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Douglas W. Motley, writing for The Alpenhorn News, reports that a
Sacramento Superior Court judge on December 11 dismissed a
lawsuit challenging Cal Fire's controversial fire prevention fee.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association (HJTA), which contends
that the fee is actually an illegal tax on rural homeowners,
plans to appeal the judge's decision.

The so-called "Fire Prevention Fee," of $152.33, which has been
levied on all habitable structures in rural areas within Cal
Fire's State Responsibility Areas since it was passed by the
legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2011, had
been suspended in a court action brought by HJTA last July.  Now
that the fee has been upheld by the court, it will apparently
continue to be levied on nearly 800,000 rural properties
statewide.  The fee includes habitable structures in all
unincorporated San Bernardino Mountain communities, such as
Crestline, Lake Arrowhead and Running Springs, but excluded those
within incorporated city boundaries, such as Big Bear City.

According to Cal Fire, the fee was assessed to provide a stable
source of funding for vital fire prevention activities such as
fuel reduction, defensible space inspections emergency evacuation
planning and fire prevention education.

Opponents of the fee, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association -- which had filed a class action lawsuit to repeal
the widely unpopular fee -- contend the fee is an illegal tax
because the legislature never approved it with the two-thirds
majority vote required for all tax increases.  According to the
association's president, Jon Coupal, the lawsuit, which has
survived several previous challenges, had been suspended by
California legislators last July 17.  Currently, Cal Fire's fire
prevention efforts are being funded by the state's Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund with revenue from the state's Cap-and-Trade
program.

In dismissing the lawsuit, the judge sided with California's
Attorney General, who had also opposed it. HJTA complained that
the judge declined to read the HJTA's briefs and evidence, and
instead dismissed the case on grounds that it should have been
set for hearing sooner.  "We don't want to say it's a rigged
system, but we will appeal this ruling as a bizarre miscarriage
of justice and we will continue to fight for the refunds that are
owed to rural Californians for this illegal and now suspended
tax," Mr. Coupal stated on the association's website. [GN]


CAMERON COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Suit Threat Over Topless Bar Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Reagan, writing for The Brownsville Herald, reports that
during a rare evidentiary hearing in Cameron County Commissioners
Court on Jan. 8, attorney Larry Mark Polsky threatened to file a
class-action takings lawsuit if commissioners didn't reverse the
denial of his application for a topless bar just north of Beach
Access 6 on South Padre Island.

The evidentiary hearing is regarding Cameron County Sheriff Omar
Lucio's decision to deny Mr. Polsky's application for a sexually
oriented business because he failed to notify all of the adjacent
landowners of his intentions and because the Cameron County
Commissioners Court found that the public beach is basically a
public park.  No sexually oriented businesses are allowed within
1,500 feet of a public park in CameronCounty.

The more than two-hour-long meeting was new ground for
commissioners as the court was still trying to determine on
Jan. 8 what legal authority it had regarding subpoenas Polsky
issued.  Witnesses stood at the lectern in the courtroom at the
Dancy Building while commissioners Sofia C. Benavides, David A.
Garza, Alex Dominguez and Judge Eddie Trevino Jr. listened to
testimony and accepted evidence while ruling on objections.
Commissioner Gus Ruiz was absent.

During the hearing, Mr. Polsky called himself to the stand to lay
out his case, but left the hearing when commissioners went into
executive session and did not return.

During the hearing, Mr. Polsky argued that he neglected to notify
one person but that through word of mouth, all the property
owners were notified in time for a public hearing required for
his application for the topless bar.  He also challenged Cameron
County Commissioners Court declaration that the public beach is a
public park because the court made that ruling after he filed his
application.

"I want to point out to each and every one of you, when I applied
on June 3, 2017, for my sexually oriented business license there
was no finding by Cameron County Commissioners that the beach,
within 1,500 feet of Larry Mark Polsky's property, is a public
park," Polsky told commissioners.  "In other words, you created a
fiction after I applied that didn't exist before I applied. You
created a public park within 1,500 feet of my property to squash
my application."

Cameron County Chief Legal Counsel Juan Gonzalez said that
determination was made for the purposes of sexually oriented
businesses only.

Cameron County Appraisal District Chief Administrator Richard
Molina, who was subpoenaed by Polsky, testified that property
owners in that area do pay property taxes and that there are no
deed documents specifying that those property owners turned their
titles over to the county for the purposes of creating a public
park.

Mr. Gonzalez, citing case law, said the courts have found that
public beaches are used for activities like fishing, swimming and
camping and that Commissioners Court has legislative discretion
to call it a public park in connection to regulations governing
sexually oriented businesses.

"The suggestion that we've taken Mr. Polsky's property is
inaccurate,"
Mr. Gonzalez said.

While testifying, Mr. Polsky said that if they don't let him
build his topless bar he is going to file a class-action lawsuit
claiming that the county has taken away property from private
ownership because it declared a public beach to be a public park.

"If you win you lose," Mr. Polsky said. "If you grant me my
license you win because you are stuck with one topless bar, one
and one alone, and no takings case."

Mr. Garza said he considered that assertion a threat, which, if
he were a judge, would disturb him.

"I was not threatening you," Mr. Polsky said.  "I told you I
already have the lawsuit on my desk.  It's not a threat.  I'm
telling you that you are being sued."

Mr. Gonzalez said after the hearing that he believes Mr. Polsky
won't meet the threshold for the number of people needed to file
a class-action lawsuit and that he can't represent himself in
such a case because he would be one of the plaintiffs.

After a brief hearing in executive session, and with Mr. Polsky
nowhere to be found, Judge Trevino ordered both parties to submit
findings and recommendations by Jan. 18 and then commissioners
will take his appeal up and make a ruling during a regular
meeting.

Mr. Gonzalez told Judge Trevino he would make sure that
information was passed on to Polsky, who said he expects his
appeal to be denied and when that happens, he'll file an appeal
with a state District Court. [GN]


CANADA: More WRPS Female Officers Allege Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Flanagan and Krista Simpson, writing for CTV Kitchener,
report that two current Waterloo Regional Police officers and one
former officer have sworn affidavits as part of a proposed class-
action lawsuit against the region's police board and police
union, alleging a culture of sexual harassment that leaves female
officers afraid to report misconduct.

The legal action was launched last year, when a current officer
and a former officer came forward with allegations that they were
repeatedly harassed and abused. Like the earlier claims, none of
the new allegations have been tested in court.

The lawyer representing Waterloo Regional Police in the lawsuit
says the organization does not normally comment on a matter
before the courts, but is making an exception in this case.

"It would be unfair and wrong to let the affidavits filed by the
plaintiffs that we believe contain untrue, exaggerated,
misleading and/or defamatory allegations against past, current,
and deceased members which we vehemently deny, be left
unchallenged," James H. Bennett said in an email to CTV News.

The new claims include a sworn affidavit from Sgt. Karin Eder,
who joined the organization in 1988, at the age of 21.

Ms. Eder claims that her early years with Waterloo Regional
Police were rife with sexual harassment, as she was only one of
two women in her platoon.

She says she was told that women shouldn't be working for the
police, had an officer lift up her skirt in front of her
colleagues, and had a supervisor repeatedly hand her photos of
him having sex with other women. She says she and the other
female officer were given male uniforms because the organization
did not yet have uniforms for women, and were mocked for the poor
fit of the male uniforms.

Ms. Eder says she raised these concerns with her supervisors, and
felt she wasn't taken seriously.  One time, she says, a
supervisor told her she "should have been a model and not a cop."

Ms. Eder's affidavit also claims that in 2008, Pat Dietrich --
now a superintendent with Waterloo Regional Police -- sent her a
picture of his penis, asked her for a naked picture in return,
and stopped talking to her when she refused to send a picture.

Ms. Eder says her time with Waterloo Regional Police has left her
feeling "depressed, ashamed and worthless" and suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder. Such feelings appear to be a
common theme in the affidavits filed as part of the class-action
suit.

Mr. Dietrich's name also comes up in a new affidavit filed by
Barry Zehr, who was the WRPS superintendent of human resources
until his retirement in 2017.

Mr. Zehr says he heard about Ms. Dietrich sending a female
officer a picture of his penis, and was told by the
organization's lawyer that nothing could be done without a formal
complaint -- which Ms. Eder says she decided not to file because
she was told it would likely only result in Mr. Dietrich being
warned, and feared that it would lead to professional reprisals
against her.

Mr. Zehr says he believes senior officers were aware of the
incident and other alleged sexual misconduct on Dietrich's part,
and chose not to address it with him.  He says Mr. Dietrich has
since been given "prestigious assignments" within the
organization.

Concerns about officers facing reprisals for reporting wrongdoing
are also voiced by Sgt. Shelley Heinrich, who has also filed an
affidavit supporting the lawsuit.

Ms. Heinrich claims that both the police service and the Waterloo
Regional Police Association union "deliberately and systemically
fail to properly punish the wrong doers and deter the insidious
behaviour."

An officer since 1991, Heinrich says her experience has left her
traumatized both physically and psychologically.

Her allegations include that, in 2005, two WRPS supervisors
referred to a staff sergeant of Asian heritage as "slant eye" and
tried to get him transferred.

She claims some of those supervisors filed a baseless sexual
harassment complaint against that staff sergeant on Heinrich's
behalf.  When she found out about it, she says, she told the
supervisors that she wanted no part of it -- only to find herself
"blacklisted and ignored" from then on.

"In many cases, the male perpetrators were promoted and rewarded
despite their wrongful conduct, while I was isolated and
subjected to further harassment and discrimination," she says.

Waterloo Regional Police do have a procedure regarding
discrimination and harassment. It is overseen by Gary Melanson,
the organization's director of legal affairs.

Mr. Melanson's name also turns up in Eder's affidavit, as the
sergeant claims that Mr. Melanson made inappropriate comments to
her about her appearance and personal life, talked about his sex
life in front of her and once brushed hair off her face -- which
she says made her feel "extremely uncomfortable."

Ms. Eder says that as a result of those incidents, she didn't
feel the harassment and discrimination procedure would be an
effective way for her to address her concerns.

CTV News contacted Mr. Melanson and Dietrich about the
allegations in the affidavits.  Neither wished to comment.

The final new affidavit is from Vera T. Mackenzie, a former
officer who worked with Waterloo Regional Police between 1986 and
1998.

Ms. Mackenzie says she was once told by an officer, in front of
the rest of their platoon, that she should perform a sexual act
on him.  She says she was subjected to remarks on her appearance
as well as "snide comments" about a miscarriage she had
experienced, for which she filed a complaint.  She says she was
later denied a transfer and told concerns about her complaint
were the reason why the transfer had been turned down.

According to her affidavit, later on in her time with WRPS, her
son became seriously ill and she would call home during her
shifts to check on him.  She says supervisors became aware of
these personal calls and began requiring her to log her daily
activities, right down to bathroom breaks.

"We had male police officers spending their work hours organizing
their personal affairs, discussing and scheduling their hockey
and golf games and attending to their personal matters, yet I was
the only person who was required to report on all of my daily
activities," she says.

Ms. Mackenzie says she eventually filed another complaint, laying
out a pattern of incidents she saw as harassment and
discrimination, including a fellow officer not being punished for
calling her a vulgar term.

She says she was eventually told that any sexual harassment
"never occurred", and chose to leave the organization because she
felt she would be "harassed and punished" if she stayed.

"I am one of a few officers who took my grievance through all
stages of the prescribed procedure and it cost me my career," she
says.

The proposed legal action has yet to be certified as a class-
action lawsuit.  The case returns to court in March.

Mr. Bennett, the lawyer representing police on the matter, says
the organization does not believe the lawsuit should be
certified.

"The affiants are now going to be cross-examined under oath
within the next 30 days and their false, exaggerated and
misleading allegations will be challenged and exposed at that
time," he said.

Douglas Elliott, one of the lawyers behind the proposed lawsuit,
sees it differently.

"There is simply no accountability in the Waterloo Regional
Police Service," he said in an interview.  "I dare say there are
less sexualized environments in frat houses at universities than
there are at WRPS." [GN]


CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Calls on Sexual Harassment Oversight
------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a former RCMP officer is calling on the police
force to bring in independent oversight to curb sexual harassment
in the workplace.

Janet Merlo launched a class-action lawsuit against the RCMP back
in 2012 after she said there was ongoing sexual harassment in the
workplace.

Ms. Merlo says it was a daily battle for many women.  She says
sex toys were left in her area, she was cursed out for getting
pregnant and was accused of "being on the rag" when she brought
up suggestions during meetings."

In 2016, a settlement was reached with the women involved in the
lawsuit.

Ms. Merlo says despite winning the lawsuit, little has been done
by the RCMP to fix the problem.  She's now calling on the police
force to bring in independent oversight.

She says creating an independent body that looks at harassment
within the RCMP would go a long way in making people feel
comfortable about speaking out. [GN]


CAPCO PIZZA: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENE VASQUEZ LARA and JUAN ARLOS VASQUEZ LARA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CAPCO PIZZA CORP. D/B/A OLIVETTO PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE and
ANTHONY CAPOGNA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 7, 2017), seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Juan Carlos Vasquez
Lara was paid by Defendants approximately $450.00 per week in or
around February 2017 and approximately $500.00 per week from
March 2017 until July 2017. Although the Plaintiff worked
approximately 72 hours or more per week during the period of his
employment, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half
for hour worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 113 7 S
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


CARTER DISTRIBUTING: Hill Moves for FLSA Collective Action Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JASON SHAUN HILL and,
JOSHUA GORDON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees v. CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation, PREMIUM BRANDS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, BOB
MONROE, MIKE DENTON and, BLAIR CARTER, Individually, Case No.
1:17-cv-00340-JRG-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court to issue an
order:

   (1) authorizing this case to proceed as a conditionally
       certified collective action against the Defendants to
       recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
       liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory
       penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages
       owed, for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act on behalf of non-management/non-exempt
       employees (including but not limited to warehouse
       personnel, support personnel, delivery drivers and
       helpers) of Defendants during the last three years that
       were paid a fixed amount per week instead of being paid by
       the hour;

   (2) directing Defendants to immediately provide a list of
       names, last known addresses, last known email addresses,
       social security numbers and last known telephone numbers
       for all putative class members within the last three
       years;

   (3) providing that notice be prominently posted at Defendants'
       former warehouse/distribution center in Chattanooga,
       Tennessee where putative class members worked, and be
       mailed and e-mailed to each such current and former
       non-management/non-exempt employee, who was so employed
       during the last three years so each can assess their
       claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation;

   (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative Class
       as of the date this motion is granted (except for those
       who already have opted into this action); and

   (5) requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
       deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked (except for
       those who already have opted into this action).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kh7EdhWU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


CORECIVIC INC: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Correctional News reports that CoreCivic Inc., the Nashville-
based private prison provider presently facing various federal
lawsuits over the operation of a private contract detention
facility in Leavenworth, Kan., is facing additional scrutiny and
a securities class action complaint from some of its investors.

The complaint, filed on March 13, 2017, contends that CoreCivic
(formerly Corrections Corporation of America or CCA) allegedly
violated of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a
scheme to defraud investors by falsely representing that the
outsourcing of correctional services to CCA resulted in improved
correctional services for government agencies and that CCA's
facilities were operated in accordance with applicable policies
and procedures. Among the agencies listed is the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP).

According to shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP,
which is investigating whether certain officers and directors of
CoreCivic breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders, BOP
had uncovered and notified CCA of numerous violations of BOP
policies, including understaffing and underqualified staff and
failure to provide adequate healthcare to its inmates.

On Dec. 18, the Hon. Aleta A. Trauger, of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied
CoreCivic's motion to dismiss in Grae v. Corrections Corporation
of America.

The Tennessee Middle District Court also received a civil rights
complaint filing on Dec. 28 on behalf of plaintiff Cae Aguilera,
which names CoreCivic and the Trousdale Turner Correctional
Center, a private prison for men located in Hartsville, Tenn.
The facility is operated under contract with the Tennessee
Department of Corrections by CoreCivic.

Meanwhile, the private prison provider also faces federal
lawsuits over the operation of Leavenworth Detention Center
(LDC), in Leavenworth, Kan.  The suits allege employment
discrimination and spying on communications among other issues
including understaffing and "triple bunking detainees."

CoreCivic operates facilities and employs 13,000 employees
nationwide.  It was founded in 1983 as Corrections Corporation of
America and rebranded as CoreCivic in late 2016.  By 2016, the
company was the second largest private corrections company in the
nation.  CoreCivic manages more than 65 state and federal
correctional and detention facilities in 19 states (including the
District of Columbia) across the country representing a capacity
of 90,000 beds. [GN]


COREY HILL: Refused to Make Condo Repairs, Decataldi Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA A. DECATALDI, the Plaintiff, v. MARTHA NEU, KEVIIN CASEY,
PETER DAYTON, AVIVA SELLING, AND LINDA VIDONE, as they are
TRUSTEES of the COREY HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 17-1544 (Mass. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2017),
seeks to cause the Defendant Association to enforce and abide by
the Master Deed to the benefit of all parties owning
property/units in the Condominium who are all similarly situated
and to which the Defendant(s) is/are collectively causing harm.

The Plaintiff Decataldi brings this action against Defendant
Corey Hill Condominium Association on the theories of Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Contract; Negligence; and Nuisance. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and as a
Derivative Action, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.1, on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, as owners of condominium
units in the Corey Hill Condominium. Decataldi is the owner of
the real property known as and located at Corey Hill Condominium,
50 Winchester Street, Unit 202, Brookline, Massachusetts 02446
(the "Property"). The Property is a condominium, which has the
benefit of and is subject to a Master Deed, as same is identified
below. Pursuant to said Master Deed and M.G.L. c. 183A, the
Defendant, the Corey Hill Condominium Association (the
"Association"), is obligated to operate, maintain, and repair the
common areas of the Condominium.

Decataldi has given notice to the Association, both directly and
through counsel, of a defective condition in the common area(s)
adjacent to the Property, which not only needs repair for the
health, safety, and maintenance of the Condominium, but which
condition has caused damage to the Property and interferes with
the operation of the Property and the health, safety, and use of
the inhabitants thereof. The Condominium has refused to make such
necessary repairs to the detriment of Plaintiff and those other
similarly situated in the Condominium.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Magerer, Esq.
          Michael Magerer & Associates, P.C.
          109 Highland Avenue
          Needham, MA 02494 3091
          Telephone: (781) 453 0800
          Facsimile: (781) 453 0606
          E-Mail: mmagerer@maglaw.us


CRYPTO CO: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of The Crypto Company ("Crypto") (OTCMKTS:CRCW)
between August 21, 2017 and December 18, 2017.  You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  To get more information go to:

      http://www.zlk.com/plsra-c/the-crypto-company?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972.  There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Crypto unlawfully engaged in a
scheme to promote and manipulate the Company's stock; and (ii) as
a result, Crypto's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  On December 19, 2017, the SEC
temporarily suspended Crypto stock from trading due to concerns
that the stock was being manipulated after the shares surged more
than 17,000% in less than 3 months.

If you suffered a loss in Crypto you have until February 20, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]


DELTIC TIMBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Jan. 8 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case No. :17-cv-01812, on behalf of
shareholders of Deltic Timber Corp. ("Deltic" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DEL) who have been harmed by Deltic's and its board of
directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with  the proposed merger of the Company with a
subsidiary of Potlatch Corporation ("Potlatch").

On October 22, 2017, Deltic and Potlach entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which each
outstanding share of Deltic common stock will be exchanged for
1.80 shares of Potlatch common stock (the "Merger
Consideration"), representing approximately $1.16 billion in
equity value.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on December 7, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Deltic
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/DELnotice

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and
significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains
its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware,
California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member
of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


EI DUPONT: Cohen Milstein, Susman Godfrey Tapped as Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that after concern over GenX and its presence in the Cape
Fear River -- the main drinking water source for Wilmington and
surrounding areas -- led to a number of class actions filed late
last year, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Susman Godfrey have
been tapped as interim co-lead class counsel for the consolidated
class action against DuPont and wholly-owned subsidiary, the
Chemours Company (NYSE: CC).

The appointment was made by Judge James C. Dever of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

We are "very honored to be selected as co-lead counsel," says
Ted Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at Cohen
Milstein and a member of the firm's executive committee, who
along with Steve Morrissey -- smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com -- a
partner at Susman Godfrey, was appointed as interim co-lead
counsel for the class action.

"It is certainly in line with the public justice work at the firm
that we do," says Mr. Leopold, who is also co-lead counsel in a
class action filed on behalf of residents of Flint, Michigan,
against Gov. Rick Snyder, local government officials, the city of
Flint and a group of engineering companies over contamination of
the city's water supply.

According to a Jan. 4 filing in the GenX case, "The court also
orders the creation of an executive committee for the putative
class, which will include Gary W. Jackson of The Law Offices of
James Scott Farrin [based in Durham] and Neal H. Weinfield of
Dedendum Group [based in Illinois]."

"Plaintiffs shall file two master consolidated complaints not
later than January 31, 2018," the filing states -- the class
action and another complaint filed on behalf of local public
utility authorities.

DuPont and Chemours have owned and operated Fayetteville Works, a
site along the Cape Fear River, since the 1970s.  According to
the previously filed class action complaints, the defendants have
been discharging GenX into the Cape Fear River since 1980 as a
byproduct of manufactured vinyls and since 2009 as a chemical
manufactured commercially.

National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein opened an office in
Raleigh last year -- led by former North Carolina Court of
Appeals Judge Martha Geer.

In an interview in October, Geer said that, as in Flint, the
litigation has been about toxins in drinking water that become
part of plumbing systems and are then very difficult, if not
impossible, to eradicate.

Mr. Leopold calls the Flint and GenX cases two of the most
significant water contamination cases in the U.S. currently.  The
five-county area that has a drinking water supply from the Cape
Fear River amounts to about 750,000 people.

Chemours has not responded to requests for comment. [GN]


EMPIRE BIG: Up to 900 Plaintiffs Join Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kong Meta, writing for The Phnom Penh Post, reports that some 900
plaintiffs have joined a class action suit against investment
company Empire Big Capital, which is estimated to have defrauded
tens of thousands of Cambodians out of up to $400 million, with
more complainants expected to join the legal case in the coming
weeks.

As of Jan. 3, at least 91 people in Banteay Meanchey had filed
complaints against the Hong Kong-based company, according to
provincial Police Chief Art Khem.  "I believe there are more than
100 people in this province who were victims of this company",
Khem said.

EBC promised an alluring 10 percent monthly interest on minimum
investments of $2,000 but soon absconded with the funds, duping
thousands of Cambodians.

Ly Sovanna, a lawyer representing the victims, said each had lost
at least $1,000 in the Ponzi scheme, while one plaintiff had lost
a whopping $150,000.  "Because people saw they could get the
money easily, they took loans from the banks and money brokers.
None [escaped] being a victim," he said.

Mr. Sovanna said his team of five had already collected
complaints and evidence from 10 provinces in the Kingdom's south
and northwest.

In the hopes of filing the case by mid-January, the team will
visit Tbong Khmum, Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and
Oddar Meanchey provinces.

While two lower-level arrests have been made, the big players in
the plot -- EBC head Sean Tan, Asian Investment Fund's Chi
Gosaly, Investment Consultant Association's Huot Sovann and their
alleged associate Long Sambath -- have not yet been apprehended.

"They fled the country.  Police know where they are now.  Police
are now requesting a red note from Interpol," Mr. Sovanna said.

Dy Vichea, director of the Central Security Department at the
Ministry of Interior, and ministry spokesman Khieu Sopheak could
not be reached on Jan. 7. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Law Firm Launches Class Action Over Used Cars
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kirwan, writing for MotorTrader.com reports that legal firm
Harcus Sinclair is bringing a class action on behalf of consumers
who purchased used cars not knowing they were used previously
such as in daily rental or ex-fleet vehicles with multiple users.

It said such sales created a misleading impression of the vehicle
and consumers could be eligible for compensation.

"By withholding such information from the purchaser, we will
allege that the purchaser was mis-sold their vehicle by the
manufacturer or dealer and may be eligible for compensation.

"Guidance from the Office of Fair Trading specifically addresses
this issue, and describes the practice of creating a misleading
impression of the previous use of a vehicle as, unsurprisingly, a
misleading action."

Another group The Used Car Mis-selling Group Action has been
campaigning for seven years on the issue.

It is reported that the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is
poised to issue a warning to carmakers and dealers within weeks
to include information in car advertisements telling potential
buyers if cars on sale are ex-rental vehicles.

The ASA's position was outlined in November when it said that if
a vehicle was an ex-rental it could influence the buying
decision.

And if it was used by multiple users then that was likely to be
"material information" to be disclosed in the advertisement.

This position came from the ASA's ruling on Glyn Hopkin and Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles UK in November.

In that case, it considered it was "reasonable to expect" that
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK could provide records on used cars
showing how they had used them whilst under their ownership as a
fleet operator, including whether they were driven by multiple
users.

It found that because Glyn Hopkin was an approved dealer and had
purchased the cars directly from FCA, the ASA considered that
they were capable of easily obtaining such information.

"Fiat Chrysler Automobiles UK had provided evidence showing that
each advertised car had only been used by one user whilst they
were part of FCA's fleet.

"One was allocated to a contractor (for training purposes and the
other to an employee as a company car.  They also submitted
documentation showing that both cars had a very low mileage prior
to being allocated to their named users, which were returned at a
later date to be sold off.

"However, the ads did not state that the cars were previously
used for business purposes whilst part of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles UK's fleet and for that reason the ASA concluded that
the ads breached the CAP Code.

It said for independent dealers, the ASA's approach was likely to
vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on how reasonable it
would be to expect that the dealership could or should, have
obtained the information. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Uconnect Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chrysler Uconnect lawsuit will continue for Kansas customers, but
not as a nationwide class-action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs say they purchased a new 2013 Dodge Dart that came
equipped with a Uconnect infotainment system that allows drivers
to control radio, navigation, remote locking, climate control and
other features from a touchscreen on the dashboard.

According to the lawsuit, the Uconnect system in the Dodge Dart
began to freeze and then shut off in April 2016, leaving a blank,
black screen that didn't work, so the plaintiffs took their car
to a dealership for repairs while the Dart was still under
warranty.

The dealership replaced the Uconnect system on May 14, 2016, but
that same day the replacement system began to randomly black out.

On June 1, 2016, the dealership replaced the system's module,
allegedly causing the screen to flash back and forth from black
to white. Once again the dealership said it had fixed the system,
but the screen went black again after the plaintiffs picked up
the car.

In July, the dealership again replaced the Uconnect system that
allegedly experienced even more issues that prevented the
plaintiffs from controlling their heating, air conditioning and
navigation. The lawsuit says the next few months saw the
dealership try three more times to repair the Uconnect system,
but without success.

The plaintiffs say that since 2014, Fiat Chrysler has sent its
dealers three technical service bulletins (TSBs) about the
Uconnect systems.

FCA (Fiat Chrysler) filed a motion to dismiss the Uconnect
lawsuit by claiming the plaintiffs failed to state a specific
defect, and claims of warranty violations should be dismissed
because the plaintiffs didn't allege breach of an express
warranty.

Chrysler also told the judge a nationwide class-action shouldn't
be allowed because the plaintiffs based their claims on Kansas
law, which "cannot govern out-of-state transactions."

The judge granted Chrysler's motion to dismiss, partially. Hopes
for a nationwide class-action lawsuit were lost when the judge
ruled claims made in the lawsuit aren't good enough to include
any state other than Kansas.

Hence, based on violations of warranty laws, the lawsuit will
continue for affected Kansas customers who purchased or leased
cars with an 8.4-inch Uconnect infotainment system on or after
January 12, 2013.

The Chrysler Uconnect lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas - Rasnic et al v. FCA US LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bell Law, LLC, Waddell Law Firm
LLC, Rex A. Sharp, PA, and the Lanier Law Firm, P.C. [GN]


FLINT, MI: Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in Water Crisis Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carmody, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that the
Michigan Court of Appeals is weighing legal arguments which may
determine if a class action lawsuit against the state concerning
the Flint water crisis may go forward.

The lawsuit is seeking damages from the state for Flint residents
affected by decisions that created the city's tap water problems.
It's one of many lawsuits related to the water crisis.

The state is challenging key parts of the class action suit,
including whether emergency managers appointed by the governor
are actually 'state' officials.

"Unquestionably it is a significant amount of power," Assistant
Attorney General Nathan Gambill argued before the three-judge
panel, "But that doesn't make them state officials.  Their
authority is limited to only acting on behalf of local officials.
That's not statewide."

Flint's water source was switched while the city was under the
control of an emergency manager.  Water from the Flint River was
not properly treated.  The corrosive water damaged city pipes,
which leached lead into the drinking water.  The switch may have
also led to a deadly Legionnaires disease outbreak that killed at
least a dozen people.

Attorneys for the state are also arguing the class action suit
should have been filed earlier.  The suit seeks damages tied to a
period in the fall of 2015 when problems with the water supply
prompted a return to water from Detroit.

Paul Novak is one of the attorneys handling the class action
suit.  He scoffs at the state's assertion that Flint residents
should have known earlier that there was something wrong with
their tap water.  Mr. Novak points to the current criminal probe
that's charged state officials with misleading Flint residents by
telling them their tap water was "safe to drink" for more than a
year after the ill-fated switch.

"You tell me which time I'm supposed to believe the state and
which time I'm not," Mr. Novak told reporters after the hearing.

During the hearing in Detroit, the three-judge panel closely
questioned both sides.

In the end, attorneys believe the case will likely end up before
the Michigan Supreme Court.

"What's at stake is the ability to proceed in the only form
available to be able to hold this state responsible and
accountable for the violation of the rights of every single
resident and water user in the city of Flint," says attorney
Julie Hurwitz, who represents Flint residents suing the state.
[GN]


FLINT, MI: Judge to Nominate Levin as Water Crisis Case Mediator
----------------------------------------------------------------
WJRT reports that attorneys involved in the class action civil
lawsuits stemming from Flint water crisis were expected to appear
in federal court on Jan. 11 for the next steps in the case.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy has filed documents with the
court to nominate retired U.S. Sen. Carl Levin of Detroit and
former Wayne County Chief Judge Pro Tem Pamela Harwood to serve
as mediators in the case.

Attorneys involved in the case had until Jan. 10 to object to
either appointment and nominate someone else.

Ten separate class action lawsuits and 50 civil lawsuits
representing residents and business owners in Flint affected by
the water crisis were consolidated into a single case on Sept.
29.

Several state government officials, including Gov. Rick Snyder,
are named as defendants in the case.  The plaintiffs are seeking
a financial judgment as compensation for their pain and suffering
caused by the water crisis.

The water crisis started in April 2014, when Flint's drinking
water source was switched from the Great Lakes Water Authority in
Detroit to the Flint River.  However, officials at all levels of
government are accused of failing to ensure the more corrosive
river water was properly treated.

As a result, the protective linings wore away inside lead-based
water pipes serving Flint residences and businesses, causing
traces of lead to enter the drinking water supply. [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bell, Chris Meche, Michael Aymond, Mack Gordon, Fred
Oliveaux and Kevin Rabeaux, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled
ANTOINE RICHARD, ET AL. v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., ET AL., Case No.
6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.), seek an order certifying the
lawsuit as a class action, with the class members defined as:

     All persons who work or have worked as a distributor in the
     State of Louisiana for Flowers and were classified as
     independent contractors.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have misclassified all
of the Plaintiffs and proposed class members as independent
contractors such that injunctive or declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole.  They ask the Court
to grant their Motion and promptly commence all required
procedures for class action in the litigation, including sending
notice to the class under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and any appropriate case management orders under
Rule 23(d).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven G. Durio, Esq.
          Ryan M. Goudelocke, Esq.
          Travis J. Broussard, Esq.
          DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN
          220 Heymann Boulevard (70503)
          Post Office Box 51308
          Lafayette, LA 70505-1308
          Telephone: (337) 233-0300
          Facsimile: (337) 233-0694
          E-mail: durio@dmsfirm.com
                  ryan@dmsfirm.com
                  travis@dmsfirm.com


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Analyzes Seven Factors in Interns' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis L. Chodoff, Esq., -- chodoffl@ballardspahr.com --
Kelly T. Kindig, Esq. -- kindigk@ballardspahr.com -- Jessica C.
Watt, Esq. -- wattj@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP, in
an article for The National Law Review, wrote that in yet another
blow to Obama-era Department of Labor (DOL) precedent, the DOL
recently eliminated its six-part test for determining whether
interns can be deemed employees for purposes of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), replacing it with a seven-factor test that
has been endorsed by various federal circuit courts.

In a statement issued January 5, the DOL adopted the seven-factor
test that was first promulgated by the Second Circuit in Glatt v.
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.  Glatt held that courts should use
the "primary beneficiary test" to differentiate between employees
-- who are entitled to certain protections under the FLSA, such
as minimum wage and overtime -- and interns, who are not.  To
determine whether the intern or the employer is the "primary
beneficiary" of the relationship, courts analyze seven non-
exclusive factors:

   -- The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly
understand that there is no expectation of compensation.  Any
promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the
intern is an employee and vice versa.

   -- The extent to which the internship provides training that
would be similar to that which would be given in an educational
environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training
provided by educational institutions.

   -- The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern's
formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt
of academic credit.

   -- The extent to which the internship accommodates the
intern's academic commitments by corresponding to the academic
calendar.

   -- The extent to which the internship's duration is limited to
the period in which the internship provides the intern with
beneficial learning.

   -- The extent to which the internship's duration is limited to
the period in which the internship provides the intern with
beneficial learning.

   -- The extent to which the intern's work complements, rather
than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing
significant educational benefits to the intern.

   -- The extent to which the intern and the employer understand
that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid
job at the conclusion of the internship.

Several federal appellate courts had already adopted the Glatt
standard to find that interns in various industries were not
employees and could not file class actions lawsuits against their
employers.

The DOL's previous six-part test presumed that an individual was
an employee under the FLSA unless that individual met all
criteria of the intern test, including such factors as whether
the internship was for the benefit of the intern and whether the
employer derived an immediate advantage from the intern's
activities.  The Glatt test, on the other hand, is case-specific,
flexible, and employer-friendly, making it more likely an
individual will be deemed an intern not covered by the FLSA.

Nonetheless, employers should not take this change at the DOL as
an open invitation to make wholesale changes to internship
programs or to merely replace employees with unpaid interns in
the hopes of saving on labor costs.  Even under the new standard
established by the DOL, internship programs still must be
educational in nature and the intern must be the party who
primarily benefits from the relationship; otherwise employers may
face litigation under the FLSA, which could result in liability
for civil monetary penalties, back pay, and liquidated damages.
Finally, employers should be careful to fully analyze state law
in their respective jurisdictions, as states can implement
different, and perhaps stricter, standards. [GN]


GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN: Jones' Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and court facilitated notice in the
lawsuit titled JACQUELYN JONES v. THE GARDENS OF FOUNTAIN WAY LLC
and GARDENVIEW INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01347-WCG (E.D. Wisc.).

Judge Griesbach granted Ms. Jones' motion to restrict document.

Plaintiff Jacquelyn Jones brought the action against the
Defendants on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees, whom she claims did not receive compensation or
overtime compensation for all hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Wisconsin wage law.

In the Decision and Order, Judge Griesbach opines that Ms. Jones
has not made a sufficient factual showing that she and the
putative class members were victims of a common illegal policy.
Therefore, Judge Griesbach states, conditional certification is
inappropriate for this claim.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DNTkPc3L


GERMANY: Jan. 28 Hearing Set for Nama Genocide Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kuzeeko Tjitemisa, writing for New Era, reports that Windhoek-The
lawsuit filed by the Ovaherero and Nama people, in which they
seek reparations from the German government for the
Ovaherero/Nama genocide, is set to be heard for the third time in
a US court, later this month.

The class-action suit, filed by Ovaherero Chief Vekuii Rukoro and
Nama Chief David Frederick, seeks reparations from the present
German government for genocide carried out by German colonial
troops, in what is now Namibia, more than a century ago.

The case, scheduled for January 28, was brought to court in the
US because that country allows lawsuits that address claims on
behalf of entire communities.

The plaintiffs are also demanding that their representatives be
included in ongoing talks between Germany and Namibia, which aim
for a joint declaration on their common past.

Up to 100,000 Herero and Nama are believed to have been killed by
German imperial troops in the early 1900s in what was then the
German colony of South-West Africa.  Successive German
governments have refused to accept the atrocities as genocide.

The dialogue between Germany and Namibia includes discussions
about an official apology for the genocide.  However, Germany's
ambassador to Namibia, Christian Schlaga, has publicly ruled out
paying reparations directly to present members of the Ovaherero
and Nama ethnic groups.

Schlaga last year hinted, though, that Germany would be willing
to pay Namibia compensation from which its entire population
would benefit.

Deutsche Welle (DW) was recently quoted by the German envoy
Ruprecht Polenz as having said that it was right that the German
government ruled out direct compensation even before negotiations
were concluded.

"The expectations of the negotiations were fraught with such
perspectives from the start," he told DW.
"The fact is that after World War II, Germany only paid personal
reparations to individuals who personally suffered in the
concentration camps or were forced to do slave labour," he said.

DW also quoted the German opposition parliamentarian Niema
Movassat of Die Linke (The Left) party as to have said the
lawsuit was the "consequence" of the German government's refusal
to enter into direct negotiations with the Herero and Nama.

"It is absurd to exclude a certain community from negotiations
about a genocide that affected them. It is understandable that
the people do not feel taken seriously," he told DW. [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Sexual Harassment Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
William D. Cohan, writing for The New Yorker, reports that in
1996, twenty-three female brokers sued Smith Barney for sexual
harassment and pay discrimination in what became known as the
"Boom-Boom Room" case.  Nearly two thousand women nationwide
joined the lawsuit after it was granted class-action status and,
in the end, Smith Barney paid the women a hundred and fifty
million dollars in settlements and arbitration awards.  Yet, as
powerful men in a variety of industries have been forced out in
recent months for workplace sexual harassment, fewer senior
executives in finance, as compared to other fields, have been
ousted.  Why? There is little doubt that finance has had just as
many cases of sexual predation as other industries, and perhaps
more.  Finance is a male-dominated industry and the few women who
manage to enter it, and to climb its ranks, often become the
targets of the men who work there.

Renee-Eva Fassbender Amochaev, a broker who successfully sued
Smith Barney for gender discrimination in a subsequent case, when
it was part of Citigroup, told me that the way Wall Street firms
resolve sexual-harassment cases continues to protect perpetrators
and firms. Large settlements are paid, but the men who either
committed the bad behavior or effectively condoned it often
remain. "No one gets fired," she said.  "Everyone on the inside
knows the system is rigged." And, because the settlements are
confidential, the incidents are kept quiet.  "The bad behavior
doesn't become public," she told me.  "The end result remains a
secret which ultimately perpetuates the problem."

In 2010, three female former employees of Goldman Sachs -- a
former vice-president, a managing director, and an associate --
filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the firm
claiming that it systematically discriminated against women in
both pay and promotions.  In the complaint, one of the women-H.
Cristina Chen-Oster, who spent eight years at the firm and became
a vice-president before leaving, in March, 2005--told the story
of how, in the fall of 1997, members of her department went to
Scores, a topless dance club in Manhattan, to celebrate a
colleague's promotion.  Later that night, a married male
associate insisted on walking Ms. Chen-Oster to her boyfriend's
apartment a few blocks away.  Once there, the male associate
ended up "pinning her against a wall, kissing and groping her,
and attempting to engage in a sexual act with her."

The complaint stated that Ms. Chen-Oster did not "invite or
welcome the attempt and had to physically defend herself."  The
next morning, he "apologized profusely" and asked her to keep
quiet about the incident.  Ms. Chen-Oster eventually reported the
groping to her supervisor, but he took no action, the lawsuit
claimed. Her Goldman career was derailed.  She was promoted once
and her pay increased twenty-seven per cent.  Her attacker, on
the other hand, became a partner and saw his pay increase by four
hundred per cent. (Goldman contended that Ms. Chen-Oster
stonewalled an investigation.  The firm declined to comment on
the size of her alleged assailant's pay increase.) More than
seven years later, the case continues to wind its way through the
court system.

Lisa Carnoy, who recently left her senior position at Bank of
America after twenty-five years there and at Merrill Lynch,
briefly worked at Bear Stearns, at the start of her career.  She
remembers there being just a handful of women at Bear in a
professional class of more than a hundred. Managers placed all
the women's desks together, and that part of the floor was known
as the "pink ghetto." The rest of the office was decidedly more
masculine.  "It was a locker room," she said.  "It was horrible,
but I just sucked it up for a year."

Ms. Carnoy, who was ranked the fourth most-powerful woman on Wall
Street, in 2013, by American Banker, said she simply learned to
ignore the bad behavior.  "Many of the women who do try to
succeed in this world, including myself, are very driven and
ambitious and are willing to put the terrible behavior to the
side, to say, 'I want a long career and I am just going to ignore
that or compartmentalize that.' "

Ms. Carnoy said she thought about suing Bear Stearns because what
went on there was so "despicable," but then she thought better of
it. "I remember thinking, 'Wow, I can sue them, but I want to be
in this industry for the next thirty years,' " she recalled. The
amount of potential compensation paid on Wall Street can cloud
people's judgment, she said.  An executive's annual bonus can be
in the millions of dollars and if a woman experienced egregious
harassment or criminal sexual assault on Wall Street, the
settlement would also be in the millions.

Ellen Pao, who famously brought and lost a gender-discrimination
lawsuit against her former partners at Kleiner Perkins, a vaunted
Silicon Valley venture-capital firm, told me that she, too, has
been wondering why executives in finance have so far avoided the
spotlight in the recent cascade of sexual-harassment stories.
(During the trial, Kleiner Perkins denied in a statement that
Ms. Pao was ever discriminated against and insisted that the firm
championed women.) Pao told me that she thought part of the
reason might be because that while women had won a few legal
victories--and had received cash settlements--their careers had
stalled afterward.  "I wonder if people learned from that to be
more quiet," Ms. Pao said, adding that she believed the
settlements did not change the view in finance that women are
unequal to men. "There were, I think, fewer strippers on the
trading floors, but you didn't see fairness and you didn't see
safe workplaces come out of it completely."

Ms. Amochaev said there are still so few women on Wall Street
that they effectively have no public voice, but she said the
broader #MeToo moment is strengthening an "underground" movement,
or whisper network, in which women who work in finance help one
another. "What Wall Street still underestimates is that the
'underground' is still alive and well and growing stronger with
this new movement," she said.  "These women find me, contact me,
call me -- for twelve solid years now.  We plot, we organize in
secret and effect change through an underground, which is how
you, and countless women, have found me. It's all we have right
now. We remain the exception in the industry, sadly."

Today, Ms. Amochaev runs her own wealth-management firm in Santa
Rosa, California. At a recent finance-industry conference, a male
attendee who she did not know came up to her at the airport as
she was leaving and kissed her on the mouth. Another attendee had
kept touching her on the leg.  She wondered if she should contact
the conference organizers or the employer of the man who touched
her leg. She felt, once again, that she had inadequate recourse
for a problem that shows no sign of abating.  "Wall Street is not
held accountable," she said. "There are never any meaningful
consequences.  The story has not really been told.  It's all a
secret." [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Former Engineer Files Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Loizos, writing for Techcrunch, reports that James Damore,
a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a
memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may
not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically
less capable of engineering, has filed a class action lawsuit
against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern
California.

His claims: that Google unfairly discriminates against white men
whose political views are unpopular with its executives.

Mr. Damore is joined in the 161-page suit by another former
Google engineer named David Gudeman, who spent three years with
Google working on a query engine.  According to Mr. Gudeman's
LinkedIn profile, he left the company in December 2016 and has
been self-employed since.

The lawsuit, filed by Dhillon Law Group, says it aims to
represent all employees of Google who've been discriminated
against due to their "perceived conservative political views by
Google," due to "their male gender by Google" and "due to their
Caucasian race by Google."

More specifically, it accuses Google of singling out, mistreating
and systematically punishing and terminating employees who
"expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on
political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to
Google's employment policies and its business, such as
'diversity' hiring policies, 'bias sensitivity' or 'social
justice' . . ."

Mr. Damore isn't holding back any punches here.  According to his
filing, Google employs "illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired
percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly
shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas -
- in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees
as less favored than others."

The suit also claims that the "numerical presence of women
celebrated at Google" was based "solely due to their gender"
while the "presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with
'boos' during companywide weekly meetings."

Somewhat redundantly, it adds that Mr. Damore, Mr. Gudeman and
"other class members" were "ostracized, belittled, and punished
for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of
their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males."

The lawsuit is seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive
remedies.

Mr. Damore's firing last summer became the talk of the nation,
with many in Silicon Valley outraged that Google didn't act even
more swiftly to terminate him.  Elsewhere, many wondered whether
the firing would have a chilling effect on employees' ability to
openly discuss their viewpoints.

Google said it fired Mr. Damore for violating its code of conduct
and advancing "harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."
Mr. Damore meanwhile began a kind of press tour, denouncing the
company for being close-minded and worse.  In an interview with
CNBC, for example, he compared being a conservative at Google to
"being gay in the 1950s."

In a press conference this afternoon, Damore's attorney, Harmeet
Dhillon, a California representative for the Republican National
Committee, elaborated more on the very lengthy complaint and
argued that her current clients are far from alone.

In fact, she said she spoke with "dozens" of employees at Google
to formulate the lawsuit and that she expects there will be
"future lawsuits" to explore, as well.

To underscore her point that Google's policies need to be
amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling
reporters that during Mr. Damore's tenure, "managers were called
out and shamed and mocked if they didn't have 50/50 gender parity
in [their respective] units."  She called the goal "fair" but
asked, rhetorically: "How do you get there? Job fairs. Making
yourself more attractive. Not by saying, 'White guy, you can't
have that job because that's reserved for a woman or [other]
minority.'"

Asked separately who is financing the suit, Ms. Dhillon told
Techcrunch in an email earlier on Jan. 8 that "nobody but my law
firm is financing the lawsuit at this time.  We may choose to
seek funding in the future, but neither Peter Thiel (I have been
asked by others) or anyone else is involved besides my clients
and my firm." (Thiel, the billionaire investor, famously financed
multiple lawsuits against Gawker Media.)

The new suit isn't the only one Google is having to defend itself
against.  In September, three female former Google employees
filed a lawsuit against the company, saying it discriminates
against women. To wit, says the suit, Google pays women at all
levels of the company less than men, as well as assigns them
lower job tiers with less opportunity for upward mobility.

Last month, a fourth complainant joined their suit.

The Labor Department is separately investigating systemic pay
discrimination at Google.  The company says it hasn't found a pay
gap in its own analysis. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Urged to Review Privacy Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Register reports that nothing expresses Silicon Valley's
cynicism about privacy like its fondness for rewarding its
friends from privacy class-action settlements -- while class
members get nothing. Now the US Supreme Court has been invited to
consider whether such settlements are fair.

These so-called cy pres settlements exploit a legal quirk, ("as
near as") which was traditionally used in rare situations when a
legal trust was dissolved.  Any leftover money would go to
charity.

Google was the first to pioneer a new use for this.  In 2011
Google offered $8.5m to settle the "Buzz" class action.  After
the lawyers took their $2m cut, $6m was spread around just 12
privacy groups -- and none went to individual class members.  The
Electronic Frontier Foundation received $1m, which exceeded the
group's individual contributions for 2008/09.

Facebook liked what it saw.  In 2012, it used the privacy
settlement process to compensate not the 150 million potential
members of the class action -- but to a new "privacy group".
Facebook even wanted to sit on the new group's board.

The moral hazard here is obvious.  Why should a citizens' group
fight for the citizens, when it can boost its own bank balance
instead? Non-profit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) received $1m from Google, which exceeded its
individual contributions for 2008/09.  The use of cy pres
inverted the incentive structure, encouraging the watchdogs to
get cosy with the serial offenders.

At the very least, it gave the impression that the watchdogs were
compromised.  Julian Assange cited the cy pres settlement as
warning.  "The EFF is a great group, and they've done good things
for us, but nonetheless it is significantly funded by Google, or
people who work at Google," he said in a 2014 interview.

The EFF gave Google and Facebook top marks for privacy in a 2014
report.

"Quite a racket, these class actions: Uninjured plaintiffs + a
defendant anxious to settle = millions in attorneys' fees and
donations to activist groups (which in turn = more litigation),"
snarked one legal blog.

The cy pres cash distributions only came to light when the
Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) complained it hadn't
got in on the cut.

In one of the oldest privacy class actions, originally filed in
2010 by Paloma Gaos over Google's leaking of personal data via
http referrer headers, the defendants rewarded their former law
school.

Hard-up "victims" of this privacy violation included the Stanford
Law School Center for Internet and Society; the Berkman Center
for Internet & Society at Harvard; and Carnegie-Mellon University
among others.

Two lawyers at the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), part
of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, backed Gaos in appealing
the money-go-round.  The court recognised that cy pres presented
a huge risk of corruption.

They pointed out that the American Law Institute's Principles of
the Law of Aggregate Litigation recommended that a "cy pres
remedy should not be ordered if the court or any party has any
significant prior affiliation with the intended recipient that
would raise substantial questions about whether the selection of
the recipient was made on the merits".

But in a narrow split decision), the appeals court approved the
payouts.

The dissenting appeals judge, Judge Wallace, thought that the
allocation of almost half of the funds to the class counsel's
alma maters raised a "red flag" -- particularly since one had
barely done any internet privacy work.

Of the final sums in the $8.5m the settlement fund, $3.2m was
swallowed up by "attorneys' fees, administration costs, and
incentive payments to the named plaintiffs.  $5.3m or so was
allocated to six cy pres recipients" who dutifully promised "to
devote the funds to promote public awareness and education,
and/or to support research development, and initiatives, related
to protecting privacy on the internet".

Having been denied a review of the case in October, the CCAF has
asked the Supremes to consider such settlements.

"An $8.5m class-action settlement that awards absent class
members no relief at all in exchange for their claims -- no
money, no alteration of the defendant's allegedly injurious
conduct, not even coupons -- is not 'fair, reasonable, and
adequate' by any measure," the CCAF argues.

The petition asks the highest court to intervene because of the
inconsistency of the Ninth Circuit -- similar cy pres settlements
have been bounced out of other jurisdictions: "This Court's
intervention is warranted to establish a nationwide standard for
the use of cy pres awards in class-action settlements and thereby
prevent counsel bringing nationwide class actions from flocking
to the Ninth Circuit because it provides their putative clients
the weakest protections against collusive settlements facilitated
by cy pres awards."

It also cites the main areas of concern: the settlements don't
compensate the victims a penny; they create a conflict of
interest for the counsels representing the victims; defendants
like Google and Facebook get to write their own "punishment".
[GN]


GURU NANAK AUTO: "Ventura" Suit Pending in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Guru Nanak Auto Parts Inc. is pending.
The case is styled as Luis Ventura and Antonio Pavon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Guru Nanak Auto Parts Inc., Guru Nanak Auto
Imports Inc., Krish Auto Parts Inc., Parveen Malhotra, Manju
Malhotra and Sunil Malhotra, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05874-ILG-VMS, (E.D.N.Y., October 11, 2017). The case is assigned
to Judge I. Leo Glasser.

Plaintiffs' complaint states that they work for Defendants with
primary duties as a stocker and deliverer of parts, and
performing other miscellaneous duties. The Plaintiffs allege
violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law, violation of the notice and record
keeping requirements under the New York Labor Law, and violation
of the wage statement requirements of the New York Labor Law.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Telephone: (718) 263-9591
     Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


HARVARD COLLECTION: "Gamble" Class Cert. Bid Now Due March 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Justin S Anand has granted the Plaintiff an
extension of the time to file a motion for class certification in
the case titled as Shataquia Bourne (Gamble), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Harvard Collection Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03951-TWT-JSA, (N.D. Ga., October 6, 2017).

According to Magistrate Judge Anand, the deadline for Plaintiff
to file her motion for class certification is extended to March
2, 2018.

On Jan. 24, the case was reassigned to Judge Michael L Brown.
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr is no longer assigned to case.

On Jan. 23, the Court entered an "Administrative Order Staying
Civil Proceedings in Light of Lapse of Appropriations".  That
order was signed by Judge Thrash, Jr.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Misty Ann Oaks, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3515 Charlston Court
Decatur, GA 30034
Telephone: (404) 725-5697
Facsimile: (775) 320-3695
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

     - and -

Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (845) 367-7146
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Foster-Care Payments
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a legal battle over how much
families are paid to care for foster children could cost Hawaii
millions of dollars, state officials said.

A 2013 class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating
requirements of the federal Child Welfare Act, which mandates
that foster-care payments be sufficient to cover the cost of
providing for a child's basic needs, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser
reported.

The parties involved reached a tentative settlement last year
that would have raised the monthly rates to $649 per child for
younger children and $776 for children 12 years and older.

The deal expired in June and the case is scheduled for trial in
March.

While attorneys representing the foster parents say they're
prepared to litigate the case, Gov. David Ige is requesting $7.13
million to raise the monthly payments.

A spokeswoman for the governor said the funding request is not
tied to any proposed settlement of the lawsuit, even though the
request is labeled in the governor's budget request as "Foster
Care Board rate settlement increases."

"The increase requested by the Department of Human Services in
the governor's budget is based upon DHS's own responsibility to
determine an appropriate foster board rate in accordance with the
applicable federal and state regulations," Cindy McMillan, the
governor's spokeswoman, said in an email.

Keopu Reelitz, spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services,
said the department "mistakenly included a reference to the
settlement" in its budget request.  She added that the department
conducted a review as required by federal and state laws "and
determined that the proposed foster board rate increase is
required for DHS to meet the needs of our resource caregivers
(formerly foster parents) and our foster youth."

There are roughly 2,800 children in foster care in Hawaii. [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over GDI Engine Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai engine lawsuit claims 2015-2016 Sonata, Tucson and Santa
Fe vehicles with Theta 2-liter and 2.4-liter gasoline direct
injection (GDI) engines have defects that cause thousands of
dollars to repair.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by two Hyundai owners
who claim the engines are damaged due to restricted oil flow,
typically causing damage to the Theta engines that can't be
repaired unless the engines are replaced.

The plaintiffs say they paid thousands of dollars to replace
engines they thought were free from defects based on Hyundai's
advertising.

According to the lawsuit, Hyundai has actively concealed the
Theta engines are prone to damage and failure caused by the
connecting rod bearings, leaving owners in the dark until they
experience engine problems.

The plaintiffs say if Hyundai would have admitted the engines
were defective, owners wouldn't have paid as much for the cars,
or possibly not purchased the vehicles in the first place.

The plaintiffs claim Hyundai has known about the Theta engine
problems for years, especially through customer complaints and
warranty claims, yet dealers have the habit of denying the
existence of a defect.  Many times, Hyundai allegedly refuses to
repair or replace the engines even when the vehicles are still
under warranty.

Hyundai has recalled vehicles in the past due to problems with
metallic debris from the crankshafts that restricts oil flow to
the connecting rod bearings.  Without enough oil flow to cool the
engine components, the temperature of the bearings causes
excessive wear and tear and a knocking noise from the engines.

Owners also report illuminated oil pressure lights and even
engines catching on fire. According to previous lawsuits filed
about the Theta engines, the problem is brought about by the way
Hyundai removed machining debris from the crankshafts.

Affected owners who say they experienced the problems complain
about the dangers of stalling in traffic and the hassle of being
stranded without a working car.

The Hyundai engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California - Coats, et al., v.
Hyundai Motor Company, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, the
Sultzer Law Group P.C., and Walsh PLLC.

Hyundai and Kia have faced legal battles over the Theta engines
before, including one filed concerning Sonata cars.  That lawsuit
came out in favor of the plaintiffs who allege 2011-2012 Sonatas
have engine defects.  Hyundai had recalled the cars in 2015, then
federal safety regulators opened an investigation to determine if
the recall was enough to fix the cars.

In addition, Hyundai accused one of its engineers of talking to
the U.S. government.  Japanese media reported at the time that
Hyundai petitioned a court by accusing the longtime Hyundai
engineer with passing corporate secrets to federal safety
regulators. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Suits Pile Up Over Melton, Spectre Security Holes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Fingas, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Intel is
staring down class action lawsuits in California, Indiana, and
Oregon over the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities exposed in
modern processors, which can be used to access restricted memory
in unpatched devices.

The suits, seen by AppleInsider, were filed in California,
Indiana, and Oregon.  One common thread through each is the delay
between when researchers brought the issue to Intel's attention
in June and its January disclosure.  Another is the potential
slowdown caused by available software fixes, though Intel has
previously insisted that any performance hits are "workload-
dependent" and "should not be significant" for the average
person. The company is also promising to lessen the impact in
future updates.

The California suit alleges that users have caused class members
to "lose money and property by being overcharged for and paying
for the defective CPUs.  Similarly, the Oregon-based suit alleges
that users "suffered an actual ascertainable loss of the purchase
price they paid for their microchip" and purports that had the
flaw been known earlier that a purchase from a competitive vendor
would have been likely.

California's suit is case 5:18-CV-00046. Indiana's and Oregon's
are 1:18-cv-00029 and 6:8-cv-00028 respectively.

The Indiana suit leans on degradation of CPU performance with any
fixes to be applied.  It alleges that class members suffer from a
choice of buying a new computer with a processor that does not
contain the flaw or must continue to use a computer "with massive
security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance
degradation."

Meltdown and Spectre exploit a feature in Intel and ARM
processors called "speculative execution," which calculates
multiple instruction branches simultaneously, predicting which
one is most likely to be used.  Meltdown mainly affects Intel
chips, dating as far back as 1995.

On Jan. 4 Apple acknowledged that while iOS 11.2, macOS 10.13.2,
and tvOS 11.2 included fixes to protect against Meltdown, it
still has more work to do, including patching watchOS and Safari
to defend against Spectre. Further updates should be available in
a matter of days.

Intel and ARM-based chip designs are ubiquitous in the technology
industry, used in the majority of computers, phones, tablets, and
wearables.  Apple relies on Intel CPUs for Macs, and ARM
technology for the A- and S-series chips found in iPhones, iPads,
iPods, and Apple Watches. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action in California Over CPU Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Davies, writing for Telecoms.com, reports that law firm
Doyle APC has filed a class action lawsuit against Intel for the
design defect found in all of Intel's x86-64x CPUs.

2018 has not been a great year for Intel so far, as there has
simply been a tsunami of bad news concerning security
vulnerabilities in its x86-64x CPUs.  Considering the extent of
the Intel's woes, it wasn't going to be too long before a class
action appeared, and here it is; Garcia, et al. vs. Intel Corp,
Case No. 18-cv-00046, (ND Cal).

The case itself aims to represent any US purchaser of Intel CPUs
containing the defect, or purchasers of a device containing one
of these Intel processors.  The defect is actually down to what
Intel must have through was a clever bit of engineering.  The
kernel mode attempts to guess what the user will do next, known
as 'speculative execution', having certain programmes on stand-by
to increase speed and performance.  This action potentially
exposes kernel data, one of the most sensitive parts of a
computer.

Since the vulnerability was initially exposed, Intel has been
rushing to develop a patch, essentially closing the threat,
though it is believed it will degrade performance at the same
time.  Intel claims 90% of processor products introduced within
the past five years will be fixed, and for the average user, the
impact on performance will be minimal. This has also been echoed
by Intel's customers:

Apple:

"Our testing with public benchmarks has shown that the changes in
the December 2017 updates resulted in no measurable reduction in
the performance of macOS and iOS as measured by the GeekBench 4
benchmark, or in common Web browsing benchmarks such as
Speedometer, JetStream, and ARES-6."

Microsoft:

"The majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable
performance impact with this update. We've worked to optimize the
CPU and disk I/O path and are not seeing noticeable performance
impact after the fix has been applied."

Google:

"On most of our workloads, including our cloud infrastructure, we
see negligible impact on performance."

Amazon:

"We have not observed meaningful performance impact for the
overwhelming majority of EC2 workloads."

This has been disputed by some commentators as the 'speculative
execution' feature is believed to be one of the primary drivers
of increased performance. Only time will tell.

Doyle APC's ambulance chaser impersonation should of course been
expected, though Intel has been the main recipient of attention
so far.  AMD and ARM are two other suppliers who have also
admitted to vulnerabilities, though neither has gotten anywhere
near the same amount of consideration.  The flaw may not impact
these products as much as Intel, or the severity of AMD and ARM
defects has not been truly uncovered just yet. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Class Action Mulled in Korea Over CPU Security Flaws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cho Jin-young, writing for Business Korea, reports that there is
a growing move to file lawsuits in connection with security flaws
in Intel's central processing units (CPUs) including law firm
Damwoo's preparation for a class action lawsuit.

According to industry sources on January 8, Damwoo set up a
website for a class action lawsuit against Intel which came under
heavy fire due to its CPU security flaws, and is receiving
applications for class action lawsuits.

"The high-tech team of law firm Damwoo is composed of experts on
computer and IT technology laws and has conducted in-depth legal
reviews of the seriousness of the 'meltdown' defect for a long
time," Damwoo said in its homepage.

Damwoo is mulling over whether to file a damage lawsuit against
Intel in connection with the CPU-gate in Korea or the US.  In
Korea, it is not easy to file a class action because a plaintiff
has to prove the amount of specific damage, Damwoo says. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Securities Law Firms Mull Class Suits Over Chip Flaw
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that securities law firms announced
on Jan. 8 that they were pursuing investigations of a flaw
affecting Intel chips as a prelude to class-action litigation
against the company.

The Rosen Law Firm is probing "allegations that Intel may have
issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public," it said, adding it is "preparing a class
action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Intel investors."

Similar announcements came from Levi & Korsinky, Block & Leviton
and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, with the firms also pointing to
reports that Intel chief executive Brian Krzanich sold Intel
stock in November months after the company was informed of the
defect by Google.

Intel shares were under pressure after researchers pointed to the
so-called Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities affecting the
chips powering most modern PCs and many mobile devices.

Researchers at Google showed how a hacker could exploit the flaw
to get passwords, encryption codes and more, even though there
have been no reports of any attacks using the vulnerability.

Intel said that it has issued updates for more than 90 percent of
the processor products introduced in the last five years.  The
company has described the issue as an industry-wide problem and
said it is working with other technology companies to address the
issue.

Mr. Krzanich sold $39 million worth of stock on November 29,
netting $25 million in profits, according to an article on Jan. 8
in The Wall Street Journal, which quoted analysts and lawyers who
said the transactions could raise questions with regulators.

Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment from
AFP. [GN]


JUST FOR LAUGHS: Rozon to Challenge Sexual Assault Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that the founder of the Just for Laughs
Festival intends to mount a legal challenge against a class-
action suit being sought against him by several women alleging
sexual assault.

A group is seeking court authorization to mount a class-action in
the names of all women who say they were sexually assaulted by
Gilbert Rozon, and is seeking millions in damages.

In a court document obtained by the Journal de MontrÇal,
Mr. Rozon's three lawyers wrote that "the defendant intends to
contest the authorization of a class-action suit."  Mr. Rozon's
lawyers said it's possible he will contest the version of facts
alleged by his accusers.

This is the first time Rozon has addressed any of the multitude
of allegations that were made against him since he announced his
resignation in October from the Just for Laughs Festival.

A total of 20 women are part of the potential class action suit,
claiming damages dating between 1982 and 2016.  If the suit is
successful, anyone who has been a victim of Mr. Rozon could be
eligible for financial compensation.

The class-action request calls Mr. Rozon a sexual predator who
took advantage of the "silence, embarrassment and the fears of
his victims to continue his predatory behaviour."

Among the alleged victims is Patricia Tulasne, who is claiming
$400,000 for at least one incident that took place in 1994.

She said since the events occurred, she has not been able to
establish a trusting relationship with a man, according to the
documents.  Mr. Tulasne was one of several women to denounce
Mr. Rozon in the #metoo or #MoiAussi wave that has been gathering
steam on social media in recent months to denounce predatory men.

The lawyers representing the group say they are seeking a large
financial penalty to act as a deterrent. [GN]


KENYA POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Incorrect Electric Billing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Kubania, writing for Daily Nation, reports that Energy
CS Charles Keter has assured Kenyans that they would not pay more
for electricity, contradicting a report by Kenya Power that power
bills would be backdated to recover a Sh8.1 billion deficit.

Mr Keter said that the inconsistent power bills experienced by
customers recently were as a result of an imperfect billing
system that estimated meter readings instead of taking actual
readings.

INFLATED BILLS

"What we are facing is a billing fluctuation following an upgrade
in billing systems by KPLC, which is being resolved on a case-by-
case basis.  Kenya Power has called on any customer who has a
complaint to visit their offices for assessment and review of
their accounts for swift resolution," he said.

The CS further said that no bills have been backdated and tariffs
have not changed, pointing out that it would take a lengthy
process by the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC) to introduce
new power tariffs.

In a statement Kenya Power said it would backdate its customers'
bills to fund a deficit occasioned by a high fuel cost charge in
2017.  This was a result of using thermal generators to make up
for loss of hydropower due to the prolonged drought.

UPROAR

The announcement raised an uproar, with many of its consumers
complaining that they are being forced to pay extortionate
amounts in power bills.

Users on social media have rallied behind a hashtag
#switchoffKPLC to protest inflated power bills, with some saying
that they are currently paying more than double what they were
billed in the previous months.

"I was billed Sh22,000 in December last year, up from an average
of Sh6,000-7,000 a month.  This is unacceptable and that is why I
have added my voice to the protest.  We are happy to pay what we
owe but KPLC cannot bill us incorrectly and expect us to do
nothing," said an outraged Jerotich Seii, one of the active
accounts behind #switchoffKPLC.

Former Law Society of Kenya boss Apollo Mboya has said that he is
organising a class action suit against Kenya Power, ERC and the
Ministry of Energy over incorrect billing.

"What the minister has said is a confirmation of what we have
long suspected -- that they have been billing us based on
guesswork and not correct meter readings.  We are still
collecting data and so far have over 400 respondents on record
who have supplied us with their previous and current power bills
showing large increases in the past few months.  We plan to file
the suit," he said.

Other than the inflated bills, the suit will also address power
interruptions, malfunctioning equipment and a rise in the price
of electricity tokens for prepaid customers.

REMEDY

Mr Keter, however, maintained that only 2.4 million customers
under the old post-paid system have been affected by the
inaccurate bills, and promised to have the issue sorted out once
a new billing system is in place by the end of this month.

"The new system also allows a consumer to self-read their meter
and upload on an app on their phone to enhance billing accuracy,"
he said.

The CS also announced that the ERC would standardise the pre-paid
meter system to ensure that customers get the same number of
tokens regardless of how many they buy at a go, as the old
system, which staggers tariffs based on quantity, has been
confusing many customers.

There are 3.9 million pre-paid meter users.  The company has 6.4
million customers in total. [GN]


LG CHEM: May 8 Lithium Batteries Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought a Lithium Ion Cell, Lithium Ion Battery, or Lithium
Ion Battery Product, Class Action Settlements May Affect You.

1. Why did I get this Notice?
You or your company may have directly purchased Li-Ion Cells, Li-
Ion Batteries, and/or Li-Ion Products from January 1, 2000,
through May 31, 2011. For purposes of the settlements, a direct
purchaser is a person or business who bought a Li-Ion Cell, Li-
Ion Battery, and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or more of
the Defendants, or any division, subsidiary, or affiliate
thereof, or any alleged co-conspirator (as opposed to an
intermediary, such as a retail store) in the United States.

You have the right to know about the litigation and about your
legal rights and options before the Court decides
whether to approve the settlements.

The Notice explains the litigation, the settlements, and your
legal rights.

The Court in charge of the case is the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the
case is called In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR.  The people who sued
are called "Plaintiffs," and the companies they sued are called
"Defendants."

2. Who are the Defendant companies?
The Defendant companies include LG Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America,
Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; SANYO
Electric Co., Ltd.; SANYO North America Corporation; Sony
Corporation; Sony Energy Devices Corporation; Sony Electronics,
Inc.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; Maxell Corporation of America; NEC
Corporation; TOKIN Corporation, formerly known as NEC TOKIN
Corporation; and Toshiba Corporation.

3. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired
to raise and fix the prices of Li-Ion Cells for over ten years,
resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of Li-Ion Cells,
Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products. The complaint describes
how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the
U.S. antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices and restrict output
of Li-Ion Cells by, among other things, face-to-face meetings and
other communications, customer allocation, and the use of trade
associations. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court
has not decided who is right.

4. What is the status of the litigation?
Plaintiffs have now reached settlements with all of the
Defendants in this Action. However, the litigation will continue
in order to complete settlement approval, claims administration,
and consider Plaintiffs' Application for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and Incentive Awards.

5. What are Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products?
For the purposes of the settlements, the following definitions
apply:

   -- "Lithium Ion Battery Cell(s)" or "Li-Ion Cells" means the
main components of Lithium Ion Batteries. A cell includes the
cathode, anode, and electrolyte.
   -- "Lithium Ion Battery" or "Li-Ion Battery" means a
cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer battery that is rechargeable
and uses lithium ion technology.
   --  "Lithium Ion Battery Products" or "Li-Ion Products" means
products manufactured, marketed, and/or sold by Defendants, their
divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates, or their alleged co-
conspirators that contain one or more Lithium Ion Battery Cells
manufactured by Defendants or their alleged co-conspirators.
Lithium Ion Battery Products include, but are not limited to,
notebook computers, cellular (mobile) phones, digital cameras,
camcorders, and power tools.

6. What is a class action?
In a class action, one or more people, called class
representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims.
All these people are members of the class, except for those who
exclude themselves from the class.

Important information about the case will be posted on the
website www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
as it becomes available. Please check the website to be kept
informed about any future developments.

THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES
7. How do I know if I'm part of the settlement classes?
The settlement classes include persons and entities who, from
January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2011, bought a Li-Ion
Cell, Li-Ion Battery, and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or
more of the Defendants, or any division, subsidiary, or affiliate
thereof, or any alleged co-conspirator (as opposed to an
intermediary, such as a retail store) in the United States.

8. What do the settlements provide?
The settlements provide for payments totaling $70,450,000.00 in
cash as follows: Samsung SDI -- $24.5 million; LG Chem -- $41
million; TOKIN -- $4.95 million. The LG Chem and Samsung SDI
settlements also provide for continuing cooperation, including
the production of witnesses, in case there is a trial. In
addition, Settling Defendants' sales remain in the case for the
purpose of computing damages against any remaining Defendants in
the event of trial.

In return for these payments, settlement class members are
required to give up the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
More details are in the settlement agreements, available at
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com.

9. When can I get a payment?
Distribution of the Samsung SDI, LG Chem, and TOKIN settlement
funds will be made, along with settlement funds from previous
settlements totaling $68,850,000.00 with the Sony, Maxell, NEC,
Panasonic, and Toshiba Defendants, on a pro rata basis once the
Court finally approves these settlements and authorizes
distribution of the settlement funds. You must submit a claim to
participate in the distribution.

Attached to this Notice is a Proof of Claim Form that has been
approved by the Court. All claims must be submitted online or
postmarked by April 26, 2018, to the address provided on the
Proof of Claim Form. Additional Proof of Claim Forms may be
obtained at www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com,
by calling 1-844-778-5952, or by writing to In re Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 4098, Portland, OR 97208-4098. Please do not contact the
Court about claim administration.

The settlement funds will be allocated on a pro rata basis based
on the dollar value of each class member's purchase(s)
of Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and/or Li-Ion Products in
proportion to the total claims filed. For purposes of
determining the pro rata allocation of the settlement funds,
purchases of Li-Ion Batteries and/or Li-Ion Products will
be valued according to the proportionate value of the Li-Ion
Cells contained in the product. This will be determined
by the number of cylindrical cells, or equivalent (by capacity)
prismatic or polymer cell, typically contained in particular
finished products or battery packs. For example, laptop computers
typically contained six (6) cylindrical cells. Camcorders
typically contained four (4) cylindrical cells. Cell phones and
digital cameras typically contained one (1) prismatic cell of
approximately one half the capacity and price of a typical
cylindrical cell. These will count as one half of a cylindrical
cell. If a class member purchased batteries or packs, or other
products, they will be valued according to the number of
cylindrical cells, or equivalent (by capacity) prismatic or
polymer cell, they contained. The resulting amounts will be
multiplied by the net settlement funds (total settlements plus
accrued interest minus attorneys' fees, expenses, and class
representative incentive awards) to determine each claimant's pro
rata share of the Settlement Fund.

10. What are my rights in the settlement classes?
Remain in the settlement classes: If you wish to remain a member
of the settlement classes, you do not need to take any action at
this time.

Get out of one or more of the settlement classes: If you wish to
keep your rights to sue LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and/or TOKIN about
claims concerning the manufacture, supply, distribution, sale, or
pricing of Li-Ion Cells -- other than indirect purchaser claims,
claims based on foreign purchases, or claims for product
liability, personal injury, or breach of contract claims not
related to the allegations in this case -- you must exclude
yourself from the settlement class(es) relating to the
Defendant(s) you wish to retain your rights to sue. You will not
get any money from the settlements from which you exclude
yourself.

To exclude yourself from one or more of the settlement classes,
you must send a letter that includes the following:

   -- Your name, address, and telephone number (include trade or
business names, and address, and telephone numbers);
   -- A statement saying that you want to be excluded from the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiff settlement class in In re Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR, as to
each Defendant (LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and/or TOKIN) for which you
wish to retain your rights to sue; and
   -- Your signature.

You must mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later than
March 1, 2018, to the following address:

     In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation
     Settlement Administrator
     P.O. Box 4098
     Portland, OR 97208-4098

Remain in the settlement classes and object: You can ask the
Court to deny approval of one or more of the settlements by
filing an objection. You can't ask the Court to order larger
settlements; the Court can only approve or deny the settlements.
If the Court denies approval of a settlement, no payments from
that settlement will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue.
If that is what you want to happen, you must object.

You may object to the proposed settlements in writing. You may
also appear at the Fairness Hearing, either in person
or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own
attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney.
All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly
identify the case name and number (In re Lithium Ion Batteries
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02420-YGR), (b) be submitted
to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing
them in person at any location of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed
or postmarked on or before March 1, 2018.

11. What am I giving up to stay in the settlement classes?
Unless you exclude yourself from the relevant settlement
class(es), you can't sue LG Chem, Samsung SDI, or TOKIN, or be
part of any other lawsuit against LG Chem, Samsung SDI, or TOKIN,
about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of
the decisions by the Court will bind you. The "Release of Claims"
included in the settlement agreements includes any causes of
actions asserted or that could have been asserted in the lawsuit,
as described more fully in the settlement agreements. The
settlement agreements are available at
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com.

THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING
12. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlements? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m.
on May 8, 2018, at United States District Courthouse, 1301
Clay Street, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. The
hearing may be moved to a different date or time without
additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the settlement
class website for information. At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and
adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them
at that time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to
approve the settlements. We do not know how long these decisions
will take.

13. Do I have to attend the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have.
But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you file or
mail an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk about
it. As long as you filed or mailed your written objection on
time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay another lawyer
to attend, but it's not required.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
14. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
Yes. The Court has appointed the law firms of Saveri & Saveri,
Inc.; Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; and Berman Tabacco to
represent you as "Class Counsel." You do not have to pay Class
Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and
have that lawyer appear in court for you in this case, you may
hire one at your own expense.

The contact information for Class Counsel is as follows:

Class Counsel

R. Alexander Saveri
Geoffrey C. Rushing
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

Bruce L. Simon
PEARSON, SIMON &
WARSHAW, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104

15. How will the lawyers be paid?
Class Counsel will also submit an Application for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and Incentive Awards to be heard at the same time as
the Fairness Hearing on May 8, 2018. Class Counsel will ask the
Court for attorneys' fees of 30% of the total settlement funds of
$139,300,000 (the sum of $70,450,000 from the current settlements
and $68,850,000 from previous settlements with the Sony, Maxell,
NEC, Panasonic and Toshiba Defendants), or $41,790,000. Class
Counsel will also request reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses not to exceed $3,900,000, in accordance with the
provisions of the settlement agreements. Class Counsel may also
request that an amount be paid to each of the class
representatives who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole
class (known as an "incentive award").

Lead Counsel will file their Application for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and Incentive Awards on or before February 8, 2018. On
the same day, Lead Counsel will post their Application for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards on the
settlement website,
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com. You may
comment on or object to Class Counsel's Application for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards by
following the procedure set forth in Question 10 above. Any
comment or objection must be filed with the Court or postmarked
by March 1, 2018.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
16. How do I get more information?
This notice summarizes the proposed settlements. For the precise
terms and conditions of the settlements, please see
the settlement agreements available at
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by
contacting Class Counsel at the addresses listed above under
Question 14, by accessing the Court docket in this case through
the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
system at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov (using the instructions
provided here: cand.uscourts.gov/existcasefaq and here:
pacer.gov/psc/faq.html), or by visiting the office of the Clerk
of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street,
Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THESE SETTLEMENTS OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Dated: December 22, 2017


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss Derivative Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
This notice relates to a proposed voluntary dismissal by the
plaintiffs in each of four pending shareholder derivative
actions, and is being given pursuant to an order of The United
States District Court for the District of Utah.  The purpose of
the notice is to advise LifeVantage shareholders that plaintiffs
in the below-referenced actions wish to voluntarily dismiss their
cases. Additional information on the actions and right to
intervene may be found below.

THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

As previously reported, on September 15, 2016, a purported
securities class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage
Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016).
In this action (later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp.
Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleged that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17
C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  On June 15, 2017,
the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead plaintiffs to
file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On
September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage
and the other defendants and dismissing the case with prejudice.
On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby
lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final
judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for
mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on
behalf of defendants.  This case is now concluded.

THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

Also, as previously reported, on October 11, 2016, two purported
shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Third District
Court of the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, entitled Johnson v.
Jensen, Case No. 160906320 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct. 11, 2016),
and Rupp v. Jensen, Case No. 160906321 MI (Utah Dist. filed Oct.
11, 2016).  In these actions (which are substantively identical),
plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that
the Company's Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial
Officer and members of the board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the
matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit noted
above.  On October 19, 2016, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the Johnson case number, with
the new caption In re LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation.
On January 10, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation between the
parties providing that this action would be deferred (i.e.,
stayed) pending a ruling on defendants' then-anticipated motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class action
lawsuit noted above.

On January 30, 2017, another purported shareholder derivative
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, entitled Hansen v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17 cv-
00075-DN (D. Utah filed Jan. 30, 2017).  In this action,
plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleged that the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer
and members of the board of directors violated Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(a), and
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection
with the matters alleged in the securities class action lawsuit
noted above.  On March 30, 2017, the parties entered into a
stipulation providing that this action would be stayed pending a
ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the securities class action lawsuit noted above.  On February 27,
2017, another purported shareholder derivative action was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
entitled Baker v. Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-PMW (D. Utah
filed Feb. 27, 2017).  Also, on April 24, 2017, another purported
shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Inforzato v.
Jensen, Case No. 2:17-cv-00317-JNP (D. Utah filed Apr. 24, 2017).
In these actions, plaintiffs, also purportedly on behalf of the
Company, made similar allegations as the plaintiff in Hansen v.
Jensen, described above.  The parties in Baker and Inforzato
similarly agreed to stays of those actions pending a ruling on
defendants' motion to dismiss in the securities class action
lawsuit noted above.

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

Following and in light of the dismissal with prejudice of the
securities class action lawsuit noted above, the Company
requested that the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative
actions agree to dismiss their lawsuits voluntarily and without
payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the
Company.  Thus, on October 31, 2017, the plaintiffs in In re
LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation stipulated to voluntary
dismissal of their consolidated action without payment of any
consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the Company.  On
November 17, 2017, the parties in Inforzato, Hansen and Baker
stipulated to voluntary dismissal of those actions without
payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants or the
Company.

On November 27, 2017, the Court in Inforzato ordered, pursuant to
Rule 23.1(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the
parties give notice to shareholders of the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Inforzato action before the Inforzato
action could be dismissed.  The Company also is providing notice
herein of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of In re
LifeVantage Corp. Derivative Litigation, the Baker action and the
Hansen action.

THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE INFORZATO ACTION

Any LifeVantage shareholder may seek to intervene as a plaintiff
in the Inforzato action if he, she, or it (1) owns shares in
LifeVantage and (2) wishes to pursue the claims in Inforzato or
has any reason why any of the aforementioned actions should not
be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  All motions to
intervene must be filed with the clerk of the court within thirty
(30) days hereof. Every motion to intervene must contain: (1) the
caption of the Inforzato action; (2) the intervenor's name,
address and phone number; (3) proof or certification of the date
the intervenor purchased LifeVantage stock; and (4) any
supporting papers, including all documents and writings that the
intervenor desires the Court to consider.

Any motions to intervene must be filed with the District Court
at:

     Clerk of Court
     United States District Court for the District of Utah
     351 South West Temple, Rm. 1.100
     Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

A copy of any motion to intervene must also be mailed to:

     Milo Steven Marsden
     Dorsey & Whitney LLP
     111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176

     John P. Stigi III
     Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017

Attorneys for Defendants Darren Jensen, David S. Manovich, Dave
Toole, Garry Mauro, George E. Metzger, Michael A. Beindorff,
Richard Okumoto, Mark Jaggi, Raymond B. Greer, Vinayak R. Hegde
and Darwin K. Lewis, and Nominal Defendant LifeVantage
Corporation

     Nelson Abbott
     Abbott Law Firm
     3651 North 100 East, Ste. 350
     Provo, Utah 84604

Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Inforzato

                About LifeVantage Corporation

LifeVantage Corporation -- http://www.lifevantage.com-- is a
science-based health, wellness and anti-aging company dedicated
to helping people transform themselves internally and externally
at a cellular level.  Its scientifically-validated product lines
include Protandim(R) Nrf2 and NRF1 Synergizers, TrueScience(R)
Anti-Aging Skin Care Regimen, Petandim(R), AXIO(R) Smart Energy
and the PhysIQ(TM)Smart Weight Management System.  LifeVantage
(Nasdaq:LFVN) was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Salt
Lake City, Utah. [GN]


LOBLAWS COS: $25 GC Won't Impact Consumers' Class Action Right
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Evans, writing for CBC News, reports that Jan. 8 was the
first opportunity for consumers to sign up to receive a $25 gift
card from Loblaws related to the grocer's role in fixing the
price of bread for more than a decade, but the agreement comes
with some fine print.

Late last year, Loblaws announced it would give out the cards as
an olive branch to customers who were angered by the grocer's
admission that it had conspired to inflate the price of packaged
bread between 2002 and 2015.

Customers were directed to a website, loblawcard.ca, which was,
prior to Jan. 8, short on specifics.  However, the website is now
updated with a sign-up form and more detail on the program.

For the first time, the retailer has included a full list of
products that saw their prices hiked up.  They are packaged bread
products from:

   -- Ben's Bread.
   -- Bon Matin Bread.
   -- Country Harvest Bread.
   -- Dempster's Bread.
   -- D'Italiano Bread.
   -- Gadoua Bread.
   -- McGavin's Bread.
   -- No Name Bread.
   -- Old Mill Bread.
   -- POM Bread.
   -- Weston Bread.
   -- Wonder Bread.

Anyone who purchased any of those products at any Loblaws store -
- which includes brands like No Frills, Superstore, Provigo,
Zehrs and many others -- between 2002 and March of 2015 is
entitled to participate, and no proof of purchase is required.

Loblaws says it reserves the right to limit the number of cards
that will be issued under the program, although the site doesn't
include a number where it might be capped.

Previously, the company had suggested that it was expecting
between three and five million Canadians would sign up, bringing
the price tag to up to $150 million worth of gift cards.

The cards will have no expiry date, Loblaws says, but the same
can't be said for the program itself: anyone who wants to
participate must do so by May 8.

The card also has to be used for food products.  Holders can't
use them to buy alcohol, tobacco, gasoline or cash withdrawals at
in-store ATMs.

The size, scope and longevity of the price-fixing scandal has
prompted a number of class-action lawsuits against the company,
and Loblaws says at the top of the website that participating in
the rebate program doesn't preclude someone from participating in
one of those suits.

But fine print at the bottom of the sign-up form itself makes it
clear that if you sign up, $25 will be deducted from any
potential payouts from lawsuits down the line.

"Agreeing to this release will not impact your right to
participate in any class actions relating to an overcharge on the
price of packaged bread," the fine print reads.

"However, doing so will mean that twenty-five (25) dollars will
be deducted from any compensation that you may otherwise be
entitled to receive in any class action judgment against, or
settlement with, Loblaw relating to any overcharge on the price
of packaged bread in the period between January 1, 2002 and March
1, 2015."

Michael Vathilakis, a partner at a law firm attempting to certify
a class action against the company, said the gift card plan is
pure "PR spin" from a company that has abused the public's trust
and is looking for the cheapest way out.

"They've unilaterally decided that they are going to remove it
from any additional compensation you may receive by way of a
class action lawsuit, settlement judgment or otherwise," he told
CBC News in an interview.

"My advice would be read the fine print."

Another firm, Sotos LLP, which is also organizing a suit, had the
following advice for people after the details of the offer came
out: "We are recommending that class members wait to register for
the card."

Participating in the program also requires consumers to give up a
lot of personal information, including their name, date of birth,
address and other contact information -- mainly because the
company needs that in order to mail out the cards in the first
place.

While data like that is a goldmine to retailers, Loblaws says it
will not use the information for marketing purposes.  "We will
not use the personal Information provided to participate in the
Loblaw Card Program to market to you, unless we have already
obtained your consent to do so," the company says in the
agreement.

Despite the strings attached, Prof. Steve Tissenbaum of the Ted
Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University in Toronto
suspects that millions of Canadians will sign up, and turn a
blind eye to any downsides in the process.

"There will be millions of people that will take advantage of
getting the $25," he said in an interview, "but I don't know how
many people are upset."

Many will simply take the offer of what appears to be free money.

"If someone wants to give me some money -- I will take it." [GN]


LOBLAW COS: Judge Favors Consumers in Price-Fixing Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Canadian consumers obtained an important victory in Loblaw's
admitted price fixing conspiracy on Jan.  In a proceeding brought
by Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, The Honourable Justice Morgan of
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Jan. 9 ruled that Loblaw
will not be able to deduct the $25 value it has placed on the
gift card it is providing consumers unless it demonstrates that
it is fair to consumers as part of an overall resolution of their
price-fixing claims.  In his ruling, Justice Morgan wrote, "When
taking up the card offer, the consumer is advised that the card
may ultimately replace $25 in settlement value, but that is not
for certain.  On the other hand, Loblaw has advised of its
intention to offset the card against any eventual award or
settlement, but that is equally not for certain.  Both Loblaw
(like the other defendants) and the consumer/class members will
have the opportunity of presenting any eventual settlement for
approval by the court at the time, and that will be based on the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement
overall . . . it does not bar substantive review of any class
action settlement at the end of the review process."

On December 19, 2017 Loblaw announced that it was offering
consumers a $25 card to restore consumer confidence in the
company after admitting anti-competitive conduct.  However,
Loblaw was unclear about the cards' redemption terms.  Once
Loblaw's website to enable consumers to register for the card
became operational on January 8, 2017, it became clear that
Loblaw required consumers to agree that any future amounts
awarded in any civil settlement would be discounted by $25 if the
consumer accepted the card.  In all class actions, the court must
approve a settlement, and the court held that whether any credit
must be given by consumers for the card Loblaw issues them be
reserved until the class actions against Loblaw are settled.

Strosberg Sasso Sutts' motion stemmed from Loblaw's refusal to
disclose the value of what the consumers' loss was over the 14
years that it admitted to its participation in an industry-wide
price-fixing conspiracy for bread.  Loblaw sought to offset its
civil liability in the class actions in the amount that equals
the value of the cards that it issues.

David R. Wingfield -- dwingfield@strosbergco.com -- Partner at
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP and expert in competition law argued
before the Court that Loblaw should not be allowed to offset its
liability now because the company has not made a meaningful
disclosure about what the conspiracy to fix the price of bread
has cost Canadian consumers over 14 years.  Without such
disclosure, Canadian consumers cannot make an informed decision
about whether to accept the coupon because Loblaw refuses to
disclose the extent to which consumers were harmed.

"We are very pleased that the Court agreed with our argument,
"said Mr. Wingfield.  "If Loblaw wishes to offer a goodwill
gesture and give consumers a coupon to be used in their stores,
it is within their right to do so," said Mr. Wingfield.
"However, the moment they ask to limit their liability based on
the card without court supervision, there is a problem. This
judgment confirms that the court's supervisory role can't be
removed by Loblaw's unilateral action."

Loblaw and its parent company George Weston Ltd. disclosed the
conspiracy to the Competition Bureau of Canada in exchange for
immunity from criminal prosecution.  However, the companies are
still liable in civil actions. Strosberg Sasso Sutts filed a
Class Action on November 8, 2017, over a month before Loblaw
admitted its participation in the scandal.

Jay Strosberg -- jay@strosbergco.com -- Co-Managing Partner,
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP said, "The judge's ruling was morally
and ethically appropriate. Loblaw will likely incur a heavy cost
as a result of this theft; but the company should be subject to
the same process as the consumers who were victimized.  The Court
rightfully sided with millions of Canadian consumers."

                  About Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP

Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP is a Canadian class action law firm
with offices in Windsor and Toronto.  Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP
has recovered more than $1 billion for its clients.  Its lawyers
have been involved in some of Canada's most important class
actions in Canada including the Walkerton class action, the
Ticketmaster Class Action, Money Mart class action and the
Hepatitis-C class action against the Federal and Provincial
governments. [GN]


LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Bordeaux" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Katharine S. Hayden granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. LTD FINANCIAL
SERVICES, L.P., ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00243-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.).

According to the Court's opinion, the Plaintiff moved for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c3L3G79w


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Settles Storage Tank Explosion Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gerstein, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
Marathon Petroleum Co. has agreed to settle a federal class-
action lawsuit stemming from a 2013 storage tank explosion,
according to a court document and a law firm.

In December, Findlay, Ohio-based Marathon agreed to pay the two
who filed the suit -- Anna Widdis and Jason Bastien -- $1,000
each and distribute $100 gas gift cards to the first 200 other
plaintiffs in the class-action suit, according to Hertz Schram
PC, the law firm with offices in Detroit and Bloomfield Hills
that represented them.

The preliminary settlement awaits final approval by Ann Arbor
U.S. District Judge Judith Levy of the Eastern District of
Michigan, according to the Liddle & Dubin law firm.

Marathon also agreed to rebuild an above-ground storage tank for
$1.4 million and modify another tank for an $650,000 as part of
the settlement agreement.  The company will pay $22,000 in
attorney fees for class counsel and up to $11,000 for costs and
expenses related to the administration of the settlement, notice
and claims process.

The settlement is unrelated to a separate federal class-action
lawsuit involving Marathon in which more plaintiffs claimed
injuries due to harmful air pollution from the southwest Detroit
refinery.

Marathon on Jan. 9 did not immediately return requests for
comment.

In court, attorneys Elizabeth Thomson and Laura Sheets at Liddle
& Dubin represented the plaintiffs, who lived in a neighborhood
near the Marathon oil refinery in Detroit close to the Rouge
River and the border with Melvindale.  They alleged nuisance and
negligence based on an explosion and fire on April 27, 2013, at
the Marathon refinery that harmed the plaintiffs, including "loss
and enjoyment of their property," according to the agreement.

Marathon opposed the district court's approval for class-action
certification.

The company appealed in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
in 2014, but the appeal failed because there was "insufficient
reason to proceed with Marathon's appeal," according to the
settlement agreement.

In the suit, plaintiffs alleged that Marathon was negligent by
"failing to design, monitor, or maintain the above-ground storage
tank" that caught fire and exploded in April 2013.  They allege
the explosion interfered with their enjoyment and use of
property, although Marathon at first "vigorously denie(d) any and
all liability in this action," according the settlement notice.

The plaintiffs agreed to drop claims of nuisance and loss of
enjoyment of property and other personal injury due to "airborne
pollution, emissions, releases, spills and discharges to the
atmosphere, exposure to hazardous substances, air contaminants,
toxic pollutants, particulates or odors emanating in the air from
the Marathon refinery," according to the agreement.

That includes any past or present damage from air pollution or
contamination and any personal injury that manifested prior to
the settlement agreement, but does not cover lasting, diagnosed
medical injury. [GN]


MDL 2800: Credit Union Suit over Consumer Data Breach Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
FORT MCCLELLAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04994-
TWT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 7, 2017), seeks to recover damages as well as
equitable relief on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated financial institutions in the United States.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on its own behalf and on
behalf of other financial institutions that have suffered, and
continue to suffer, financial losses as a direct result of
Equifax's failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to
protect the personal identifying information of some 145.5
million U.S. consumers, credit card numbers of some 209,000
consumers, and dispute information from some 182,000 consumers,
that was stored in its data systems.

According to the complaint, despite repeated warnings from
security experts about the risk of data breaches and numerous
data breaches by multiple companies and even by Equifax
competitor Experian, another credit reporting agency, over the
past few years, Equifax failed to comply with industry standards
and its statutory and common law duties to protect confidential,
personal identifying and credit information.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly acknowledged a
cybersecurity incident/data breach that has potentially impacted
some 143 million U.S. consumers, or approximately half of all
U.S. consumers who have credit histories. Equifax admitted that
it discovered this data breach on July 29, 2017, and that the
unauthorized access to Equifax's Confidential Consumer Data began
in mid-May 2017. In other words, Equifax's data security was so
deficient that they did not realize that their data systems had
been hacked for more than two months, leaving Confidential
Consumer Data exposed and accessible before it finally realized a
breach had occurred.

Rather than timely disclose its data breach, Equifax waited
almost 6 weeks to publicly disclose the occurrence. In the
interim, three Equifax executives sold some $1.8 million of
Equifax stock. These executives include Chief Financial Officer
John Gamble, who sold approximately $946,000 worth of Equifax
stock on August 1, 2017; President of United States Information
Solutions Joseph Loughran, who sold approximately $584,000 of
Equifax stock, also on August 1, 2017; and President of Workforce
Solutions Rodolfo Ploder, who sold approximately $250,000 of
Equifax stock on August 2, 2017.

On October 2, 2017, Equifax disclosed that the Confidential
Consumer Data of an additional 2.5 million U.S. consumers had
been exposed in the Equifax Data Breach. Thus, some 145.5 million
U.S. consumers' Confidential Consumer Data was disclosed by
Equifax.

As Equifax's CEO admitted: "The company failed to prevent
sensitive information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers.
[T]he breach occurred because of both human error and technology
failures."

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
          N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
          GA Bar No. 584255
          POPE McGLAMRY, P.C.
          3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 523 7706
          Facsimile: (404) 524 1648
          E-mail: efile@pmkm.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322 8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328 2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com


MDL 2800: Feb. 9 Hearing on Bids to Appoint Case Leaders
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr entered an order dated Jan. 12, 2018,
Scheduling Hearing on Applications for Leadership Appointments
for Feb. 9, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 2108, in the multi-
district litigation, MDL No. 2800.

The case styled as Bruce Kalmick, Paul Marrs and Tammi Marrs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated the,
Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No.1:17-cv-00954-
SS (W.D. Tex., October 6, 2017), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 17-
cv-05461 (N.D. Ga.).  A conditional transfer order was entered by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 27,
consolidating the case into MDL No. 2800.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jarrett Stone, Esq.
     Paul Colley, Jr., Esq.
     COLLEY & COLLEY LLP
     12912 Hill County Blvd Suite F-234
     Austin, TX 78738
     Telephone: (512) 477-2001
     Facsimile: (512) 477-3335
     Email: jarrett@colleylaw.net
     Email: paul@colleylaw.net

Defendant is represented by:

     Kevin M. Clark, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 751-3200
     Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
     Email: kclark@kslaw.com


MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Blanchard" Suit in S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical and
Professional Collection Services Inc. The case is captioned as
Julie Blanchard, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medical and Professional Collection
Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01309-DRH-DGW
(S.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
David R. Herndon.

In an Order dated January 11, 2018, Judge Herndon granted
Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer.
Defendant, the judge said, has up to and including January 27,
2018, to file its responsive pleadings to plaintiff's class
action complaint.

Medical and Professional provides collection agency services for
Evansville, Newburgh, Owensboro, Henderson, Vincennes, Southwest
Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois and the Midwest including Medical,
legal, business to business, consumer and retail collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS ET AL.
          20 South Clark St., Ste. 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          E-mail: ccombs@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  dedelman@edcombs.com


MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Answer to "Hobbs" TCPA Suit Due Feb. 16
---------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL GUARDIAN LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05462-TJS
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2017), seeks to recover damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Beginning June 13, 2017 and continuing through on or about July
20, 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -7558 in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services or products. Defendant
used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted or attempted
to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to
Defendant, including without limitation (561) 220-9418. The
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant's calls were placed to a telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The
Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section. Furthermore, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -7558 has been on the National Do-Not-
Call Registry since at least on or about March 23, 2017, or in
any case, well over 30 days prior to Defendant's initial calls.
The Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to
Plaintiff on its cellular telephones beginning in or around June
of 2017 and continued until in or around July of 2017.

The Plaintiff requested for Defendant to stop calling Plaintiff
during one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any
prior express consent that had existed and terminating any
established business relationship that had existed. Despite this,
Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit
its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA.

                           *     *     *

The Hon. Timothy J. Savage ruled on Jan. 23 that Medical Guardian
LLC must file its answer by Feb. 16.

In a separate order also on Jan. 23, Judge Savage said a pretrial
conference shall be held on Feb. 13 at 8:30 a.m., in Room 9614,
United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, in Philadelphia.

The Court directed the parties to make the required initial
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) within 14 days of the
date of this order.  By Feb. 7, counsel must complete and file
with the clerk the required report of Rule 26(f) meeting.

In a Dec. 7 Order, Judge Savage said the defendants Does 1
through 10 are dismissed; and the references in the complaint to
the John Doe defendants are stricken.

Medical Guardian is an American medical alert systems provider
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The company has
appeared in Inc. Magazine's list of 5000 fastest-growing
companies four years in a row from 2013 to 2016.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595 9111 ext 618
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Special Master Appointed in Untested Rape Kits Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Sansone, writing for Fox13, reports that a judge wants to
speed up the court process for the lawsuit against the city for
untested rape kits.

Several plaintiffs filed a $10 million class action lawsuit
against the city over the more than 12,000 untested rape kits.

The kits made headlines in 2013 when it came to light the massive
backlog in storage.  More than 50 women came forward demanding
pay from the city.

Attorney Daniel Lofton represents the women, and says he will now
treat the case as a class action to gather evidence.

"It remains to be seen how many claimants will qualify under the
class," he said.  "When and if its certified, but it's in the
thousands."

The judge has appointed a special master for the case in order to
stay on schedule.

She put off both side's motions, but they did talk about how many
people would fit in a class action.  They also discussed how much
of a cap will be made.

"There's a difference between $700,000 limit versus a $10 mill.
dollar limit," Mr. Lofton said.

City leaders said Memphis cannot be held responsible for the
backlog in previous meetings. [GN]


MICHIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Jones" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled CURTIS LEWIS
JONES v. KENNETH MCKEE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094-PLM-TPG
(W.D. Mich.).

Kenneth McKee has been the deputy director of the Correctional
Facilities Administration.  The CFA is responsible for the
operation of the state's prisons, including the Special
Alternative Incarceration Facility.

The Plaintiff filed a "motion for class certification pursuant to
FRCP Rule 23(a); (a)(1)(A)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)."  The Plaintiff is a
prisoner and is acting pro se.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
Michigan Department of Corrections fails to provide all prisoners
with Winter boots or Winter shoes.  The Plaintiff concedes that
prisoners on work detail are provided with Winter boots.

"As a pro se prisoner, Plaintiff cannot represent members in a
class action.  Plaintiff cannot comply with the requirement of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)," Judge Greeley opines.  "Plaintiff asserts
that there are hundreds of prisoners who would join the class,
and that he would adequately protect class members' interests.
Plaintiff's claim regarding the number of prisoners who would
join the class is speculative."

"Moreover, Plaintiff has presented no evidence which could
establish that he would adequately protect the interests of class
members if this class certification is ordered.  Plaintiff's
motion is denied," Judge Greeley said.

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


MICROSOFT CORP: Grapples with Gender Salary Inequality Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Monegain, writing for HealthcareIT News, reports that
Microsoft and Google are embroiled in lawsuits accusing them of
paying men more than women for doing the same work -- which
highlight the realities of gender inequality among women in
technology and healthcare.

Women health IT professionals, in fact, experienced a downward
trend in salaries.  A decade-long HIMSS study found that females
were paid 81 percent what male counterparts made in 2006 but by
2016 that percentage had actually dropped to 78.

Salary inequities strike to the core of the allegations against
Google and Microsoft.  In the Google case, Plaintiffs Kelly
Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, who previously worked for
Google, alleged the company was practicing pay discrimination
against women, charging that Google was paying female employees
less than what it paid men doing the same jobs.

And while California Superior court judge Mary Wiss denied their
request for a class-action suit in December, the plaintiff's
attorney, James Finberg, filed a new complaint that he said would
make it clear "Google violates the California Equal Pay Act - by
paying women less than men for substantially equal work in nearly
every job classification."

The revised lawsuit also asks for class-action status against
Google claiming the company asked new hires about their prior
salary, a practice banned in California.

Finberg said Google's use of prior compensation to set starting
pay for employees results in men receiving higher starting
salaries and better career tracks.  Because the company also sets
job classification levels relative to prior pay, newly hired
women will consistently make less than men over time, he writes.

"Google's under-leveling of women not only resulted in Google
paying them lower base salaries than if they had been properly
leveled but also resulted in Google paying them smaller bonuses
and fewer stock units and options than if Google had placed them
in the proper level," the lawsuit contends.

The suit now aims to represent women who hold the positions of
engineer, manager, sales or early childhood education.

The suit against Microsoft was filed by three female employees,
who are seeking class-action status based on allegations dating
back to a suit filed by Katherine Moussouris and two other female
employees in September 2015.

The three plaintiffs' lawyer asked for class-action status in
October 2017.  They also hired researchers to evaluate
Microsoft's policies regarding promotions and salaries.  The
study showed big pay gaps between men and women doing similar
work with similar results, they allege.

If the plaintiffs in the Microsoft case were successful in
gaining class-action status, it could mean more than 8,000 women
would be added as plaintiffs in the case.  Microsoft has refuted
the allegations, saying there is no systemic bias in its review
process. [GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Class Certification in Gender Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Law.com, reports that Microsoft Corp.
says, while the company is "keenly aware of gender imbalance in
the tech industry," a federal class action seeking to advance the
discrimination claims of more than 8,600 former and current
female employees is not the right avenue to tackle the issue.

"One can debate how best to address this important societal issue
-- but the class allegations here are not the right vehicle for
that debate," Microsoft's lawyers at Orrick say in their
opposition to class certification. [GN]


MISSISSIPPI FARM: Faces Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Britt v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company, George "Bubba" Cole, Barry Patton, Brenda Wheat, Tina
Stapp and Roy Weathers, Case No. 17-cv-00219 (N.D. Miss.,
December 28, 2017), is a collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act as to claims for compensatory, liquidated and
punitive damages, injunction prohibiting Farm Bureau from
engaging in future wrongful conduct related to violations of
Title VIII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, an injunction
allowing her to return to work for Farm Bureau in her former
position, back pay and front pay, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorney's fees and costs.

Britt, an insurance agent for Mississippi Farm Bureau, accuses
Defendants of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, illegal
termination and retaliation, malicious and intentional
interference with contract/business relationships. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray Hill, III, Esq.
      CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC
      P.O. DRAWER 676
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Tel: (662) 234-0900
      Email: rhill@claytonodonnell.com


MONKEY CAPITAL: March 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silver Miller recently announced that a class action lawsuit was
commenced on behalf of individuals and entities who contributed
bitcoin, Ether, or other cryptocurrency or fiat currency to the
scheduled-but-cancelled 2017 Monkey Capital Initial Coin Offering
(ICO).  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and is captioned Hodges, et
al. v. Monkey Capital LLC, et al., Case No. 9:17-cv-81370-DMM
(the "Lawsuit").  A copy of the Complaint filed in the Lawsuit
can be seen at https://is.gd/egcjxT

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her/its choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Lawsuit, however, you must
move the Court no later than March 12, 2018 to appoint you as the
lead plaintiff.  If you wish to discuss the Lawsuit or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests as
they relate to the Lawsuit, please contact plaintiffs' counsel
David C. Silver of Silver Miller at (954) 516-6000 or
DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com.

The Complaint alleges that Monkey Capital LLC, Monkey Capital
Inc., and the companies' founder and principal (Daniel Harrison)
fraudulently promoted an ICO and engaged in an unregistered
offering and sale of securities that violated numerous state and
federal securities laws, including Sections 5, 12(a), 15, and
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77e, 77l(a),
77o, and 77q(a).  The Lawsuit pleads that the Court rescind all
investments in Monkey Capital; return to all investors their
cryptocurrency; require Monkey Capital to account for all funds
raised from investors; and adjudicate that Monkey Capital and
Mr. Harrison violated multiple securities laws when they promoted
and abruptly abandoned the unregistered, pre-functional ICO.

The plaintiffs are represented by Silver Miller -- the leading
cryptocurrency investor law firm in the country, with actions
currently pending against the Coinbase, Kraken, and Cryptsy
exchanges as well as the first federally-filed class action
lawsuit against heavily-embattled Tezos and its billion dollar
July 2017 ICO. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lashock Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA LASHOCK, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02841-DDN (E.D. Mo., Dec. 7, 2017),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

              - and -

          Peter A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER DELLAFERA PLC
          3420 Pump Rd., PMB 404
          Henrico, VA 23233
          Telephone: (800) 401 6670
          Facsimile: (888) 830 1488
          E-mail: pmiller@millerdellafera.com


NASA SERVICES: "De Leon" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Kenny De Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NASA Services, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, the Defendant, Case No. BC682425, (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
November 3, 2017), seeks unpaid wages with damages, interest and
other equitable relief based on violations of the California
Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment the
Defendants failed to provide him with meal periods, failed to
authorize and permit to take rest periods, failed to pay for all
hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and
overtime wages), failed to pay the correct amount of overtime
wages, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked,
failed to timely pay all final wages when he terminated his
employment and failed to furnish accurate wage statements.

NASA Services own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County, for the purposes of providing
garbage disposal services.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Kane Moon, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
Email: justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


NCCA: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set
----------------------------------------
Sean Gregory, writing for Time, reports that the NCAA, the
organization governing big-time college athletics, prevents
schools from paying their players, even as they make millions for
their coaches and schools.  Saban and Smart made almost $15
million combined this year.

"All today's players can hope for," says Jeffrey Kessler, a
sports labor attorney who is leading a case against the NCAA, "is
a better deal for the players that come after them."

On January 16, in a federal district courtroom in Oakland,
Calif., Judge Claudia Wilken will hold a hearing on motions for
summary judgment in the case of Jenkins v NCAA, a class action
suit that challenges the NCAA's compensation limits on athletes.
Judge Wilken ruled on a similar case, the landmark O'Bannon v
NCAA litigation, more than three years ago.  While Judge Wilken
found in that case that the NCAA rules unreasonably restrained
trade in violation of anti-trust laws, she did not lift the
restraints entirely.  Schools could still limit their
compensation for athletes to the cost-of-attendance stipend,
meaning the players would not be paid according to their market
value.

The Jenkins case, however, makes a broader claim than O'Bannon.
Whereas O'Bannon concerned a college athlete's ability to profit
from the use of his or her likeness, Jenkins focuses on the
market for signing college athletes to schools.  It seeks to ends
the NCAA's blanket wage restrictions, and allow individual
athletic conferences to determine the levels at which players
should be paid.  Mr. Kessler, who has represented the players'
unions of all four major U.S. professional sports leagues and
helped NFL players win the right to become free agents in the
early 1990s, is representing the Jenkins plaintiffs.

One expert likens the two cases to the work of an offensive
lineman clearing the way for a running back: O'Bannon did the
legal blocking, says Marc Edelman, a professor of law at Baruch
College's Zicklin School of Business, that could allow Jenkins to
finally score big for college athletes.  "The point of Jenkins is
to create a universe in which the NCAA can no longer ubiquitously
prevent college athletes from being paid," says Mr. Edelman.

With more money sloshing around college sports every year, the
case against paying players becomes increasingly difficult to
justify.  Saban made more than $11 million this season; Georgia
paid Smart $3.75 million.  Alabama pays two of its assistants --
defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt, the incoming head coach at
Tennessee, and offensive coordinator Brian Daboll -- north of $1
million. Texas A&M just signed former Florida State coach Jimbo
Fisher to a 10-year, $75 million deal; Fisher in turn just
poached Notre Dame defensive coordinator Mike Elko with reported
three-year contract at an average of $1.8 million a year.

How much money should college athletes be paid?
Why shouldn't this bounty trickle down to the players who
generate it? Antitrust economist Andy Schwarz, a staunch advocate
for reallocating more flush college sports revenues to athletes,
envisions a scenario where schools reallocate 30% of incremental
athletic department revenue growth to a fund that compensates
athletes: 15% for male athletes, and 15% for female athletes.
Schools can keep 70% of the new revenues, plus all old revenues.
If Alabama, for example, had followed such a model over the past
four years, the school would have set aside, on average, $2.9
million annually to pay athletes. Alabama would have kept an
average of $149.5 million per year, or 98% of all revenues.

"If schools ever want to get past their 'can't-don't' rhetoric
and go for can-do solutions, all they need to do is just start
fixing things," says Schwarz.  "Divert new money and in a few
years the budgets will have adjusted just fine."

The Jenkins case will likely hinge on whether the plaintiffs can
convince the court that the paying players won't adversely effect
the college sports business.  Anti-trust laws permit trade
restraints -- like a cap on compensation -- if such restraints
benefit consumers.  In the O'Bannon case, the NCAA's lawyers
argued that college football and basketball is popular because
players don't get paid. Fans are attracted to the amateur ideal.
In Jenkins, the NCAA will insist that the court has already
established that paying players would hurt the college sports
business, since in O'Bannon both Judge Wilken and an appellate
court gave weight to a survey from an NCAA research expert
showing that 69% of respondents expressed opposition to paying
college athletes.

Still, it's hard to imagine rabid college sports fans leaving
stadiums and TV sets in droves just because students at their
favorite schools receive payment for playing football or
basketball -- which is why they're at the school in the first
place.  In so many pockets of America, college football's
ingrained in the cultural DNA.  Why would the tailgate lose its
appeal when the star quarterback has an endorsement deal?

Further, as part of the Jenkins case, attorneys for the
plaintiffs have filed their own consumer demand study with the
court. Their survey expert concluded, "to a high degree of
scientific certainty," that additional compensation for college
athletes would result in "no negative impact on consumer demand
as exhibited through viewership /attendance of college football
and basketball . . . If anything, permitting these additional
forms of compensation/benefits could have a positive impact on
such consumer demand." Decades of American behavioral economics
bear this finding out.  As player salaries have risen
exponentially with the advent of free agency and technological
innovations that distribute the games to broader audiences,
sports have become even more popular.  The business has only
grown.

Americans, it turns out, value fairness.  "This case could make a
great difference in the lives of those college players that will
not make it to the pros," says Mr. Kessler.

If it lives up to expectations, the Alabama-Georgia title game
may be remembered for a long time.  But the year's most lasting
college sports moment could unfurl in a courtroom. [GN]


NEW YORK: Crime Drops After Stop-and-Frisk Policy Halted
--------------------------------------------------------
Raychelle Muhammad. writing for Inquisitr, reports that in 2013,
U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in a class
action suit against the city of New York that the stop-and-frisk
policy violates that fourth and 14th Amendments.  But Mayor
Michael Bloomberg and other proponents of this style of policing
unsuccessfully fought her decision. Bloomberg believed that the
crime rate would increase exponentially, but recently released
data indicates exactly the opposite.

Nick Wing of The Huffington Post reported that crime rates have
reached levels that the city hasn't seen since the 1950s.
Mr. Wing said that according to the NYPD's preliminary reports,
there were a total of 290 killings in New York in 2017 compared
to 335 in 2016 and a staggering 2,295 in 1990.  The number of
other serious crimes, including assault, rape, car theft, and
grand larceny, have steadily declined as well.

Proponents of stop-and-frisk argued that it was necessary to
concentrate this type of policing in high-crime areas, which just
so happened to be in poor, minority neighborhoods.  But Judge
Scheindlin said in her 195-page decision that the policy was one
of "indirect racial profiling," which was both "demeaning and
humiliating" for communities where minorities resided.

An article in the Washington Post defined stop-and-frisk as an
NYPD policy which permits officers to detain, question, and
search pedestrians if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the
person has committed a crime, is in the process of committing a
crime, or will soon commit one.  The piece goes on to provide
statistics showing the disproportionate application of the
policy.

According to the Public Advocate's office report, there were
532,911 stops made in New York in 2012. (The previous year came
in at 685,724.) Of those stops in 2012, 53 percent of those
persons were black, while 31 percent were Hispanic.  New York
City's population, however, was only 25 percent black and 29
percent Hispanic.

New York City's current mayor, Bill de Blasio, campaigned to
reduce the crime rate as he greatly opposed stop-and-frisk.
According to Politico, Mayor de Blasio claimed that his
administration kept its promise and solved the problem.  The
report that the outlet had already published indicated that the
number of stops that occurred between early 2012 and late 2013
dropped by 94 percent.  The mayor, however, did not take office
until 2014, but the crime rate has steadily declined during his
tenure. [GN]


NORTH HIGHLAND: Fails to Pay All Wages, "Boose" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE BOOSE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee"
on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. THE
NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY, a Georgia corporation; TRUEBRIDGE
RESOURCES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC685662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related relief under
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other
similarly situated current and former California-based hourly
workers, including but not limited to, project managers, business
analysts, and program managers, for unpaid wages and other
related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged
failures to pay all wages for all hours worked, provide all rest
and meal periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay
final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete.

North Highland is a worldwide, employee-owned management
consulting firm established in 1992 and a founding member of
Cordence Worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


NORTHERN CONCRETE: Morgan's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach entered a decision and order in the
lawsuit styled DWAYNE MORGAN, et al. v. NORTHERN CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01283-WCG (E.D. Wisc.):

   -- denying the expedited motion for leave to file a second
      amended complaint filed by Named Plaintiffs Dwayne Morgan,
      Clint Robinson, Paul Robinson, Michael Owens, Marques
      Stewart, Cornelius Buford, Shaun Saunders, Daunte Davis and
      Kendall Holmes.  The Plaintiffs are directed to advise the
      Court and counsel for Northern Concrete whether Davis' per
      diem claim should be dismissed for failure to prosecute
      within the next 10 days;

   -- granting the Named Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification as to the travel time class and denying as to
      the per diem class.  The travel time class is certified as
      follows:

      All individuals referred to Northern Concrete by CSW who
      traveled from out of state to work for Northern Concrete in
      Wisconsin;

   -- approving the Named Plaintiffs' proposed notice form and
      proposed consent form for the travel time class, subject to
      certain correction.  Members of the conditional class shall
      have 45 days from the mailing of the notice to opt into
      this action; and

   -- directing Northern Concrete to produce within 10 days of
      the date of the order a list, in an electronic importable
      format, containing the names and addresses of all
      individuals referred to Northern Concrete by CSW, who
      worked on a Northern Concrete jobsite in Wisconsin on or
      after September 26, 2013.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ufwa8qk3


NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Sued Over Dilapidated Housing Complex
-----------------------------------------------------------
Markeshia Ricks, writing for New Haven Independent, reports that
the city and the owners of the dilapidated Church Street South
housing complex have presented a united front when it comes to
redeveloping the site.  But when it comes to taxes and how much
the owners should pay, they've essentially told each other, "I'll
see you in court!"

Northland Investment Corp., the Boston-based owner of the soon-
to-be-demolished 301-unit subsidized apartment complex across
from the train station, has taken the city to court over its most
recent tax assessment.

It is one of at least four lawsuits moving their way through
state courts to resolve unfinished business with New Haven's
biggest housing and public-health emergency in years.

Northland, doing business under the name Church Street New Haven
LLC, is appealing the assessed value of six parcels comprising
the sprawling complex that deteriorated so badly that officials
ordered it cleared out in order to protect tenants' lives.  The
company has asked a judge to do what the city's Board of
Assessment Appeals refused to do last spring -- lower the tax
bill.

After allowing the apartment complex to fall into such disrepair
that it was forced to find new homes for its tenants, Northland
argues in its court filing that the six parcels with the
crumbling buildings are worth less than what the city says they
are. The filing doesn't specify how much less the company believe
it's worth.

Years-Long Relocation Nears End
The land could be worth a lot more once the complex is torn down
to make way for a bigger mixed-use development, which Northland
and the city are looking to team up on raising financing to
build.  But for now the process of relocating tenants has taken
two years, and 11 families remain.

City housing authority Executive Director Karen DuBois-Walton
said 260 families used the emergency opportunity to take their
government subsidy to a landlord who would accept it.  The
majority of the families -- 229 to be exact -- remain within the
housing authority's jurisdiction as renters under the federal
Section 8 rental subsidy program, Ms. DuBois-Walton said.

She said of the 11 remaining families, five have opted to remain
on a project-based subsidy like they had at Church Street South,
meaning the subsidy is tied to a location, not a family.

"Northland works with [U.S. Housing and Urban Development] to
identify landlords where the subsidy can be transferred,"
Ms. DuBois-Walton said.  "We are not handling those."

Three families with tenant-based vouchers are waiting for their
new unit to pass an inspection before they can sign a lease and
three are still looking for a place to live.  Northland worked a
deal with HUD that allowed it to transfer 82 of its project-based
units to another federally subsidized complex in the city,
Beechwood Gardens on Whalley Avenue.

Worth Less?
Back in October 2016, the city said that the following parcels at
Church Street South had the following values:

   * 1 Tower Lane, fair market value: $596,200; assessed value:
$417,340
   * 86 South Orange St., fair market value: $3,118,500; assessed
value: $2,182,950
   * 91 Columbus Ave., fair market value: $1,198,500; assessed
value: $838,950
   * 94 Columbus Ave., fair market value: $2,148,000; assessed
value: $1,503,600
   * 89 Union Ave., fair market value: $1,292,000; assessed
value: $904,400
   * 169 Union Ave., fair market value: $1,386,400; assessed
value: $970, 480

Northland filed an appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals this
past April "claiming to be aggrieved by the actions of the
Assessors," according to the suit filed in Superior Court in June
by attorney Michael D. Reiner.  The board denied the appeal,
prompting Northland to seek relief from the court.

For each of the six parcels, Mr. Reiner wrote, "The valuation of
this property placed thereon by the assessors was not that
percentage of its true and actual value on the Assessment Date
but was grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful.

"The applicant appeals from the action and ruling of the Board of
Assessment Appeals and prays that the valuation of this property
on the Assessment date be reduced to 70 percent of its true and
actual value," he further wrote.

When contacted on Jan. 2, attorney Reiner said that he is not
authorized to discuss anything about the case.  The court filings
don't say what Northland thinks the "true and actual" value of
the parcels are. Pretrial conferences are slated for April and
May, according to the state's judicial website.

City spokesman Laurence Grotheer said in a statement, "It is both
the policy and practice of the City of New Haven to withhold
comment on matters about which there is pending litigation."

From Plaintiff To Defendant

Meanwhile, lawsuits against Northland/Church Street New Haven
continue to wind their way through the court system.

In November 2016, a class action suit was filed against Northland
by attorney David Rosen on behalf of nearly 100 Church Street
South tenants and in many cases their children.  It was
transferred from the Superior Court in New Haven to Waterbury in
early 2017 (where a New Haven judge, Linda Lager, is assigned to
the case). Court records show that it is headed for a status
conference near the end of January.

A plaintiff in the class action suit, Margret Brodie, has a
separate slip and fall case pending against Northland.  She
alleges that on Feb. 15, 2015, Northland's failure to remove snow
and ice caused her to fall and injure her right ankle, her spine
and both her hands. She argues in the complaint that not only did
she incur medical costs but it diminished her ability to work.
Northland's response: Prove it.

As part of its special defense, Northland's attorneys wrote,
"Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any were caused by her own
comparative negligence and, therefore, her recovery is barred or
must be proportionately reduced in that: 1. she failed to keep a
lookout; 2. she failed to exercise reasonable care for her own
safety under the circumstances there and existing; and 3. she
failed to observe and avoid the alleged defect, the existence of
which is denied."

Northland made a cross-claim against the company that it had
contracted to handle ice and snow removal, All-Around Home
improvement.  Northland argues that if Brodie is determined by
the court to be owed damages, the contractor should be the one
made to pay up. Brodie's case is scheduled for jury selection and
trial in May, according to court records.

A separate suit filed by a former tenant named Reuben Negron and
his family, who lived at 34 Cinque Green in Church Street South,
is also moving ahead in Waterbury Superior Court.  Three expert
witnesses recently submitted testimony to the court that they had
inspected the apartment and found conditions of water damage and
mold as had been reported by the city's anti-blight agency,
Livable City Initiative, and the tenants.

Master Code Professional Mark Tebbets told the court that he
inspected Negron's former apartment back in July: "I was allowed
access to only unit 15-B, however, the entire building appeared
to be in poor condition.  The extent of the deficiencies found in
this one unit would indicate that the entire building was more
than likely in the same extremely poor condition."

He went on to write, "Every room in unit 15-B showed signs of
deterioration, broken sheetrock, evidence of water leakage from
the roof or wall infiltration and a prevalence of mold on the
interior of walls.  Inspection of the bathroom showed improper
plumbing repairs of the drainage system and multiple repairs
which appear to be done at various times.

"All of the violations observed appeared to have existed for a
considerable length of time," he further wrote.

A hearing is scheduled for Negron's case is set for March; jury
selection and trial is set to start in April.

Northland has yet to file a response to that suit. [GN]


OREGON: Discovery in Class Suit Against Prison Doctors Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Robert W.
Snider. The case is styled as Chandra Loveland, Individually and
On Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Dr. Robert W. Snider, Personally; Dr. S. Shelton, Personally;
and D. Brown, Personally, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01884-
AC (D. Oreg., Nov. 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.

On Nov. 28, 2017, Judge Acosta entered a Discovery and Pretrial
Scheduling Order, providing that:

     -- Discovery is to be completed by March 28, 2018.

     -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by
        April 27, 2018.

     -- Pretrial Order is due by April 27, 2018.

Dr. Robert W. Snider, Dr. Steve Shelton and Dave Brown are
medical administrators at Coffee Creek Correctional Institution
in Wilsonville, Oregon's lone women's prison.

According to an April 2017 report by The Oregonian, the
physicians have been the subject of lawsuits by inmates claiming
they were sexually abused while at prison.  The report also said
that earlier in 2017, the state agreed to pay $175,000 to a
former inmate who alleged Dr. Snider sexually abused her during a
gynecological exam in 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN
          4711 SW Huber Street, Suite E-3
          Portland, OR 97219
          Telephone: (503) 516 3715
          Facsimile: (815) 642 9117
          E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com


PALATINE, IL: Collins Ruling Ammunition for Defendants
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew H. Bunn, Esq. -- MHBunn@duanemorris.com -- of Duane
Morris LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that class actions
are vexing for defendants. The exposure can be large and the
litigation can become very complex.  One way to defeat a class
action is on statute of limitations grounds.  However, in the
seminal case on statutes of limitations in the class action
context, American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538
(1974), the Supreme Court held when a plaintiff files a complaint
on behalf of a proposed class, and where certification is denied
because of the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that "the class
is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable,"
the statute of limitations for the claim is tolled for each
member of the class. Id. at 552-53.  There, the Supreme Court
held the commencement of the original class suit tolled the
running of the statute of limitations for all purported members
of the class who timely moved to intervene after the district
court found the suit was inappropriate for class action status.
Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983),
the Supreme Court held the same tolling rule applies to class
members who choose to file separate suits.  But neither opinion
addressed whether tolling continues in other contexts, such as
during the pendency of an appeal after the suit is dismissed or
when class certification is denied. In other words, when does
tolling stop?

In Collins v. Village of Palatine, No. 16-3395, (7th Cir. 2017),
the Seventh Circuit addressed whether a dismissal with prejudice
strips a case of its class-action character, thereby restarting
the clock on the statute of limitations.  Collins concerned a
class action against the Village of Palatine for violations of
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act by placing parking tickets on
individuals' cars that displayed an individual's personal
information.  The district court entered summary judgment for the
Village on the first class representative's suit and denied the
motion for class certification as moot.  When the next class
representative, Collins, tried to revive the class action, the
Village moved to dismiss arguing Collins's claim was time-barred
because the statute of limitations resumed when the district
court dismissed the first lawsuit with prejudice.

Following American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal, the Seventh
Circuit discussed how circuit courts have held the tolling of the
statute of limitations for a class action ceases when the
district court denies class certification or dismisses an
uncertified class action without prejudice.  The Seventh Circuit
addressed the question of whether it matters for tolling purposes
whether a suit is dismissed with prejudice or not.  The court
held it does not matter because upon dismissal, the parties are
on notice that they must take steps to protect their rights.
Accordingly, the court adopted the uniform rule that the statute
of limitations, though tolled upon the filing of a class action,
immediately resumes when an uncertified class claim is dismissed
with or without prejudice.

Overall, the Collins decision adds ammunition to the tool bag for
parties defending class action lawsuits.  If a defendant can
obtain a quick dismissal with prejudice on a non-meritorious
class claim, then the statute of limitations will continue to run
and the clock will add pressure to the class members.  Class
action defendants should add Collins to their arsenal. [GN]


PARKWAY TROPICS: Former Exotic Dancer Files Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Agar, writing for Mlive, reports that a former dancer at
Parkway Tropics, an adult nightclub, says she and other dancers
relied only on tips for wages, and were illegally required to
share those gratuities with doormen, DJs and other non-tipped
workers

Ashley Cavazos filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action
status against the club and its owner, Edward Sayfie.

She said that Parkway Tropics mis-classified dancers as
independent contractors, instead of employees, and failed to
provide dancers minimum wage and other benefits they were
entitled to under state and federal laws.

They were also illegally forced to share about 35 percent of
their tips, as "rent," with other workers, attorney Robert
Alvarez wrote in the lawsuit.

Mr. Sayfie did not respond to messages seeking comment.

A similar lawsuit against Deja vu nightclubs, on behalf of 28,000
exotic dancers across the country, was settled last year for $6.5
million in U.S District Court in Detroit, the Detroit Free Press
reported.

Dancers had to pay "rent" and share tips, essentially paying to
do their work at the clubs.

Parkway Tropics, once a topless club, has been a "bikini club"
since 2006, when Grand Rapids enacted an ordinance regulating
sexually oriented businesses. Cavasos worked there beginning in
2007, the lawsuit said.

Mr. Alvarez wrote that exotic dancers, classified as independent
contractors, did not receive any wages.  Instead, they relied on
gratuities. Then, they had to share tips with other workers,
including managers, doormen, floor walkers and disc jockeys.

They were threatened with retaliation if they tried to assert
employment rights, Mr. Alvarez wrote.

"Defendants knew or should have known that the business model
employed was unlawful as applicable laws confirm that all money
given to dancers by patrons was defined as a gratuity and the
sole property of the dancer," Mr. Alvarez wrote.

He said that dancers were not considered professional performers
or artists exempt from labor laws.

"The exotic dancing performed by Class members while working at
the Parkway Tropics Nightclub does not require invention,
imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic
endeavor, and Class members have never been compensated by
Defendants on a set salary, wage, or fee basis," Alvarez wrote.

"Rather, Class members' sole source of income while working at
the Parkway Tropics Nightclub were tips given them by patrons."

He said tips should have belonged solely to dancers.

Mr. Alvarez said dancers were illegally coerced to waive their
legal rights and "elect to be treated as independent contractors.
Defendants threaten to penalize and discriminate against dancers
in the Class if they assert their statutory rights such as
through termination and the confiscation of all dance tips, among
other adverse conditions and retaliations."

The club imposes strict rules on dancers regarding work
schedules, breaks and requirements to help sell drinks. If late
or absent, they are subject to a fine, penalty or reprimand, the
lawsuit said.

It said dancers are watched closely and required to pay part of
each dance tip to the club as "rent."

It typically amounts to around 35 percent of their tip.

The lawsuit seeks back pay and a refund of tips that were shared,
along with damages and penalties.  The lawsuit is seeking class-
action status for more than 100 workers, including current
dancers and those who performed over the past
three years. [GN]


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: $2.9B Settlement Sets Records
--------------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Skroupa, writing for Forbes.com, reports that
after a little more than three years of litigation, Petrobras,
the largest natural gas and oil company in Brazil, entered into a
settlement agreement to pay $2.95 billion to shareholders as a
result of a securities class action filed against the company in
December of 2014.

Filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, this class action case set records across multiple
fronts, such as being the largest class action involving a non-
U.S. -issuer and -lead plaintiff.  Making its way to being the
fifth largest class action settlement ever achieved in the United
States, the proposed settlement will be paid in three equal
installments over the course of the next year.

"Universities Superannuation Scheme, the largest private pension
fund in the United Kingdom, diligently prosecuted this case as
lead plaintiff to assist in securing a stunning sum in monetary
damages for defrauded investors," says Jennifer Pafiti, Partner
at Pomerantz LLP and one of the attorneys representing the class
of defrauded investors.

In line with significant losses to investors, the loss of
billions of dollars in kickbacks, as well as tens of billions of
dollars in overstated assets, were also a part of this "scheme."
"The scandal involved a decades-long kickback and money-
laundering scheme which has ensnared former executives of the
company, as well as two former presidents of Brazil and at least
1/3 of Brazilian Congress," states Ms. Pafiti.

Among it's record-breaking results, this class action stands out
from others because, given its size, "there were a number of opt-
outs," explains Pafiti.  "One attraction for an investor to opt-
out of a class action is to attempt to achieve a recovery with a
premium over that achieved had the investor remained a passive
class member."

She continues, "Here, based on the charges taken by Petrobras
relating to the opt-out settlements to date, this class
settlement represents a significant premium over the settlement
of the individual actions on a pro rata basis."

Pomerantz's achievement is also significant for the precedent-
setting decisions achieved during the litigation. During the
class action, defendants appealed to the Southern District of New
York court's opinion certifying classes of both purchasers of
Petrobras equity and debt on multiple grounds, including failures
to satisfy the requirement of ascertainability, and failure to
satisfy the burden of showing that the Petrobras securities
traded in efficient markets -- both of which were rejected by the
court

"In addition, throughout the course of this litigation,
plaintiffs achieved important precedents at the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals," said Jeremy Lieberman, Co-Managing Partner at
Pomerantz, who oversees the litigation regarding Petrobras,
"regarding the ascertainability requirement during class
certification, as well as the utility of event studies for
establishing predominance in securities class actions."

Lieberman continued, "These precedents will form the bedrock of
class action jurisprudence in the Second Circuit for decades to
come. Simply put, this litigation and its ultimate resolution
have yielded an excellent result for the Class."

While Petrobras agreed to the settlement, a statement from their
website on Jan. 3rd, 2018 explains that:

"The agreement does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing or
misconduct by Petrobras.  In the agreement, Petrobras expressly
denies liability.  This reflects its status as a victim of the
acts uncovered by Operation Car Wash, as recognized by Brazilian
authorities including the Brazilian Supreme Court.  As a victim
of the scheme, Petrobras has already recovered $1.475 billion in
restitution in Brazil, and will continue to pursue all available
legal remedies from culpable companies and individuals."

Satisfied with the result of the litigation, Ms. Pafiti says,
"The settlement also serves as a reminder to companies, both
foreign and domestic, who raise money by issuing stock on a U.S.
exchange that when it comes to corporate misconduct, their
investors will be afforded the protection provide by the U.S.'s
robust securities fraud laws." [GN]


PPG INDUSTRIES: Union Retirees Get ERISA Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
David Pryzbylski, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that retiree benefits are a huge issue for
many employers -- from pure economic cost to administrative
burdens.  Accordingly, some companies have moved to limit or cut
such benefits entirely. Of course, when doing so, companies need
to navigate various legal issues, including under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and, to the extent a union
is in the picture, the National Labor Relations Act and/or Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA).  A federal court decision this
month illustrates some of the complexities a company may
encounter when attempting to reduce or eliminate retiree benefit
costs.

In a case that was initiated against PPG Industries, Inc. back in
2005, numerous retirees of various unions -- including the United
Steelworkers and United Automobile Workers -- allege that PPG
violated ERISA and the LMRA by breaching collective bargaining
agreements that provided lifetime health insurance benefits to
the retirees with the company bearing the full cost of the
benefits.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that PPG violated
the agreements by shifting some of the cost away from the company
and to the retirees. On Jan. 5, the plaintiffs scored a win when
a federal judge certified the plaintiffs as a class.  That is,
the lawsuit is formally progressing as a class action.

PPG is hardly the only company facing litigation like this.  For
example, just last year the Steelworkers union secured a victory
when it defeated a motion to dismiss and forced a company to
arbitration over claims the employer slashed benefits for
retirees in violation of a labor agreement.

Accordingly, companies considering or implementing modifications
to retiree benefits must thoroughly account for the myriad of
legal issues that may be implicated by such changes.  Developing
a thoughtful strategy around the various laws in play may help
limit possible legal obstacles or exposure. [GN]


PRATT & WHITNEY: Acreage Residents Seek Cancer Case Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that in a
request jet-engine-maker Pratt & Whitney described as
"unprecedented," a federal judge on Jan. 8 was asked to declare
all 50,000 residents of The Acreage as potential beneficiaries of
a lawsuit that accuses the military contractor of releasing
cancer-causing toxins into the soil north of the sprawling
community.

"It's absurd to suggest an area of 60 square miles, with 18,000
properties and 50,000 people is in the vicinity" of Pratt's
operations, which at the closest point are 6 miles away, said
Chicago attorney Sean Gallagher, who represents the international
company that has a plant on the Beeline Highway.

Further, he said, there is no evidence chemicals used to test and
manufacture jet engines migrated 6 miles -- much less 20 miles to
reach homes in the southernmost part of The Acreage.  He also
insisted there is no evidence Pratt's work can be blamed for a
spike in cancer that in 2010 prompted state health officials to
designate the community as a pediatric brain cancer cluster.

"The theory is unprecedented and unworkable," Mr. Gallagher told
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra of the sweeping request.

His comments came on the opening day of what is expected to be a
five-day hearing to help Marra decide whether to give class-
action status to a lawsuit that claims Pratt's actions destroyed
property values in the rural community north of Royal Palm Beach.
The stigma of owning property in a community that is home to a
cancer cluster caused property values to plummet 25 percent to 40
percent, a real estate agent testified.

In opening statements, attorneys representing homeowners said the
designation and resulting collapse of home prices -- caused by
Pratt's negligence -- affected all Acreage residents.  Giving the
lawsuit class-action status would save time and money, said
Jacksonville attorney Bryan Gowdy, who represents homeowners.
Otherwise, thousands of Acreage residents could file individual
lawsuits, clogging up the courts for years, he said.

West Palm Beach attorney Mara Hatfield, who also represents
residents, described the issue differently. "It's about community
harm," she told Judge Marra.  "You drop something in the water
and it ripples out."

Not only have property values failed to keep pace with
surrounding communities, but many Acreage residents no longer use
their well water, fearing it is contaminated, she said.  "How on
Earth would you remedy this situation without communal relief?"
she asked.

Hatfield also represents dozens of residents in separate lawsuits
who blame Pratt for cancers that destroyed their lives or claimed
the lives of loved ones. Those suits will be tried separately.

Judge Marra's decision on whether to grant class-action status
only impacts the lawsuit that accuses Pratt of destroying
property values.  Further, he won't decide whether the residents'
claims are valid.  That will be up to a jury to decide at a later
date.

However, the proceedings promise to offer a detailed looked at
the claims against Pratt as well as its defense.  Experts will
testify about real-estate values, soil contamination, how toxins
get into ground water and whether the Florida Health Department's
designation of the cancer cluster was valid.

Gallagher suspects it wasn't.  "Statisticians say there was not a
statistically valid showing of a cancer cluster," he said.  "You
can appear to have statistically significant results that do not
have a causal relationship."

After eight months of investigation, state officials in February
2010 designated the area as a pediatric brain-cancer cluster
after finding 13 children had been diagnosed with brain or
central nervous system cancers from 1993 to 2008.  Additionally,
three children developed similar cancers from 2005 to 2007 --
more than twice the number expected. Four additional children
were diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008 and one in 2009.

As is typical with most cancer clusters throughout the nation, no
cause was found.  Later tests revealed well water that residents
depend on was safe to drink.

Still, since federal environmental officials once threatened to
designate Pratt's 7,000-acre compound as a Superfund site, it
quickly became a prime suspect for those searching for answers.
Emails Hatfield uncovered show the company has used radioactive
materials.

Hatfield also claims Pratt didn't properly monitor trucking
companies that were hired to haul contaminated soil to a special
facility for processing. Instead, she claims, trucks simply
dumped it in The Acreage where it was used as fill for home
construction. The toxins slowly made their way into the
groundwater, she said.

Mr. Gallagher blasted what he called "a conspiracy among
truckers." Such claims, he said, are baseless. "Truckers all deny
it. Documents belie it," he told Judge Marra.

He further dismissed her theories of what he called "an imagined
super highway" that delivered toxins to Acreage backyards.
Traveling at an estimated 20 feet a year, the contaminants
couldn't have reached the community, he said. [GN]


PRATT & WHITNEY: Expert Disputes Cancer Cluster Hurt Home Values
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that an
analysis that shows property values in The Acreage plummeted when
state health officials in February 2010 declared the rural area
home to a pediatric brain cancer cluster is flawed, a real estate
expert told a federal judge on Jan. 9.

Testifying on behalf of Pratt & Whitney, which disputes claims
that its jet manufacturing operation contaminated groundwater
supplies with carcinogens, real estate appraiser Thomas Jackson
debunked an analysis that found property values in the sprawling
community fell 25 to 40 percent and have yet to recover.

"There's too much diversity," Mr. Jackson testified.  "You just
can't lump all these properties together.  It would be misleading
and improper to do that."

The hearing, that began on Jan. 8 and was to wrap up Jan. 12, is
to help U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra determine whether all
50,000 residents of the 60-square-mile rural community can be
potential beneficiaries of what would become a class-action
lawsuit.  Attorneys representing residents claim Pratt & Whitney
should pay homeowners damages for depressing their property
values.

In addition to contesting its role in the cancer cluster, the
defense contractor says the proposed area is too big and parts
too far removed from its operation off the Bee Line Highway to be
included in a class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Jackson, president of a Texas company that specializes in
analyzing real estate that may have been contaminated, said there
are various reasons property values in The Acreage may not have
kept pace with nearby communities such as Jupiter Farms and Palm
Beach Country Estates.

Like other neighborhoods throughout the nation, home prices
dropped when the housing bubble burst beginning in 2006. Further,
he said, more homes in The Acreage fell into foreclosure than
those in the other two communities.  Homes in foreclosure
typically sell for a lower price, he said.

Further, he said, a review showed the square footage price of
homes in The Acreage has recently increased more than those in
Jupiter Farms or Palm Beach Country Estates.

Attorney Jack Scarola, who represents homeowners, suggested home
prices dropped in 2008 when word began circulating about the
number of children diagnosed with brain cancer The Acreage.  It
wasn't until two years later that the Florida Department of
Health confirmed that there was a higher incident of pediatric
brain and central nervous system cancers than expected.  As is
typical in other designated cancer clusters nationwide, no cause
was found. [GN]


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 9 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
Southern District of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:17-cv-
03918, on behalf of stockholders of Repros Therapeutics Inc.
("Repros" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RPRX) who held Repros
securities and have been harmed by Repros and its board of
directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections
14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the tender offer of
Company common stock to be purchased by Allergan plc
("Allergan").

Under the terms of the agreement, Repros stockholders are only
anticipated to receive $0.67 per share in cash in exchange for
each share of Repros.  The complaint alleges that this offer is
inadequate and alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation
Statement") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's financials and the transaction,
in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. In particular, the 14D-9 contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for the Company; and (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated ("Stifel"), in support of their fairness
opinions.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from January 9, 2018.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. [GN]


RJ REYNOLDS: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in Graham Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal for two
tobacco manufacturers related to legal rulings involving Engle
progeny smokers' lawsuits.

As a result, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA face
a combined $825,000 in judgments to Earl Graham, husband of the
late Faye Graham.

The manufacturers submitted their petition for writ of certiorari
Sept. 15.  Reynolds declined to comment on the ruling.

A writ typically is submitted when there are conflicting rulings
in lower courts, such as state Supreme Courts.  At least four
justices have to agree to hear a petition to move it forward.

Engle progeny lawsuits sprang from a decision in 2006 by the
Florida Supreme Court that decertified a $145 billion class-
action lawsuit initially filed by Howard Engle.  The ruling
limits former class members to filing individual lawsuits stating
that cigarettes caused their respective illnesses.

On May 23, the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a
case involving Faye Graham, an original member of the Engle
class-action lawsuit.  Her husband was awarded a $550,000
judgment from Reynolds and $275,000 from Philip Morris, with the
jury finding Faye Graham 70 percent at fault for her illness.

The appeals court ruled that previous Engle progeny rulings are
allowed as evidence in current and future trials.

The manufacturers' appeal was based primarily on their request
for clarity on whether previous court rulings should be allowed
as evidence, as well as whether their due process has been
compromised.

"While the class put on evidence of myriad purported negligent
acts and defects, the jury never identified what act it found
negligent or what defect it found, making it impossible to tell
what conduct and which cigarettes, over what time frame, it had
condemned," the manufacturers argued.

If current and future Engle progeny trials can rely on previous
rulings, rather than having to produce their own evidence of
harm, "defendants are thus barred from contesting the core basis
of their own liability," the petition said.

"If the Engle jury's findings are deemed to establish that all
cigarettes are inherently defective, are claims based on those
findings preempted by the many federal statutes that manifested
Congress' intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in
the United States?" the petition asked.

Ed Sweda Jr., a senior attorney with Northeastern University
School of Law, said the decision not to hear the appeal "is a big
victory for Engle plaintiffs and their attorneys."

"This makes litigating these (potential 8,000) Engle progeny
cases much easier than if the plaintiff lawyers had to re-prove
these issues in each individual case." Mr. Sweda said.

There have been about 300 Engle progeny trials over the past 10
years, he said, with about 200 of them resulting in plaintiff
verdicts with compensatory and punitive damages typically in the
range of $1 million to $5 million.

In January 2016, a three-judge appellate-court panel vacated an
April 2015 ruling that said Engle plaintiffs must prove that the
cigarettes they or relatives smoked were defective in order to
receive damages.  The judges ruled that allowing previous legal
evidence was akin to a ban on cigarettes, an authority granted
only to Congress.

The majority of the 10 appellate judges for the 11th Circuit said
in a 284-page ruling that they disagree with the manufacturers'
argument that federal law pre-empts Engle jury findings and that
allowing prior trial evidence would violate the due-process
clauses in the U.S. Constitution.

Philip Morris, Reynolds and Lorillard Inc. agreed in February
2015 to settle nearly all Engle progeny lawsuit cases, estimated
at 415, that are either pending or not yet tried in Florida
federal courts.  Philip Morris and Reynolds each paid $42.5
million to resolve those cases, while Lorillard paid $15 million.
[GN]


ROYAL BANK: Vange Consulting Files Class Action Over Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Crump, writing for Law360, reports that a consultancy
that recruited Royal Bank of Scotland PLC shareholders to join a
class action lawsuit against the bank over its 2008 rights issue
has sued the investors for a slice of the GBP200 million ($271
million) settlement they won from the lender in 2017.

Vange Consulting Ltd. said in court documents seen by Law360 on
Jan. 8 that it is owed around GBP1 million in fees from the RBS
shareholder action group.


SACRAMENTO BASKETBALL: April 12 Case Conference in "Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sacramento Downtown Arena
LLC.  The case is styled as Austin Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sacramento Basketball Holdings GP LLC, Sacramento Basketball
Holdings LLC, Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC, Sacramento Kings LTD
and Does 1 to 100, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00220226-CU-
OE-GDS, (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 11, 2017). The case has been
assigned to Department 39.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court entered an Order setting the Case
Management Conference - Case Management Program for April 12,
2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 39 at Gordon D Schaber
Courthouse.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galen T Shimoda, Esq.
     SHIMODA LAW CORP
     9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
     Elk Grove, CA 95624
     E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Wickham Securities Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a lawsuit
alleging bungled oversight of infamous Brisbane property lender
Wickham Securities, which collapsed amid a $27 million fraud, has
quietly settled.

The settlement ends a three-year lawsuit targeting Sandhurst
Trustees, an arm of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, for its oversight
of Wickham.  Sandhurst has previously denied failing to exercise
its duties.

It also marks the latest settlement of a class-action entangling
corporate Australia, with insurer QBE acceding to a peace deal
last month after being sued over a large profit downgrade.

Wickham had used investor funds for high-interest loans to
developers on projects from Kingaroy to Adelaide.

But 300 self-funded retirees had their investments smashed when
Wickham, part of convicted fraudster and financial planner Brad
Sherwin's operation, collapsed in December 2012 amid a larger
Ponzi scheme.

Class action lawyers Shine in 2015 had filed a lawsuit with the
lead plaintiffs being Graeme and Marion Clarke, whose
superannuation fund had $220,000 invested in Wickham.

The case alleged a trustee acting properly would have picked up
on problems.

Court documents show the examples of problems included that
Wickham had created a fake document, purporting $10.8 million was
in a bank account when in reality only $264,000 was there.
Wickham also failed to keep accurate loan records, the statement
of claim said.

Sandhurst had defended the action and almost two months' worth of
hearings had been set aside for later this year.

But The Courier-Mail can reveal a court order issued late last
month states that "the proceeding has settled" following an
agreement reached on December 22.  The settlement still needs to
Federal Court approval.

Bendigo confirmed the settlement but said the agreement's details
were confidential. Shine said it could not reach any lawyers and
was unable to comment.

That court order came less than two weeks after rumours of a
settlement, which both sides denied at the time.

No (there is not settlement), the matter is still progressing
towards hearing in 2018 as planned," a Shine spokeswoman said at
the time.

The case also comes with litigation funder JustKapital, which had
backed the Shine action, this month telling the stockmarket one
of its cases was to settle in the Federal Court and JustKapital
would book revenue of $3 million.  JustKapital declined to
specify whether this was the same action.

Wickham's chief executive Garth Robertson in 2016 copped a five-
year sentence, suspended after 20 months, for defrauding
investors and providing false information to Sandhurst.

Sherwin, who was Wickham's chairman, was last year sentenced to
10 years in jail for fraud. He was also a financial planner and,
including Wickham, almost $60 million was lost when associated
companies also failed.

Among the agreed statement of facts in his criminal case included
that Sherwin had arranged the transfer of client funds to Wickham
without their approval.

The settlement leaves one large lawsuit outstanding: a class
action from Quinn Emanuel lawyers against Bank of Queensland and
fund manager DDH, which handled BoQ accounts.

It alleges the companies failed to pick up on warning signs about
Sherwin-linked fraud. BoQ and DDH are defending the matter. [GN]


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. (NYSE: SC) breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders.  On December 20, 2016, investors filed an amended
securities class action complaint against Santander for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that Santander misclassified loans held by the company
and applied an incorrect discount rate to the company's troubled
debt restructurings, causing it to understate its allowance for
credit losses.  Because of the company's violations of generally
accepted accounting principles, Santander materially overstated
its net income, resulting in multiple restatements covering
fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and the quarters within those
periods.  Before the market became aware of these overstatements
and while Santander's stock price was artificially inflated,
Santander's Chief Executive Officer resigned and cashed out his
entire 10% ownership for approximately $928 million.  On
January 3, 2018, the Honorable Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division denied
Santander's motion to dismiss.

Santander Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com
or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

                     About Robbins Arroyo LLP

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits. [GN]


SCANA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over V.C. Summer Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
SCANA asked a judge on Jan. 8 to dismiss five class-action
lawsuits filed by ratepayers against the Cayce-based utility
company over its handling of the failed $9 billion nuclear
project at V.C. Summer station.

The utility company's attorneys argued the lawsuits should not be
decided in circuit court, but in front of the South Carolina
Public Service Commission -- the state's utility regulators.

"You lack the experience of the PSC," James Becker, an attorney
with Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd representing the utility, told
Circuit Judge John C. Hayes.  "Let it play out in the PSC.  Let
it play out in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court."

The hearing, which was held in Richland County Court, is only the
latest dispute to arise in the wake of the $9 billion nuclear
cancellation in Fairfield County.  The state's utility commission
and the state Legislature are also set to deliberate over who
should pay for the costly boondoggle.

During an hours-long presentation, Mr. Becker repeatedly cited
the Base Load Review Act, a 2007 state law that allowed SCANA to
charge its 700,000 customers of the now-abandoned nuclear
reactors before they were finished.  SCANA, he said, "followed
the law to the letter."

SCANA's former general counsel, Belton Zeigler, helped write the
Base Load Review Act more than a decade ago as an attorney for
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

That utility-friendly law, Mr. Becker argued, mandates that any
disputes over the nuclear project be handled in front of the
state's seven utility regulators and that any action by the
circuit court would be a "frontal assault" on the PSC decisions.

It remains unclear whether the state utility commissioners will
get a chance to decide whether SCANA or its customers continue to
pay for the unfinished reactors near Jenkinsville.  Several
lawmakers called for the state's current regulators to resign
following a Post and Courier investigation that highlighted
dozens of utility-funded conference trips that those officials
took over the past five years.

State lawmakers plan to take the matter into their own hands when
they return to Columbia on Jan. 9 for the start of the 2018
legislative session.  Many senators and representatives want to
strip nearly $37 million a month that SCANA currently collects
from its customers for the cancelled project.

Lawyers from the state Attorney General's office and a number of
law firms representing electric customers disagreed with SCANA's
request to dismiss the cases.

Bob Cook, the state's Solicitor General, argued the Base Load
Review Act was unconstitutional, and said the 2007 law left
customers "out in the cold."

"I don't believe this statute was enacted in the public interest.
I believe it was enacted in the utility's interest," Cook said.
"I don't see where the public has benefited for paying and paying
and paying for a hole in the ground."

Daniel Haltiwanger, an attorney from Richard, Patrick, Westbrook
& Brickman representing ratepayers, argued SCANA electric
customers never got proper notice about the rate increases.  The
law, he said, ensured the utility commission could only "rubber
stamp" SCANA's requests to increase customers monthly bills.

Judge Hayes sat quietly for most of the day taking in the
arguments.  But as the hearing began to wrap up, he asked what
should happen if he rules that the Base Load Review Act is
unconstitutional.

"I don't think there's any question that ratepayers should get
their money back," Mr. Haltiwanger answered.

The judge did not offer a ruling on Jan. 8 and did not indicate
when a decision would be made. [GN]


SETJO LLC: Files Answer to "Willis" Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Setjo, LLC. The
case is captioned as Miashonae T. Willis, On behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Setjo, LLC,
doing business as: Kia of Bedford, In its own name and, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02446-DCN (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 22, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent.

Setjo filed its answer to the Complaint on January 22, 2018.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

Setjo primarily operates in the automobiles, new and used
business/industry within the automotive dealers and gasoline
service stations sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          TITTLE LAW
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza, Ste. 104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973 9000
          Facsimile: (440) 210 4610
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com

               - and -

          Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
          TITTLE LAW
          2012 West 25 Street, Ste. 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308 1522
          Facsimile: (888) 604 9299
          E-mail: tittle@tittlelawfirm.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to an order issued by the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi ("MissPERS"), which is the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated securities
class action styled In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities
Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-06728-JMF (the "Signet Securities
Action") against Signet Jewelers Limited ("Signet" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SIG) and certain of its current and former
senior officers, publishes this notice to clarify that: (1) on
January 7, 2017, the case styled Aydin v. Signet Jewelers
Limited, et. al., No. 17-cv-09853 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Aydin") was
consolidated into the Signet Securities Action, to proceed under
the caption In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities Litigation,
No. 1:16-CV-06728-JMF with MissPERS as the Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead
Counsel; and (2) accordingly, any deadline to seek appointment as
Lead Plaintiff in Aydin has been vacated.  This clarification
corrects information previously published by the law firm Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP on December 15, 2017, which advised that the
deadline for investors to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff
in Aydin was February 13, 2018 (the "December 15, 2017 Notice").

The statutory deadline for any motions seeking appointment in the
consolidated securities class actions on behalf of investors in
Signet securities expired on July 5, 2017.  MissPERS was
appointed as Lead Plaintiff in the Signet Securities Action on
July 27, 2017. Pursuant to the Court's order, any Lead Plaintiff
motions filed in response to the December 15, 2017 Notice will be
untimely and will not be considered by the Court.

The Signet Securities Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged misrepresentations and
omissions concerning: (1) Signet's credit operations, loan
portfolio, and financial condition; and (2) an alleged culture of
rampant sexual harassment at the Company.  As alleged in the
operative complaint, the truth about Signet's loan operation and
credit portfolio first began to be revealed on November 24, 2015,
when the Company reported surprisingly poor financial results due
to deterioration in its credit portfolio.  The truth about
Signet's culture of sexual harassment was first revealed on
February 27, 2017, when The Washington Post published an article
detailing the previously-undisclosed contents of hundreds of
sworn statements attesting to numerous instances of egregious
sexual harassment at the Company.  These and further disclosures
caused the prices of Signet securities to decline significantly,
causing substantial investor losses.

Additional information concerning the pending Signet securities
class actions is available on the Signet Securities Action docket
cited above.  If you wish to discuss this action, you can contact
Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP using the
information provided below.

CONTACT:

          John Rizio-Hamilton
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, New York 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1505
          E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com [GN]


SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING: May Face Suit Over TV License Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carin Smith, writing for fin24tech, reports that South Africa
Broadcasting Corp.'s finances are in such bad shape that it may
well end up unable to meet its financial obligations and this
will have a negative impact on people who have paid their
television licence fees in advance, Advocate Paul Hoffman SC,
director of Accountability Now, said on Jan. 8.

Accountability Now -- a non-profit organisation with Anglican
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as patron -- wants to ensure
that the rule of law is enforced by holding governments,
parastatals and the private sector to account.

Fin24 reported earlier that the SABC informed Parliament it
posted a R977m loss after tax for the 2016/17 financial year.
Its net loss for the year ending March 2017 more than doubled
from R412m in 2016.

In an open letter to SABC chair Bongumusa Makhathini, Mr. Hoffman
refers to a report on the SABC the auditor general delivered to
Parliament last year.

The report stated that the SABC's audited financial statements
for the financial year ended March 31 2017 records R40.854m
"deferred income" (money received for goods or services which
have not yet been delivered) in respect of TV licence fees
received in advance.

In Mr. Hoffman's view, the SABC is financially in such a bad
situation that people who have already paid their TV licence fees
run the risk of being "negatively impacted".

That is why Accountability Now feels those people are entitled to
take steps to protect their "investment in the services of the
SABC".

The organisation regards each person who has paid a TV licence
fee in advance as a concurrent creditor of the SABC with regards
to the "unexpired portion" of the licence fee.

The Companies Act provides for a potential "class action" if it
is contravened.  Accountability Now regards the "millions of law
abiding citizens" who have already paid their TV licence fees in
advance as "affected persons" in terms of the act.

Hoffman, therefore, informs Makhathini in the open letter that
the organisation is "contemplating" a possible class action case
against the SABC on behalf of people who have already paid their
TV licence fees in advance as the organisation deems this to be
in the public interest.

"The SABC will continue to be reliant on government guarantees
for it to continue as a going concern.  That is, the SABC is
unable to sustain its operations from its own resources and is
entirely reliant on state guaranteed funding," Mr. Hoffman said
in the open letter.

"It seems the SABC, already illiquid as its board concedes, is
additionally likely to become insolvent in the short term. Yet it
continues to collect licence fees, annually in advance, thus
increasing concurrent liabilities."

In Accountability Now's view the SABC has not had "a professional
and independent board" for some time and is unlikely to survive
in the absence of further state support -- by way of guarantees
of otherwise. [GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Okays $15-Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stevens, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge has approved a $15 million settlement between
Southwest Airlines and members of a class-action lawsuit who
allege that the company, along with three other airlines,
conspired to limit the number of seats available to customers and
keep ticket prices high.

In a statement, Southwest said the settlement "does not
constitute any admission of wrongdoing" and denied having entered
into any unlawful agreements with its competitors.

The move appeared to represent a break of sorts between Southwest
and the other three defendants named in the lawsuit: American
Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines.  Those companies
have also denied doing anything illegal, and they continue to
fight the allegations.

As part of the agreement preliminarily approved on Jan. 3,
Southwest agreed to make the $15 million cash payment and also to
provide what court documents called "extensive cooperation."

Those cooperative efforts, according to the court documents, will
include a "full account of facts" relevant to the plaintiffs'
case as well as a series of informational meetings and interviews
with industry experts and Southwest employees facilitated by the
company.

"We're entering into this settlement to avoid considerable
distraction and expense of protracted class-action litigation,"
Southwest said in a statement.  "For decades, we have
consistently set our capacity planning with a goal of offering
our lowest fares."

The company did not immediately respond to specific questions
about why it decided to provide information to the plaintiffs and
whether that information would damage the other defendants.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that a conspiracy began
in 2009.

They argue that since then, the cost of airfare with Southwest,
American, Delta, and United -- which they say collectively
controls about 80 percent of domestic passenger seats -- "rose
substantially compared to those of other domestic air carriers,
despite stagnant or decreasing demand and declines in the cost of
jet fuel."

The plaintiffs say airline officials repeatedly assured one
another on earnings calls and at conferences that exercising
"capacity discipline" was good for the industry.  And as a
result, the lawsuit said, "Passengers have been injured by paying
higher airfares and facing reduced flight choices."

"The conduct at issue constitutes a violation of federal
antitrust laws," it continued.

A spokesman for American Airlines said on Jan. 5 that Southwest's
settlement had not changed its position.

"We will continue to defend against the claims which we believe
are without merit," the spokesman, Matt Miller, said.  United
issued a statement that echoed those sentiments almost verbatim.


Delta said it had not engaged in any illegal behavior, adding,
"The assertion that our success is due to anything more than the
hard work of our people is not only ridiculous, it is offensive."

None of the airlines answered specific questions about whether
Southwest's pledge of "extensive cooperation" merited their
concern.

Citing media reports, court documents say that the Justice
Department began investigating "possible unlawful coordination"
between airlines in 2015.

About a week before President Trump took office last January, The
Wall Street Journal reported that despite a lengthy inquiry,
Obama-era Justice Department officials had not found enough
evidence to bring an antitrust case against the airline industry.

The Journal reported at the time that the case had not been
formally closed, but that the odds of one materializing were
minimal.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request
for comment on Jan. 5. [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Tosses Latte Under-filling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinne Purtill, writing for Quartz, reports that a US federal
court has thrown out a class action lawsuit against Starbucks
that alleged that the beverage chain was cheating customers by
under-filling drinks and overdoing it with the foam.

Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles of California filed a class
action suit against the chain in 2016 "on behalf of purchasers of
Starbucks Caffe Lattes, Flavored Lattes, Pumpkin Spice Lattes,
Egg Nog Lattes, Skinny Lattes, Skinny Flavored Lattes, Vanilla
Lattes, and Skinny Vanilla Lattes (collectively, 'Lattes'),"
according to the legal filing.

The plaintiffs charged that Starbucks systematically cheated this
collective of latte purchasers over the years, with drinks
missing as much as 25% of their advertised volume.  It was, the
plaintiffs alleged, part of a scheme to save money on milk, one
of the chain's most expensive ingredients.

The plaintiffs "would not have purchased Starbucks Lattes on the
same terms if the true facts were known concerning the Lattes'
quantity," the complaint stated.  "At an absolute minimum,
Defendant negligently misrepresented and/or negligently omitted
material facts about Starbucks Lattes."

Starbucks countered that milk expands when it steams, and that
their drink volumes meet advertised sizes.  The judge agreed.

This is not the first court to strike down a motion against
Starbucks sizing. In 2016, a California court dismissed a lawsuit
charging Starbucks with fraud and false advertising over the
actual sizes of its iced beverages, a claim that addressed both
the physics of freezing water and the ice-to-liquid ratio in a
Grande Shaken Iced Peach Green Tea Lemonade. [GN]


SYNERGY GLOBAL: Failed to Pay "Hollender" Overtime, Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollender and Michael Quiles, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Synergy Global Forum Inc.,
Alexander Makarov and Oxdelle Joseph, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
10172 (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2017), seeks to recover wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor
Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Synergy Global is in the business of creating and operating
business events around the world. During their employment with
Synergy, Plaintiffs worked 6 days per week without overtime pay.
Defendants also failed to pay Defendants their final payment
including salary and commissions earned from November 16 to
December 5, 2017, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Action Not Certified
----------------------------------------------------
Torstar News Service reports that James Pickersgill would be the
first to tell you he's not a master of social media.  And he
wouldn't exactly call himself an activist, even though he played
a determined role in getting the pretty town of Cobourg, Ont., to
change its bylaws to allow for boulevard gardens.

Mostly he's a "doing good things to help people" kind of guy,
from co-ordinating volunteers to help at a local hospice, to
chairing the committee charged with defining the terms of
reference for the town's poet laureate.

In this latter role, Mr. Pickersgill found himself promoting the
power of poetry by roaming the streets one Valentine's Day,
reading love poems to passersby.  "We were wandering poets," he
says in fond remembrance, adding that poems had been sent from
all over the world, printed up on red paper and taped to local
shop windows.

So on the day when he heard that "this awful thing happened" in
the community he loves, Mr. Pickersgill decided to do something
about it.

The "awful thing" was the news that filtered through kids'
friends and family friends of a notification to staff at the
local Tim Hortons that Mr. Pickersgill frequents.

Owing to the province's increase in minimum wage to $14 an hour
as of Jan. 1, and the further $1-an-hour increase to follow,
staff was informed that workday breaks would no longer be paid.
Thus a nine-hour shift would draw eight hours and 20 minutes of
pay. Certain benefits costs would shift to employees. Certain
incentives were cancelled.

"I was furious," Mr. Pickersgill says.  "I felt betrayed as a Tim
Hortons customer.  These people have bought into the community's
goodwill by saying 'We're significant in the life of the
community.' "

By "these people" he means Ron Joyce Jr., son of Tim Hortons
cofounder Ron Joyce, and Jeri-Lynn Horton-Joyce, daughter of Tim
Horton, who was playing for the Toronto Maple Leafs when he
opened the first doughnut shop in 1964. Ron Joyce Jr. Enterprises
Ltd. is the Cobourg franchisee, noted for its Tim Horton hockey
paraphernalia.

"A real small-town sort of hub," Mr. Pickersgill calls the coffee
shop where he orders his double cream, no sugar. (According to an
unrelated court filing, Ron Joyce Jr. Enterprises Ltd. operates
three Tim Hortons franchises. Two are in Cobourg.)

So Mr. Pickersgill posted an image of the letter, which employees
were asked to sign, on his Facebook page.  "The image I had of
the letter looked amateurish," he says.  "But I was told they
weren't allowed to take it out of the building." So what was
posted was a cellphone snap.

"As soon as I posted it, it took off," he says, adding he sees
himself as a Luddite.  "It's not only what they did, it's the way
they did it.  Did they not see that this would be a public
relations disaster?"

Mr. Pickersgill is a machine operator, nearing retirement, with a
good-paying job in a unionized shop, the kind of job that's
harder and harder to come by.  He was coming off the night shift
when he caught wind of Premier Kathleen Wynne's response to the
growing firestorm.  Ms. Wynne didn't sugar-coat her views in an
interview with CBC News.

"To be blunt," Ms. Wynne said, "I think it's the act of a bully.
And if Mr. Joyce Jr. wants to pick a fight, pick that fight with
me and not the people who are working at the service window of
the stores."

Mr. Pickersgill's response? "Incredible.  Good for her.  I'm so
happy she did that."

Predictably, the story grew and grew. More than one Cobourg
resident has stopped Mr. Pickersgill with a "Hey, you're famous"
comment.

In this talk-of-the-town way, the coffee shop where James
Pickersgill and his wife would wait out their daughter's Girl
Guide hours "renewing our relationship" (Pickersgill has a lovely
sense of humour) has become a metaphor for the fight for a living
wage and the deterioration of the brand resonance that
accompanied the Tim Hortons banner.

As evidence I cite the "Way Forward Bus Tour" agenda I have
inexplicably held on to, five years after Kathleen Wynne
traversed the province on a cold, snowy January weekend as she
campaigned for the Liberal leadership.

The Saturday morning stop at the Timmie's on Bridgeport Road East
in Waterloo was soon followed by a scheduled half-hour at the
Timmie's on Erie Street in Stratford and, subsequently, the Tim's
on Commissioners Road East, London.  By mid-afternoon she was
meeting the nice folks in Exeter, at the Timmie's at the
confluence of Highway 4 and Highway 23.  And then it was on to
the Tim Hortons on Josephine Street in Wingham.

Sunday campaign stops included a Tim's in Barrie, another in
Lindsay and, finally, Whitby.

The optics offered the obviously right political notes, the Tim's
outlets positioning Wynne as a candidate attentive to the
concerns of Main Street, Main Street being the proud heritage of
the doughnut chain and its vaunted people-focused corporate
culture. (Customers are not customers, they are Guests; minimum
wage employees are Team Members.)

But by Christmastime, 2014, all this had changed.

It is here that we must put the community focus on hold, and
turn, in a take-your-medicine way, to the corporate side of the
tale.  For in December of that year, a private equity firm that,
safe to say, few in Cobourg would be familiar with, finalized its
takeover of Tim Hortons.

The name 3G Capital still draws stares of nonrecognition, but the
Brazilian-based private equity firm came on like gangbusters with
its 2010 leveraged buyout of Burger King, followed by its
takeover of H.J. Heinz with the backing of Warren Buffett's
Berkshire Hathaway.  That second deal, Ontarians may recall,
resulted in Heinz exiting the ketchup operation it had run in
Leamington for more than 100 years.

The $12.5-billion takeover of Tim Hortons was finalized in 2014,
which explains how Tim Hortons is now in a continent-wide
corporate mash-up with Burger King and the latterly acquired
Popeyes chicken chain in the publicly traded Restaurant Brands
International with 3G, which carries with it a reputation for
swift corporate executions, as majority shareholder.

Happiness has not prevailed.

Ten months ago, a group of Tim Hortons franchisees banded
together to form the Great White North Franchisee Association.
The association's list of complaints include cost-cutting
measures that they say have resulted in lower quality, a lack of
transparency and new costs downloaded to the so-called Ad Fund
that is used to promote and preserve the Tim Hortons brand.  The
group claims a membership of 50 per cent of the franchised
outlets in Canada.  A proposed class-action lawsuit was launched
in June and has not been certified.

In other words, even before the latest meltdown, Tim Hortons was
a brand in crisis.

The letter to employees not only cited the increase to the
provincial minimum wage as a rationale for the salary and
benefits cutbacks, but a "lack of assistance and financial help
from our Head Office and the Government."

By Jan. 5, Head Office was in full damage control mode, blaming
the actions of "a reckless few" restaurant owners for a story
that, appropriately, has snowballed nationally.

"Team Members should never be used to further an agenda or be
treated as just an 'expense,' " went the release from HQ.

Back in Cobourg, James Pickersgill has a few days off. In a state
of wonder, no doubt.  It is precisely perfect that the needed
wage hike has caused a cataclysm in small-town Ontario and in, no
less, the very heart of double-double Canadianness.

"If people are wrong, you fight them," he says simply. The
question is, will the Joyces reverse their decision?

"I don't know that they're brave enough to do that." [GN]


TIME INC: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Jan. 8 disclosed that a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of shareholders of Time, Inc.
("Time") (NYSE: TIME) seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Time by Meredith
Corporation ("Meredith") (NYSE: MDP).

On November 26, 2017, Time and Meredith announced that they had
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Meredith
will acquire all outstanding shares of Time in a cash transaction
valued at approximately $2.8 billion ("Proposed Transaction").
Under the terms of the agreement, Time shareholders will receive
$18.50 in cash for each share held.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Time shareholders.  The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.  The complaint further alleges that in
an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the
defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC in violation
of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to Time shareholders'
ability to make an informed decision whether to tender their
shares in support of the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than sixty (60) days from January 8, 2018.  If you wish
to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-
mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain
an absent class member.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.  [GN]


TOWN SPORTS: "Santos" Suit Goes Back to New Jersey State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jiatz Santos, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Town Sports
International, Inc. doing business as New York Sports Clubs, the
Defendant, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen
County, Case No. BER-L-5245-17, on October 6, 2017, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-
07989-SDW-SCM (D.N.J.). The case was assigned to Judge Susan D.
Wigenton for all further proceedings.

Then, on November 28, 2017, Judge Wigenton entered an Order
granting Santos' motion to remand the case.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
     James A. Barry, Esq.
     Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
     LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
     801 N. Kings Highway
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Telephone: (856) 663-8200
     Facsimile: (856) 823-1551
     Facsimile: (856) 661-8400
     Email: abell@lockslaw.com
     Email: jbarry@lockslaw.com
     Email: mgalpern@lockslaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Peter George Siachos, Esq.
     GORDON & REES, LLP
     18 Columbia Turnpike Suite 220
     Florham Park, NJ 07932
     Telephone: (973) 549-2532
     Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
     Email: psiachos@grsm.com


TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tuesday Morning, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02200 (M.D. Fla., December 28, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tuesday Morning -- https://www.tuesdaymorning.com/ -- is a
standardized, centrally driven, multi-channel, low expense
national retail chain specializing in both domestic and
international closeouts of medium to high end name brand gifts,
soft home, home furnishings, housewares, luggage, toys, seasonal
items, gourmet food and fashion accessories for men, women and
children. Castillo worked as a Store Manager for their Orange
County Store. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
      David V. Barszcz, Esq.
      Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
      LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
      543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Telephone: (407) 622-6544
      Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
      Email: mlflle@lblaw.attorney
             dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
             rsutton@lblaw.attorney


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Driver Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for Techcrunch, reports that Uber has
agreed to pay $3M to settle a proposed class action lawsuit
brought by 2,421 drivers in New York who had accused the ride-
sharing giant of docking excessive fees from their fares.

The preliminary settlement was filed with on Jan. 8 with the
federal court in Brooklyn, according to Reuters.

The original suit was filed in the court in January 2016, and
covers Uber drivers who have used the Uber app to arrange rides
in New York since December 29, 2009.

The drivers had accused Uber of breach of contract by including
NY state sales tax and a state workers compensation fund
surcharge, called the "Black Car Fund" fee, when it calculated
their service fees -- thereby increasing how much they were being
charged.

The drivers also accused Uber of false advertising by offering
guaranteed compensation without disclosing the conditions.

According to Reuters, Uber denied all allegations, and settled
without admitting wrongdoing to avoid the cost and inconvenience
of litigation.

At the time of writing the company had not responded to a request
for comment on the settlement.

This is just the latest outlay for Uber insofar as driver-related
complaints are concerned.  In January 2017 Uber agreed to pay
$20M to settle an FTC complaint that it mislead drivers about
earning potential and vehicle financing.

While, last May, it agreed to pay more than $80M to ~96,000
drivers in New York, after it admitted having inadvertently
underpaid them for two-and-a-half years.

Over in the UK, Uber also recently lost an appeal against an
employment tribunal ruling that found a group of drovers to be
workers not self-employed contractors -- raising the prospect of
it having to shell out tens of millions of pounds in its most
lucrative European market if it ends up having to fund workers
rights benefits for all its UK drivers.

On the job classification front, Uber struck a $100M class action
settlement with 385,000 US drivers in April 2016 -- getting them
to agree to remain classed as independent contractors in exchange
for providing them with some concessions, such as not penalizing
drivers who decline trips when logged into the app, as well as
handing over a chunk of cash.

In June 2016 Uber also paid $7.5M to settle a lawsuit brought by
drivers over background checks.  That suit had alleged that Uber
terminated drivers from its platform after obtaining their
consumer background reports without authorization. [GN]


UNITED STATES: ACLU Plans to Support Pro-Abortion Candidates
------------------------------------------------------------
Micaiah Bilger, writing for Life News, reports that the American
Civil Liberties Union, often a partner with the abortion industry
in lawsuits, plans to spend a huge amount to support pro-abortion
candidates in the 2018 midterm elections.

Politico reports the liberal non-profit has at least $25 million
slated to promote abortion and other liberal issues in the
upcoming elections.  The ACLU does not have a political action
committee, so it cannot directly support or endorse candidates;
it can, however, support issues, according to the Christian Post.

The pro-abortion legal group said it will release an election
scorecard with candidates' positions, statements and votes on
various issues.  It also plans to run advertisements, town hall
meetings and phone banks leading up to the midterm elections,
according to the report.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told Politico that they
hope to further engage voters in the increasingly divisive
political climate.

"It's clear that a larger portion of the American public is
deeply engaged in politics in a way they've never been before,"
Romero said.

Here's more from the report:

Soaring after a banner year -- the ACLU raised $93 million online
in the 12 months after Donald Trump was elected president, up
from $5.5 million the year before, and its membership quadrupled
to 1.6 million -- the civil rights group is in the midst of a
dramatic makeover.  The group aims to rival the National Rifle
Association as a force on the left and become a hub of the anti-
Trump movement. . . .

Most of the ACLU's spending in 2018 will be directed at
Republicans, though operatives haven't ruled out indirectly going
after Democrats on the wrong side of their issues, too.  It will
not form a PAC or endorse candidates, moves that would mean
losing its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, instead limiting its
activity to promoting issues and initiatives.  Among them are
voting rights, the travel ban, disability rights, reproductive
rights and immigration.

The ACLU is a multi-issue group, but abortion is one of its key
focuses. It often partners with Planned Parenthood and other
abortion businesses to challenge pro-life laws and regulations.

Currently, the group is challenging the Trump administration's
new life-affirming policies for unaccompanied immigrant minors
and refugees.  Late last year, the ACLU forced the administration
to help facilitate an abortion for an illegal immigrant minor.

A few weeks later, the pro-abortion legal group filed a class
action lawsuit against the U.S. Health and Human Services
Department to force it to facilitate abortions for the young
girls in its care.

It also fought to deny federal grants to Catholic charities that
help immigrants and refugees.  The ACLU argues that the
government should not give money to Catholic aid programs because
they do not refer or provide abortions or birth control to young,
unaccompanied minor refugees and immigrants, the New York Times
reported.  In the lawsuit, it argues that the agencies are
legally required to provide access to contraception and abortion
because they receive government funding.

The ACLU and Hawaiian abortion activists also are suing the
federal government in a case that could force every pharmacy in
America to sell dangerous abortion drugs.

The goals of the ACLU are clear. It states on its website that it
"works every day to stop . . . attack[s] on reproductive
freedom," or legalized abortion on demand. [GN]


VU FOOD SERVICES: "Carrion" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Valeria Carrion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VU Food Services, Inc. and
Vince Vu, in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
62575 (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses, post-judgment interest and further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

VU Food Services, Inc. operates as Basilic Vietnamese Grill
located at 218 East Commercial Boulevard, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea,
FL 33308 where Carrion was hired by Defendants as a waitress. She
claims that 3.5% of her sales were removed from her credit card
tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn L. Birken, Esq.
      SHAWN L. BIRKEN, P.A.
      100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
      Tel: (954) 990-4343
      Fax: (954) 990-4469
      E-Mail: sbirken@randb-law.com
              acabello@randb-law.com


W AVIATION: Dean Seeks to Send Notice to Service Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW DEAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. W. AVIATION, LLC, A
Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-62282-BB
(S.D. Fla.), asks the entry of an order permitting, under Court
supervision, notice to this class of similarly situated
employees:

    "All hourly paid "Line Service Technicians" of Defendant, W.
     AVIATION, LLC, at any time during the last three (3) years,
     who were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for
     all hours worked over forty (40) in one or more workweeks."

Mr. Dean alleges that the Defendant, through its manager Pak
Cheung, knowingly deleted, modified, and reduced the actual hours
recorded on the Plaintiff's and the similarly situated class
members' time cards, to avoid having to pay them time and one
half as the Fair Labor Standards Act requires.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZcJS1zsC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
                  richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


WALMART CORP: Shoppers Sue Over Shell Egg False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walmart and one of its California egg suppliers, Cal-Maine Foods,
are facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the two parties lied
to consumers about the treatment and condition of hens laying
Walmart store-brand Organic Marketside eggs, according to Hagens
Berman.

Consumers paid high prices for what they were told were eggs laid
by hens "free to roam, nest and perch in a protected barn with
outdoor access."  However, according to the lawsuit, Walmart and
Cal-Maine knew the hens were in fact confined inside industrial
barns with enclosed porches, never able to touch the soil or
vegetation surrounding the barns. Cal-Maine is the largest
producer of shell eggs in the U.S., and Walmart the largest
retailer in the world.

Walmart's Marketside brand eggs sell for $2.98, whereas its
Organic Marketside eggs laid by hens with "outdoor access" sell
for $3.97 -- a third more.

The suit filed Jan. 8, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeks reimbursement for consumers
who paid high prices for Walmart's Organic Marketside store-brand
eggs, which were sold as being laid by hens with outdoor access.
The suit also seeks an injunction from the court to force Walmart
and Cal-Maine to end their deceptive marketing of Organic
Marketside eggs.

"Walmart is the largest and most profitable retailer in the
world, and it chose to knowingly scam those trying to do good
with their purchasing power," said Elaine Byszewski --
elaine@hbsslaw.com -- a partner of Hagens Berman.  "We believe
Walmart and Cal-Maine knew that despite the promise of 'outdoor
access' on the cartons of eggs they sold, the hens that laid
their store-brand eggs were confined inside industrial barns."

Attorneys' investigations of a Cal-Maine egg farm revealed that
less than 1 percent of the flock located at the massive Chase,
Kansas egg farm were able to even look outside.  The location has
the capacity to house 400,000 hens.

"Our investigators have seen these facilities first-hand,"
Ms. Byszewski said.  "Had consumers known the truth about what
'outdoor access' meant -- stuck inside with no access to nearby
pasture -- they either would not have purchased them or would
have paid less."

"Surely this isn't what consumers have in mind when they read
'farm fresh,' 'free to roam,' and 'outdoor access,'" she added.
Rather, studies show that consumers believe "outdoor access"
means a majority of animals at any given time have access to open
pasture and vegetation throughout the day.

The class action adds that the majority of consumers (77 percent)
have stated they are concerned about the welfare of animals
raised for food, including laying hens. In addition, "more than
two-thirds (69 percent) of consumers pay some or a lot of
attention to food labels regarding how the animal was raised."
The suit says Walmart and Cal-Maine knew this, and exploited
consumers' concerns.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Walmart.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across
the country. [GN]


WV AMERICAN: Feb. 1 Water Crisis Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
four years to the day after the Freedom Industries chemical
spill, a landmark $151 million class-action settlement over the
regional water crisis that followed the spill moved one step
closer to final court approval during a hearing on Jan. 9 in
Charleston.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver said that, before granting
that final approval, he wants to see updated numbers on how many
claims have been filed and also receive a report from a court-
appointed guardian whose role is to protect the interests of
children who have claims to part of the settlement with West
Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman Chemical Co.

The judge scheduled a hearing for Feb. 1 to consider that
information.

The settlement seems almost certain to receive final approval,
having prompted no formal objections from hundreds of thousands
of residents, businesses and wage earners who are members of the
class covered by the deal.

"It is extraordinary that there have been essentially no
objections to the settlement." Judge Copenhaver said.  "It is
remarkable that there is such unanimity."

Stuart Calwell, an attorney for the residents and businesses,
said it is "astonishing" that there were no objections filed. He
noted that only 76 potential class members had filed forms to
"opt out" of the settlement.

A court filing from the settlement administrator indicated that
there have been more than 50,000 residential and nearly 2,000
business claims for compensation filed as of Dec. 29.  The
settlement administrator indicated that, so far, about 43 percent
of eligible residential households have filed claims, a figure
attorneys in the case said far exceeds the standard response in
similar class-action settlements.

Lawyers in the case have carried out an aggressive public-notice
program and are planning additional efforts to encourage members
of the class to file their claims.

Under the settlement, residential households -- homeowners as
well as renters -- may file a simple claim form and obtain $550
for the first resident and $180 for each additional resident.
Residents also may file more-detailed information about their
losses -- for things such as bottled water or replacement
appliances -- if they provide proof of those expenditures on a
separate type of claim form.

Businesses and nonprofit organizations may likewise obtain flat
payments, based on their size, or can submit documentation of
specific losses to have those recouped.

The settlement also provides additional payments to women who
were pregnant at the time of the chemical spill that sparked the
water crisis, residents who had medical expenses and hourly-wage
earners who lost money when businesses they worked in closed
during the crisis.  Government agencies also are eligible to
submit claims.

The deadline for filing claims is Feb. 21, and distribution of
claims money won't start until after that. More information can
be found and claims may be filed at www.wvwaterclaims.com.

More information also is available by calling 1-855-829-8121 or
reading the "Frequently Asked Questions" list on the website.

Residents, businesses and others don't have to have previously
hired a lawyer or signed up for a lawsuit to be eligible, but
they do have to file claims. Anyone who falls within the
definition of the "class" covered by the settlement may file a
claim for compensation. The class includes basically any business
or resident who received tap water from the Elk River intake
plant and any hourly-wage earner whose employer closed because of
the spill and resulting water system contamination.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses had alleged
that West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or
respond to the Jan. 9, 2014, spill just upstream from the
company's Elk River regional drinking water intake, and that
MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn Freedom of the dangers
of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials learned
that the Freedom facility was in disrepair.

West Virginia American and Eastman deny any liability.  They say
the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom Industries, which
admitted to criminal pollution violations related to the spill.

Kevin Thompson, another attorney for the residents and
businesses, said that, along with the settlement, steps taken as
a result of Freedom's bankruptcy case and a Public Service
Commission investigation pressed by local citizens and consumer
advocates had put in place reforms making it less likely a
similar water crisis could occur again.

"I think it's highly unlikely that a chemical contamination such
as this coming down the river will threaten the city again," Mr.
Thompson told Judge Copenhaver.

A case that is not part of the settlement, brought against the
water company and Eastman by the West Virginia Hospitality and
Travel Association, appears likely to also settle.  Negotiations
are ongoing and Eastman attorney Marc Williams told Judge
Copenhaver he is "confident" that an agreement can be reached.

Two Charleston restaurants, The Chop House and Tidewater, Grill
had been part of that case but recently informed Judge
Copenhaver that they want to withdraw their "opt-out" notices so
they may join in the larger settlement arrangement. [GN]


* AARP Wants Tech Cos to End Age Bias on Facebook Recruitment Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, writing for ProPublica, reports that
the largest advocacy group for older Americans and the two top
members of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging are calling
on employers and tech companies to stop limiting recruitment ads
on Facebook and other online sites to younger workers.

"It appears age discrimination is alive and well in the digital
era," Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP, said in a
statement on Jan. 5.

"We urge online platforms to take the steps needed to ensure
they're not supporting age-biased recruiting and hiring
practices.  And we continue to call on all employers to end bias
in their employment practices," she said.

Maine Republican Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Aging
Committee, and Pennsylvania Democrat Robert Casey, the ranking
minority member, wrote to Facebook, Google and LinkedIn on Dec.
22, asking them how many employment ads on their platforms are
targeted by age group, and what safeguards they have to prevent
employment discrimination based on age. The companies have until
the end of January to respond.

"By targeting employment advertisements to specific age groups,
certain users may be denied the ability to view job
opportunities," Ms. Collins and Mr. Casey wrote.  "While targeted
online job postings can benefit both employers and workers, this
technological advancement can also become an avenue for
discriminatory practices if not properly managed."

AARP and the senators were reacting to a Dec. 20 report by
ProPublica and The New York Times that dozens of the nation's
leading employers, including Facebook itself, narrow their
audience for job ads on Facebook and other platforms by age.  The
ability of advertisers to direct their messages at specific
groups is a cornerstone of Facebook's business.  But such micro-
targeting becomes controversial when it fosters discrimination in
legally protected categories such as race and age.  ProPublica
has reported that Facebook also accepted ads aimed at "Jew-
haters" as well as housing ads that discriminated by race,
gender, disability and other factors.

On the same day that the employment-ad article was published, a
class-action complaint alleging age discrimination was filed in
federal court in San Francisco against major employers for
denying job opportunities to older workers by preventing them
from receiving recruiting ads on Facebook.  The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the Communications Workers of America and its
members, as well as all Facebook users 40 or older.

ProPublica found that Google and LinkedIn also allowed the
purchase of employment ads targeted by age.  After being
contacted by ProPublica, LinkedIn changed its ad-buying portal to
prevent advertisers from using age ranges unless they affirm the
ad is not discriminatory. Google and Facebook acknowledged that
they allow advertisers to display ads based on the user's age,
and defended the practice.

"Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is
an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps
employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said
Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president.  A Facebook spokesman
said the company is in touch with the AARP and the Senate Aging
Committee.

The AARP, which has more than 35 million members, and the
senators also said the widespread targeting of ads to younger
workers online shows the need to update the 1967 law that
prohibits bias against people 40 or older in hiring or
employment.

"Technological advancements require new attention," Ms. LeaMond
said. "The methods of discrimination have changed and its tools
now include algorithms, dropdown boxes and pattern recognition."

Mr. Casey has proposed legislation to strengthen the age
discrimination law by making it equivalent to statutory
protections based on race and gender.  He said the issue of age
targeting in online employment ads is new to him.

"We still have to learn a lot more," he said in an interview.
"One of the problems is the awareness of the law and the
intensity with regard to how employers approach compliance on age
discrimination is at a very low level" compared with other forms
of bias.

Other groups besides AARP also expressed concern in response to
the article. "This kind of discriminatory redlining is just the
tip of the iceberg, and it must stop," Christine Owens, executive
director of the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that
seeks to strengthen protections for workers, said in a Dec. 21
statement.

"To hear that certain employers might not make job ads visible to
those people, it's disheartening," Maura Porcelli, managing
director of the Senior Community Service Employment Program at
the National Council on Aging, said in an interview.  "The data
shows that older adults are valuable members of the workplace,
with expertise and very low turnover.  But clearly some employers
have still not embraced that value." [GN]


* Class Action Rulings Impact Farm, Ranch Businesses
----------------------------------------------------
American Farm Bureau Federation on Jan. 7 disclosed that court
decisions and changes in the law can have significant impacts on
farm and ranch businesses, according to two agricultural law
experts who presented at a workshop at the American Farm Bureau
Federation's 2018 Annual Convention & IDEAg Trade Show.

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, assistant professor and Extension
specialist in agricultural law with Texas A&M Agrilife Extension,
and Paul Goeringer, Extension legal specialist at the University
of Maryland, gave an overview of legal issues affecting farmers
and ranchers, including the Waters of the U.S. rule, dicamba
drift, a tentative settlement in the Syngenta corn class action
lawsuits and "ag gag" laws.

WOTUS

"Congress gave the EPA jurisdiction over 'Waters of the U.S.,'
but didn't define Waters of the U.S.," said Ms. Lashmet.  This
left the definition up to the agency, but rather than
interpreting the scope of the regulation, EPA expanded it with
the 2015 WOTUS rule. Numerous lawsuits were filed, and the 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the rule in 2015. Farmers could
be required to get a permit for a farm pond, with permit costs
ranging from $30,000 for a "simple" permit up to $280,000 for a
complex one, and with daily fines of $37,500 for non-compliance.
In 2016 the Supreme Court heard a challenge, and a ruling is
expected sometime in summer 2018.

"No group is more familiar with WOTUS than the American Farm
Bureau," said Ms. Lashmet.

Dicamba Drift

Mr. Goeringer said new EPA regulations will force new labeling
requirements for dicamba use.  Only permitted, certified
applicators who received dicamba-specific training can apply the
product, and operators cannot spray if wind is higher than 10
miles per hour.  There are new record-keeping requirements and
more specific tank cleanout requirements.  Dicamba can only be
sprayed during daylight hours, and farmers must do additional
checks for sensitive crops before spraying.  Other labeling
requirements from 2017 will still apply, and new state laws and
regulations have been adopted in several states.

Tentative Syngenta Settlement

In 2013, corn shipments were rejected at a Chinese port due to
the presence of Viptera, and lawsuits were filed across the
country by shippers and grain handlers, as well as farmers who
did not plant the seed.  Many suits were consolidated in Kansas,
where a jury awarded $217 million to farmers.  The court also
certified nine initial class-action lawsuits in several states.
Unconfirmed reports say a settlement could be $1.5 billion, but
any payout will take considerable time to be decided.  The
message to farmers, said Lashmet, is to "pay attention to your
mailbox for a mailing about opting in or out, or a notice of
settlement."

"Ag Gag" Laws

Farm protection laws, unfairly described as "ag gag" laws by
opposition groups, have been passed in Idaho, Montana, Utah,
North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and North Carolina.  These
laws make it a crime to trespass on or video ag operations or to
seek employment with intent to video ag operations.  The court
affirmed some of these provisions and struck down others.

Other Legal Issues

Mr. Goeringer and Ms. Lashmet also gave brief updates on federal
reserved water rights on insurance protection exclusions for
manure, and urged farmers and ranchers to be informed about legal
issues that could impact their businesses.

"Being involved in Farm Bureau is the best way to stay up to date
on the regulations and laws that affect you," said Ms. Lashmet.
[GN]


* Consumer Protection Bill Includes Grounds for Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bureaucracy Today reports that laying the ground for a Central
Consumer Protection Authority, the Consumer Protection Bill 2018
seeks a complete overhaul in the consumer rights replacing the
Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The highlights of the bill include
grounds for class-action suits, treatment of complaints regarding
a faulty product or service as representative, clear specifics
regarding what constitutes false and unfulfilled claims,
providing up to two to five years' jail term, Rs.10 lakh fine,
and one year ban from making endorsements for defaulters and up
to Rs. 50 lakh fine for repeat offenders.

Highlighting the obvious vulnerability, the bill states, "The
modern market place contains a plethora of products and services.
The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international
trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new
delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new
options and opportunities for consumers.  Equally, this has
rendered the consumer vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and
unethical business practices".  Pradeep Mehta, CUTS
International, said, "In an earlier era, issues like misleading
ads and cheating were dealt with under the Monopolistic and
Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act.  But since the
Competition Act, 2002, replaced the MRTP Act, it left out
effective regulations to deal with unfair trade practices.  This
new bill hopefully will address these shortcomings".


* Issue on Whether ICOs Implicate Securities Laws Up for Debate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
federal and state regulators aren't the only ones taking a closer
look at initial coin offerings: so is the plaintiffs' bar.

In the last month alone, class actions have targeted five ICOs,
alleging they were unlawful sales of unregistered securities, and
securities lawyers say more are sure to follow.

"The possibility of these types of lawsuits shouldn't be a
surprise to anyone in the industry at this point.  The SEC has
been very vocal recently that it will deem most tokens or coins
issued through ICOs to be securities under U.S. law," Benjamin
J.A. Sauter -- benjamin.sauter@kobrekim.com -- a securities
litigator at Kobre & Kim LLP told Bloomberg Law.  "Companies
selling new tokens or coins through ICOs to U.S. investors are
taking a calculated risk."

No federal court has addressed whether ICOs implicate securities
laws and the question is still up for debate, Joshua Ashley
Klayman -- jklayman@mofo.com -- of counsel at Morrison Foerster
LLP, told Bloomberg Law.

"Many people bringing suits may just assume that all tokens are
securities, but you actually have to do an analysis on the
particular token and token sale itself," said Mr. Klayman,
referring to the Howey test, which says a security exists where
there's a monetary investment in a common enterprise with most
profits coming from others' efforts.  Mr. Klayman, cofounder of
the firm's Blockchain + Smart Contracts Group and chair of the
Wall Street Blockchain Alliance Legal Working Group, cautioned
against "jumping to conclusions" about which ICOs are sales of
securities before courts have had a chance to weigh in.

Early Test

An early test of how the courts will treat class actions
targeting ICOs has already begun playing out in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Michael Dicke and
Eric Young of Fenwick West LLP noted in a Jan. 3 client alert.
That's where U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg is considering a
consolidated series of class actions against Dynamic Ledger
Solutions, Inc., the owner of Tezos, which is alleged to have
violated state and federal securities laws by marketing the sale
of proposed tokens as charitable contributions.  Judge Seeborg
Dec. 20 denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining
order and asset freeze.

Judge Seeborg has presided over 56 securities cases and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed his
securities decisions in two out of three appeals, according to
Bloomberg Law's Litigation Analytics.

The next day, investors filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against ATBCOIN LLC,
an ICO that raised over $20 million and billed itself as "the
fastest blockchain-based cryptographic network in the Milky Way
galaxy."

Other investors filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against Centra Tech, Inc.,
an ICO that raised $30 million and attracted an endorsement from
boxer Floyd Mayweather.

Silver Miller --DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com -- a four-attorney
law firm behind the first of the Tezos suits, which markets
itself as "the leading cryptocurrency investor law firm in the
country," filed class actions in late December in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against two
other proposed ICOs promoted by Monkey Capital and Giga Watt,
respectively.

"2018 will be the year of ICO litigation," David Silver, partner
at Silver Miller, who previously practiced law at Patton Boggs
for six years, told Bloomberg Law.

Are ICOs Securities?

To Mr. Silver, the question of whether ICOs qualify as securities
is clear-cut.

"I have yet to see an ICO that did not fit the definition of the
sale of a security," Mr. Silver said.

Securities lawyers say the legal analysis of whether any
individual ICO is a security is actually more complicated.

Much will depend on how any individual ICO is structured and how
companies use the proceeds, Mr. Klayman said.

Some companies focus on getting purchasers to use the companies'
cryptocurrencies within their own ecosystems, Mr. Klayman said.
Other companies might use ICOs as a way to raise capital without
giving up company control as they would in a stock offering, she
said, and encourage buyers to invest in order to sell later
rather than simply to use the underlying product.
"When you do things like that as a token seller, you make your
tokens look more like securities," she said.

This ambiguity can make things difficult even for those who want
to follow the law. Most people want their ICOs to comply, Klayman
said. "Many people are trying to do it right, but because there
hasn't been any bright line guidance, it's tough," she added.

SEC and State Regulatory Action

The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought three
enforcement actions concerning ICOs since the agency's July 2017
investigative report into tokens from the DAO, a decentralized
autonomous organization. The report, a first-of-its-kind SEC
analysis of an ICO, found the DAO's tokens were securities and
subject to applicable U.S. laws, but didn't file charges in the
matter.

The agency then brought a lawsuit in September 2017 against a man
and his two companies for allegedly defrauding investors in a
scheme involving ICOs supposedly backed by investments in real
estate and diamonds. The commission in December also secured an
emergency asset freeze to halt an ICO that allegedly promised
investors a 13-fold profit in less than a month.

The SEC later that month followed that case by reaching a
settlement with the maker of a restaurant-review app to stop its

ICO after the agency questioned whether the company was planning
an unregistered securities offering.

State regulators are also showing interest in ICOs.  he Texas
State Securities Board filed an emergency cease-and-desist-order
against U.K.-based BitConnect.  The Jan. 4 order came the same
day multiple state securities regulators advised the public to
"go beyond the headlines and hype" of cryptocurrencies and fully
understand the potential risks.

No matter its merits, the risk of litigation could nevertheless
have a chilling effect on ICOs, Brian Knight, a senior research
fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center specializing
in financial regulation, told Bloomberg Law.

"Suits like this, in addition to enhanced SEC and state
enforcement, will likely chill the market to a degree," said
Knight.

"There is a risk that the chill will disproportionately impact
legitimate firms who are scared off of an innovative delivery
method, rather than frauds who are looking to scam people
anyway." [GN]


* Ont. Class Action Law Review Must Consider Environmental Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lindgren, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that
most Canadian jurisdictions have developed laws, regulations and
rules of practice that facilitate class actions by representative
plaintiffs who bring claims on behalf of large numbers of
aggrieved persons, including those affected by pollution.

The public-policy reasons for establishing an effective class
action regime include enhancing access to justice, ensuring
judicial efficiency and modifying defendants' conduct through the
imposition of civil liability in cases that may otherwise be
uneconomical or problematic to pursue as individual claims.

To achieve these objectives, the Ontario government enacted the
Class Proceedings Act (CPA) in 1992.  This legislation has
remained substantially unchanged over the intervening years, and
it enables the plaintiff to bring a motion requesting the
Superior Court of Justice to "certify" that the claim can proceed
as a class action against the defendant.

The CPA further provides that an action "shall" be certified by
the court if the following criteria are satisfied:

    -- The pleadings disclose a cause of action.

    -- There is an identifiable class of persons to be
represented by the plaintiff.

   -- The claims raise common issues of fact or law.

   -- A class proceeding is the preferable procedure for
resolving the common issues.

   -- The plaintiff would fairly and adequately represent the
class, has produced a workable litigation plan and does not have
a conflict with other class members on the common issues.

Aside from this certification test, the CPA also contains
provisions relating to public notice, opt-out procedure,
discovery, statistical evidence, limitations, settlement,
judgment distribution, fee agreements and costs in the class
action context.

After the legislation went into effect 25 years ago, it has been
estimated that approximately 900 class actions have been
commenced in many diverse areas of law, including product
liability, consumer/privacy rights, competition law,
securities/investors' rights and employment law.

Many observers also anticipated that over time, the CPA would
become well used by plaintiffs bringing claims based on
contaminant discharges into air, land or water that result in
widespread property damage, economic loss or personal injury
within affected communities.  However, it appears that only a
relatively small handful of environmental class actions have been
successful in obtaining certification under the CPA.

In some environmental cases, certification has been granted on
consent, as occurred in the class action arising from the
Walkerton drinking water tragedy in 2000.  In other cases,
certification motions have been vigorously contested by
defendants, and the courts have denied certification in several
environmental cases under the CPA.

For example, in Hollick v. Toronto 2001 SCC 68, the
representative plaintiff proposed a class action on behalf of
30,000 residents in relation to odour, noise and other nuisance
impacts caused by a large municipal landfill.  The Supreme Court
of Canada denied certification on the basis that the class action
was not the "preferable procedure" for addressing common issues,
particularly since a no-fault small claims fund already existed
to provide compensation for off-site effects upon site
neighbours.

In another high-profile environmental case (Smith v. Inco Ltd.
2011 ONCA 628), certification was eventually granted under the
CPA after the action was narrowed to exclude health-based claims,
and instead focused upon residential property value depreciation
that the plaintiff attributed to the aerial deposition of nickel
particles from the defendant's refinery.

After a 45-day trial on common issues, judgment was granted in
favour of the representative plaintiff, and damages totalling $36
million were awarded to class members.  However, the trial
judgment was overturned on appeal, and the defendant was awarded
$1.7 million in costs.

The independent Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) announced last
year that it is commencing a comprehensive review of the CPA to
determine "whether class actions are fulfilling their three-part
promise to improve access to justice, foster judicial efficiency
and promote behaviour modification."

The LCO project, which began preliminary consultations in
November 2017, includes opportunities for input from lawyers,
legal organizations, academics, government officials and other
stakeholders.  A consultation paper is expected to be released
early this year.

During the forthcoming public consultation, the Canadian
Environmental Law Association (CELA) will be advocating for
certain amendments to the CPA in order to address the legal
barriers and economic hurdles that have arisen in environmental
class actions.  For example, CELA recommends that:

   -- the "preferable procedure" criterion of the CPA
certification test should be modified or deleted.

   -- the CPA should establish a "one-way" cost rule for
environmental class actions (i.e., costs may be awarded to, but
not against, the representative plaintiff).

   -- in the alternative, the CPA should limit or cap the cost
liability of representative plaintiffs (or the Class Proceedings
Fund, where the Law Foundation of Ontario has provided funding
assistance) in environmental class actions.

If these and other appropriate CPA reforms are implemented in a
timely manner, Ontarians will be better positioned to obtain
judicial redress in toxic tort actions, climate-change litigation
or other large-scale environmental claims involving mass harm.

Richard Lindgren is a staff lawyer with the Canadian
Environmental Law Association. [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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  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.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *