CAR_Public/180227.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, February 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 42



                            Headlines


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: 2nd Cir. Denies Rehearing in Stockholder Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Reaches US$1.8-Mil Settlement in Labor Suit
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Beyerbach Files Securities Class Suit in Ca.
AK STEEL: Appeal Still Pending in Antitrust Suit vs. Steelmakers
ALASKA AIR: Virgin America Flight Attendants' Class Suit Ongoing

ALJ REGIONAL: Request to Reduce Award in "McNeil" Case Pending
ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery in "Marshall" Lawsuit Has Yet to Begin
AMERICAN CONTRACTING: Faces "Jarro" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN WEMPE CORP: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
ANTHEM COMPANIES: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

ARCELORMITTAL: Brazil Unit Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
ARCELORMITTAL: Baffinland Class Certification Bid Still Pending
ARID SOLUTIONS: Faces "Leon" Suit in District of New Jersey
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit Still Pending
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Class Action Appeal

ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Pending in Hep B Research Suit
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Fishman" Suit in E.D. of New York
ASSURANT INC: Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Lawsuits Pending
ASSURED RX: "English" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
BALLARD POWER: "Bishop" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations

BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Class Suits on Antitrust Law Breaches
BESSEMER GROUP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
BREMONT WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
CALIFORNIA CAREGIVERS: Faces "Rozyczko" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CAMPO'S DELI: Faces "Conner" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.

CAPITAL ONE: Augustine Sues for Invasion of Privacy
CARLYLE GROUP: Securities Class Suits vs. Cobalt Still Ongoing
CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Faces Merger Class Lawsuit
CATHAY GENERAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
CEMTREX INC: 3 Securities Lawsuits in New York Still Pending

CHINA COMMERCIAL: Paid $245,000 Cash Portion of Settlement
CITARELLA OPERATING: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
CITY NATIONAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
CLIFTON BANCORP: Parshall Balks at Kearny Merger Deal
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Still Ongoing

CNA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Suit over 401(k) Plus Plan Underway
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in NY
COLLECTION LLC: "Fridman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
COMPUTER SCIENCES: FLSA Lawsuit Remains Pending
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces "Nelson" Suit in N.D. of Georgia

CORESITE REALTY: Has Paid $600K to Settle Employment Class Suit
COUNTRY LIFE: Appeal in "Anderson" Suit Filed in 7th Circuit
CREDIT ONE BANK: "Augustine" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
D&A SERVICES: Faces "Chwab" Suit in Eastern District New York
DANIA ENTERTAINMENT: Receipt Shows Credit Card Info, Rehman Says

DEUTSCHE BANK: Blackrock Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
DEW RAW: "Boyer" Suit Seeks to Recover to Unpaid Wages
DIRECT ENERGY: "Dickson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
DOLPHIN ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Suit over Music Fest
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face ADEA Class Action vs. HP Units

E. I. DU PONT: W.Va. Medical Monitoring, Water Treatment Ongoing
E. I. DU PONT: Class Suits on Cape Fear River Pollution Underway
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: Faces "Hofstader" Suit in E.D. Washington
EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Albert" Suit in S.D. Fla.
ESSA BANCORP: Hearing on UCC Settlement Pact Set for April 2018

ESSA BANCORP: Court Drops Potential Class Suit on RESPA Breaches
EXPEDIA INC: City of Los Angeles Pursues Appeal in Class Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: 5th Cir. Drops City of San Antonio's Rehearing Bid
EXPEDIA INC: Nassau's Appeal over Claims Dismissal Still Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Court Okays Summary Judgment Bid in Arkansas Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Colo. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Tax Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Online Travel Companies Win Illinois Hotel Tax Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Consolidated Case over False Advertising Underway
EXPEDIA INC: Unit Still Faces "Silis" Israeli Class Action Suit
EXPEDIA INC: "Ze'ev" Israeli Putative Class Action Suit Underway

EXPEDIA INC: HomeAway Unit Still Faces Service Fee Class Actions
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suit over Preferred Stock Purchase Deals
FIKA ESPRESSO: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
FMR LLC: Faces "Musso" Suit in District of New Jersey

FRANCK MULLER USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit S.D. New York
FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Ohio Public Employees Class Lawsuit
FREDDIE MAC: Lawsuit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Ongoing
GC SERVICES: Faces "Ramlagan" Suit in E.D. of New York
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bakers Fund Sues over Share Price Drop

GENERAL MOTORS: "Davis" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Michigan
GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Michigan
GERBER LIFE: "Abramson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kodirova" Suit in E.D. New York
GRAFTON, OHIO: Martin Files Suit v. Warden

GUSTO THAI: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Eastern District New York
HAGAMAN PROPERTY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss to Securities Suit Underway
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Stayed
HANA FINANCIAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York

HANOVER BANCORP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
HENRI STERN WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit S.D. New York
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Torres" Suit in New Jersey
HOME BANCSHARES: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of NY
IDB CAPITAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District New York

ILLINOIS: State Treasurer Sued over Illinois College Savings Pool
INFINITY PROPERTY: Class Suits over Business Operations Pending
INSURANCE COMPANY: "Hiskey" Suit Moved to District of Montana
INTERAUDI BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
INVESTOR'S BANCORP: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation

INWOOD BEER: Faces "Aza" Suit in Southern District New York
JCN CHUNG: "Carchi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
JIMMY JOHN'S: "Butler" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
JOHN HARDY USA: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
KEARNY BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District New York

KENJO JEWELRY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
LA BOUCHERIE: "Storey" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
LOEWS CORP: Tentative Accord to Settle Plus Plan Suit Underway
LOS OLIVOS: "Garay" Suit Alleges NY Labor Law Violations
LUPE'S EAST: "Chirix" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
LVMH WATCH & JEWELRY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York

M CULINARY: "Eulogio" Suit Seeks to Recover to Unpaid OT
MAOZ VEGETARIAN: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. of New York
MASTERCARD INC: Accrues $708MM Interchange Fees Suit Liability
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Court OK on Canadian Suit Settlement Pact
MASTERCARD INC: Complaints on ATM Surcharge Rule Still Pending

MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Liability Shift Litigation Still Ongoing
MDL 1720: Visa Reached Settlement Deals with Several Merchants
MELMIC ENTERPRISES: "Spencer" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
METROCITY BANCSHARES: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
MIAMI BEACH-MIAMI LGBT: Faces "Ferrell" Suit in S.D. Florida

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kentebe" Suit in N.D. of California
MJS AMERICA: Faces "Louis" Suit in Eastern District New York
MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "Whitmire" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
MRS BPO: Faces "Fishman" Suit in E.D. New York
MY PILLOW: Wuest Sues over Monitoring of Telephone Calls

NASSIEF AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Kelsy" Suit in N.D. of Ohio
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NEW RESIDENTIAL: SDNY Court Okays Securities Class Action Accord
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Appeal on Nixed Stockholder's Lawsuit Pending
NEW YORK MELLON: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation

NEWBANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of New York
NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown, et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
NOAH BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
OFF LEASE: "Foster" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
ONE WAY: "Fisher" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA

ORCHARD SUPPLY: "Branco" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
PALACE ELITE: "Baker" Suit Alleges RICO Act Violations
PARAGON COIN: "Davy" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Cases Pending at Feb. 9
PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli Unit Still Faces Label-Related Class Suit

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Resolves "Mouzon" & "Cantley" Suits
POLY PAK: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Olivo Says
PURDUE PHARMA: "Cleveland Teachers" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
RETAIL GROCERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
RICHEMONT NORTH: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. New York

RICHEMONT NORTH: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata Sues over Steep Drop in Share Price
ROLEX WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
ROSS WINDOW: Faces "Hamann" Suit in S.D. New York
SAFAVIEH INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York

SCS SERVICE: Faces Madison Landing Suit in N.D. Alabama
SEATTLE GENETICS: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended Securities Suit Underway
SENEX SERVICES: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Lawsuit Still under Appeal
SERVICE CORP: Has Met All Obligations under "Linda" Suit Accord

SERVICE CORP: Potential "Bernstein" Class Action Suit Underway
SITEL OPERATING: Faces "Pinkney-Oliver" Suit in M.D. Alabama
SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Perdomo Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under Labor Law
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SPARKLES CAR WASH: Faces "Suria" Suit in E.D. New York

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in "Anderson" Suit Underway
STRAUB DISTRIBUTING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STRAX WELLNESS: "Aparicio" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
SUNPOWER CORP: Apr. 12 Trial Set for Bid to Drop Securities Suit
SUSSEX BANK: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York

TRANS UNION: Faces "Allen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Landau" Suit in E.D. of New York
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D. of New York
USG CORP: Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims Still Ongoing
VENATOR MATERIALS: Settlement in TiO2 Price Fixing Suit Paid

VENATOR MATERIALS: Settlement in Opt-Out Litigation Paid
VENATOR MATERIALS: Aug. 16 Final Approval Hearing Set
VENATOR MATERIALS: Says Home Depot Antitrust Suit Pending
VERU INC: Still Faces Lawsuit on Aspen Park Acquisition Breaches
VISA INC: Quebec Court Reserves Decision in Merchant Suits

VISA INC: Continues to Defend Data Pass-Related Suit
VISA INC: Continues to Defend U.S. ATM Access Fee-Related Suit
VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Underway in E.D. New York
VISA INC: Resolves Claims in UK Merchant Litigation
XEROX CORPORATION: Iron Workers Balks at Fuji Merger Deal

ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: New Jersey Class Action Suit Ongoing


                            *********


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: 2nd Cir. Denies Rehearing in Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
denied a plaintiff's petition for rehearing in a putative
stockholder class action.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action,
Christopher Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:15-cv-05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District
Court"), naming the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon,
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016.  The amended
complaint alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its
public disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through
March 29, 2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's
claims against all defendants in their entirety and with
prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on October 13, 2017 the
District Court's judgment was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing
with the Second Circuit.  The Second Circuit denied the petition
for rehearing on November 28, 2017.


Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of high
performance thermoplastic corrugated pipe, providing a
comprehensive suite of water management products and superior
drainage solutions for use in the underground construction and
infrastructure marketplace.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Reaches US$1.8-Mil Settlement in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that it has entered
into a settlement agreement on January 24, 2018, to resolve a
class action related to alleged violations of California wage and
hour laws.

In May 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against the Company in Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Kern (the "Hayes matter"), alleging that
the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for
missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

In June 2017, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, where it
is currently pending.

The plaintiffs were seeking to recover, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a putative class of all non-exempt employees in the
State of California from December 16, 2012 through present,
damages resulting from missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
unpaid minimum wage, straight-time and overtime pay, improper
wage statements, non-payment of wages at termination, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 24, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the class action.  Pursuant to the
settlement, the Company will pay US$1.8 million, which includes
payments to class members in resolution of all claims, attorneys'
fees, and settlement fund claims administration fees.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of high
performance thermoplastic corrugated pipe, providing a
comprehensive suite of water management products and superior
drainage solutions for use in the underground construction and
infrastructure marketplace.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Beyerbach Files Securities Class Suit in Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Beyerbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., David K. Flynn,
and John Ritchie, Case No. 4:18-cv-00544 (N.D. Calif., January
25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Aerohive common shares between November 1,
2017 and January 16, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying Certification,
purchased Aerohive common shares at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of
corrective disclosure.

Defendant Aerohive supplies wireless infrastructure equipment.
The Company designs cooperative control wireless architecture,
cloud-enabled network management, routing, and virtual private
network solutions. Aerohive serves the healthcare, education,
manufacturing, distribution, and retail industries throughout the
United States.

Defendant David K. Flynn has served as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer since July 2007, as its President since
November 2007 and as its Chairman since July 2013.

Defendant John Ritchie has served as the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and Senior Vice President since September 2015,
and as its Chief Operating Officer since February 2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

AK STEEL: Appeal Still Pending in Antitrust Suit vs. Steelmakers
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to reconsider the dismissed claims of a group of
"indirect plaintiffs" in an antitrust law violations lawsuit
against steel manufacturers remains pending in the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to AK Steel Holding
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the Company.  The case numbers for
these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633,
08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236.

On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was
filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as
January 2005.  The complaints allege that the defendant steel
producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to
restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
artificially high prices for steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the Company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted
against the Company, subject to certain court approvals.
According to that settlement, the Company agreed to pay US$5.8
million to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange
for the members of that class to completely release all claims.

The Company said, "We continue to believe that the claims made
against us lack any merit, but we elected to enter the settlement
to avoid the ongoing expense of defending ourselves in this
protracted and expensive antitrust litigation.  We provided
notice of the proposed settlement to members of the settlement
class.  After several class members received the notice, they
elected to opt out of the class settlement."

Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court
entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the
Company with prejudice as to the settlement class.

In 2014, the Company recorded a charge for the amount of the
tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class
and paid that amount into an escrow account, which has now been
disbursed in accordance with the order that approved the
settlement.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing.

On April 4, 2017, the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and the defendants filed an opposition to that
motion.

On July 13, 2017, the Court denied the indirect plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.

On September 15, 2017 the indirect plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, AK Steel said
in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2017.

In its Annual Report, the Company stated, "Because we have been
unable to determine that a potential loss in this case for the
indirect plaintiffs is probable or estimable, we have not
recorded an accrual for this matter.  If our assumptions used to
evaluate a probable or estimable loss for the indirect plaintiffs
prove to be incorrect or change, we may be required to record a
charge for their claims."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless, and
electrical steels and tubular products in the United States and
internationally.  It was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
West Chester, Ohio.


ALASKA AIR: Virgin America Flight Attendants' Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that a class action lawsuit filed by Virgin
America flight attendants remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs received class
certification in November 2016.

Virgin America filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
dismiss all claims on various federal preemption grounds.  In
January 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part Virgin
America's motion.

The Company said it believes the claims in this case are without
factual and legal merit and intends to defend this lawsuit.

Air Group operates Alaska, Virgin America and Horizon Air.  It
completed the acquisition of Virgin America on December 14, 2016,
at which time Virgin America became its wholly-owned subsidiary.


ALJ REGIONAL: Request to Reduce Award in "McNeil" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of
its request to reduce the US$0.7-million reward for plaintiff's
attorney fees and court fees related to the Tammy McNeil class
suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017.

Tammy McNeil, a former Faneuil call center employee, filed a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action case against Faneuil in
federal court in Newport News, Virginia in 2015.  The class
action asserted various timekeeping and overtime violations,
which Faneuil denied.

On June 6, 2017, the case was settled by the parties as part of a
court-ordered mediation, for US$0.3 million in damages, plus
plaintiff's attorney fees.  Because the parties could not agree
on the dollar amount of plaintiff's attorney fees, both parties
agreed to allow the court to determine the amount.

On November 8, 2017, Faneuil received the court's recommendation,
which awarded a total of US$0.7 million for plaintiff's attorney
fees and court fees.  Faneuil has objected to a portion of the
recommendation and has requested that the district court judge
further reduce the award.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and
commercial clients in the healthcare, utility, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States.  It operates
through three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix.  The
company was formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc.
and changed its name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October
2006.  ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
based in New York, New York.


ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery in "Marshall" Lawsuit Has Yet to Begin
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017 that the parties in the
Donna Marshall case has not started substantive discovery.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall"), filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and
ALJ.  Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges
various California state law employment-related claims against
Faneuil.

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall has recently filed a motion to
remand the case back to state court.

The Company said, "The case is in an early stage and the parties
have not begun substantive discovery at this time.  Faneuil
believes this action is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously."

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and
commercial clients in the healthcare, utility, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States.  It operates
through three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix.  The
company was formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc.
and changed its name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October
2006.  ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN CONTRACTING: Faces "Jarro" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
Contracting Corp. The case is styled as Angel Jarro and Jessica
Tacuri, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Contracting Corp.
d/b/a American Contracting and Bledi Likaj, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01027 (E.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018).

American Contractors Corp is a New England subcontractor,
specializing in acoustical ceilings, acoustical walls, custom
wood and metal work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


AMERICAN WEMPE CORP: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Wempe
Corporation. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Wempe Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01464 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 19, 2018).

American Wempe Corporation was founded in 1980. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of jewelry such as
diamonds and other precious stones.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ANTHEM COMPANIES: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE RIVERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.
f/k/a THE WELLPOINT COMPANIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01420 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Collective
Plaintiffs have been similarly situated, have had substantially
similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have
been subjected to Defendant's decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the
proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half
times the regular hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek and improperly classifying non-exempt employees as
exempt.

Anthem, Inc. is an American health insurance company founded in
the 1940s, prior to 2014 known as WellPoint, Inc. It is the
largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class:

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


ARCELORMITTAL: Brazil Unit Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that its subsidiary in Brazil is facing a
class action commenced by the Federal Public Prosecutor of the
state of Minas Gerais against ArcelorMittal Brasil for damages in
an amount of US$67 million based on the alleged violations
investigated by Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic
Defence (CADE).

The class action is related to a complaint filed by two
construction trade organizations with CADE in September 2000.

The Company said, "In September 2000, two construction trade
organizations filed a complaint with Brazil's Administrative
Council for Economic Defence ("CADE") against three long steel
producers, including ArcelorMittal Brasil.  The complaint alleged
that these producers colluded to raise prices in the Brazilian
rebar market, thereby violating applicable antitrust laws.  In
September 2005, CADE issued its final decision against
ArcelorMittal Brasil, imposing a fine of 61.  ArcelorMittal
Brasil appealed the decision to the Brazilian Federal Court.  In
September 2006, ArcelorMittal Brasil offered a guarantee letter
and obtained an injunction to suspend enforcement of this
decision pending the court's judgment.  In September 2017, the
Court found against ArcelorMittal Brasil.  In October 2017,
ArcelorMittal Brasil filed a motion for clarification of this
decision, which was denied.  In December 2017, ArcelorMittal
Brasil filed an appeal to the second judicial instance.

"There is also a related class action commenced by the Federal
Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas Gerais against
ArcelorMittal Brasil for damages in an amount of US$67 million
based on the alleged violations investigated by CADE."

ArcelorMittal, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates
steel manufacturing and mining facilities in Europe, North and
South America, Asia, and Africa.  It operates through NAFTA,
Brazil, Europe, ACIS, and Mining segments.  The Company was
founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Luxembourg.


ARCELORMITTAL: Baffinland Class Certification Bid Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that a decision is pending regarding a class
certification request filed by Baffinland securities holders in
Canada.

In April 2011, a proceeding was commenced before the Ontario
(Canada) Superior Court of Justice under the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, 1992, against ArcelorMittal, Baffinland, and
certain other parties relating to the January 2011 take-over of
Baffinland by ArcelorMittal, Nunavut Iron Ore Holdings and
1843208 Ontario Inc.

The action seeks the certification of a class comprised of all
Baffinland securities holders who tendered their Baffinland
securities, and whose securities were taken up, in connection
with the take-over between September 22, 2010 and February 17,
2011, or otherwise disposed of their Baffinland securities on or
after January 14, 2011.

The action alleges that the tender offer documentation contained
certain misrepresentations and seeks damages in an aggregate
amount of US$797 million (CAD1 billion) or rescission of the
transfer of the Baffinland securities by members of the class.

The class certification hearings were held in January 2018, a
decision is pending.

ArcelorMittal, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates
steel manufacturing and mining facilities in Europe, North and
South America, Asia, and Africa.  It operates through NAFTA,
Brazil, Europe, ACIS, and Mining segments.  The Company was
founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Luxembourg.


ARID SOLUTIONS: Faces "Leon" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arid Solutions,
Inc. doing business as: Arid Solutions. The case is styled as
Fabian Carrasco Leon, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arid Solutions, Inc. doing
business as: Arid Solutions and Michael Debiasio, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02381 (D. N.J., February 20, 2018).

Arid Solutions, Inc. is an online water conservation store
headquartered in New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. continues to await court ruling on
a motion to drop a class action lawsuit related to the
acquisition of JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp., according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.  The Tender Offer
and Merger are collectively defined as the "Transactions."

These nine lawsuits are: (1) Stourbridge Investments Ltd.  v.
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001542),
filed March 8, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland; (2) Timothy Lenell v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et
al., (Case No. 2016 CA 000164), filed March 8, 2016 in the
Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for Indian
River County, Florida; (3) Alexander Vartanov v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001593), filed
March 10, 2016, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland; (4) Robert Curley v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001659, filed March 14, 2016 in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (5) Antonio Rado and Craig
and Amanda Hosler v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 24-C-16-001684), filed March 15, 2016 in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland; (6) Curtis Heid v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001706), filed
March 16, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland;
(7) Robert Aivasian v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 24-C-16-001808), filed March 22, 2016 in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (8) Neil Harmon v. ARMOUR
Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001812), filed
March 22, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland;
and (9) Benjamin C.  Washington, et al. v. ARMOUR Residential
REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001829), filed March 23,
2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's
board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are
current members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants.  The Lenell, Curley, Heid and Harmon suits also name
ACM as an additional defendant.  All suits except for the Harmon
suit also name JAVELIN as an additional defendant.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's
common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs
and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims
that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN;
failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its
stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of
interest; failed to disclose material information about the
Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give
ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other
potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected
unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants.  The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Florida action was
never served on the defendants.  The docket reflects that the
Florida litigation technically remains open, but there has been
no activity other than the filing of the Complaint in March 2016
and the Court issuing an order to show cause on January 12, 2017.

On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order
consolidating the 8 Maryland cases into 1 action, captioned In re
JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.  Shareholder Litigation (Case
No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the
Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.  A hearing was held on
the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved
ruling.

To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to
Dismiss.

The Company said, "Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the
Individual Defendants intends to defend the claims made in these
lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any
of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail
in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party.
An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the
Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of
JAVELIN, and the cost of defending the litigation, even if
resolved favorably, could be substantial.  Such litigation could
also substantially divert the attention of the Individual
Defendants and ARMOUR's, JAVELIN's and ACM's management and their
resources in general.  Due to the preliminary nature of all nine
suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their
outcome."

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States.  It is managed by ARMOUR
Capital Management LP.  The Company was founded in 2008 and is
based in Vero Beach, Florida.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class
action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit is still pending.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  The consolidated class
action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D.  Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and
Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911
(C.D.  Cal., filed Oct.  13, 2014), asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D.
Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D.  Cal., filed Dec.  2, 2014); and
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D.  Cal., filed
Jan.  22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection
with the alleged facts underlying the securities claims.

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A.  Super., filed Mar.
5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A.  Super., filed
Mar. 16, 2015).

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  On October 7, 2016, the
federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action
with prejudice.  On October 10, 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the consolidated class action to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Weisman and Johnson
derivative actions have been dismissed without prejudice.  The
Bernstein derivative action remains pending and is stayed pending
the related consolidated class action.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in
each of these matters.  The Company makes provisions for
liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been
incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such
liability has been recorded related to these matters.  The
Company does not expect these matters to have a material effect
on its Consolidated Financial Statements."

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops novel drugs to treat
intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Pending in Hep B Research Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action related to Arrowhead
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s hepatitis B drug research has sought
appeal from a federal district court's dismissal of the case,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on February 9, 2018,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.  The appeal was filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company and certain executive officers were named as
defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's drug research programs.  The consolidated class action,
initially filed as Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D.  Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel
v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954
(C.D.  Cal., filed Dec.  2, 2016), and Unz v. Arrowhead
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310 (C.D.  Cal.,
filed Jan.  13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding certain
public statements in connection with the Company's drug research
programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed
pending the related consolidated class action.

Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned
Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D.  Cal., filed
April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160
(C.D.  Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated.

On December 21, 2017, the federal district court dismissed the
consolidated class action with prejudice.  On December 27, 2017
the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Lucas and Singh actions
are stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these matters.  The Company makes provisions for liabilities when
it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the
amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been
recorded related to these matters.  The Company cannot predict
the ultimate outcome of this matter and cannot accurately
estimate any potential liability the Company may incur or the
impact of the results of this matter on the Company."

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops novel drugs to treat
intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Fishman" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services Inc. The case is styled as Anna Fishman, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS
National Services Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01015 (E.D.
N.Y., February 15, 2018).

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ASSURANT INC: Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Lawsuits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the Company is a defendant in class
actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed
insurance programs.  These cases assert a variety of claims under
a number of legal theories.  The plaintiffs seek premium refunds
and other relief.  The Company continues to defend itself
vigorously in these class actions.

The Company said, "We have participated and may participate in
settlements on terms that we consider reasonable given the
strength of our defenses and other factors."

Assurant, Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries globally
provide risk management solutions in the housing and lifestyle
markets, protecting where consumers live and the goods they buy.
The Company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "AIZ."


ASSURED RX: "English" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Gwendolynn M. English, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Assured RX LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00181
(M.D. Pa., January 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act.

Plaintiff Gwendolyn M. English is a resident of Pennsylvania.

Defendant Assured RX LLC is a foreign limited liability company
with its registered principal place of business located at 13555
Automobile Boulevard, Suite 230, Clearwater, Florida 33762.
Defendant purportedly sells pain relief creams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Ste. 1200
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 564-1721
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
              rschmierer@denittislaw.com


BALLARD POWER: "Bishop" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ballard Power Systems Inc., Randy Macewen, and
Anthony Robert Guglielmin, Case No. 2:18-cv-00719 (C.D. Calif.,
January 27, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Ballard between September 30, 2016 and January 25, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff Ryan Bishop purchased Ballard securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosure, says the
complaint.

Defendant Ballard engages in the design, development,
manufacture, sale, and service of proton exchange membrane fuel
cells worldwide. The Company is incorporated in Canada and its
principal executive offices are located in Vancouver, Canada.
Ballard's common shares are traded on the NASDAQ Global Market
under the ticker symbol "BLDP."

Defendant Randy MacEwen has been the Chief Executive Officer and
President of Ballard since October 6, 2014.

Defendant Anthony Robert Guglielmin has been the Chief Financial
Officer and Vice President of Ballard since June 14, 2010 and
June 2010, respectively. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 785-2610
      Fax: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Class Suits on Antitrust Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank Delaware still defends itself in class action cases
related to alleged violation of the U.S. antitrust laws,
according to the Company's Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018.

Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") is a defendant in a number of
putative class action cases commenced in 2005 in various federal
district courts by merchants alleging that Visa U.S.A., Inc.
("Visa"), MasterCard International ("MasterCard") and their
member banks conspired to fix interchange fees and unlawfully
bundle several separate and distinct services, such as payment
protection and transaction processing costs, in violation of the
U.S. antitrust laws.  The merchants also alleged that the
defendants impose other restraints on merchants in connection
with accepting payment cards and that such alleged restraints
violate the antitrust laws.  Visa, MasterCard and several other
payment card issuing banks are also defendants in the
proceedings, which have been consolidated into a single
multidistrict proceeding in the Eastern District of New York, MDL
1720.

The merchants' complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages
and injunctive relief.  By an order dated January 9, 2008, the
court dismissed class damage claims prior to January 1, 2004;
accordingly, the period over which any damages may be awarded is
January 1, 2004 to the date of the award.

On July 13, 2012, the parties filed a proposed settlement
agreement with the court under which the defendants agreed to pay
the class plaintiffs US$6.05 billion, to make network rule
changes and to give other relief.  The settlement agreement
included a provision pursuant to which Visa and MasterCard would
reduce U.S. interchange rates 10 bps during an eight-month period
from July 29, 2013 through March 29, 2014.  On the same day,
defendants announced that they reached an agreement in principle
to settle with a group of individual plaintiffs that were not
members of the class.  The class settlement was approved by
District Judge John Gleeson on December 13, 2013, who then
entered an agreed form of final judgment on January 14, 2014.
The National Retail Federation and a number of merchants appealed
that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit reversed
Judge Gleeson's ruling approving the settlement and remanded the
action back to the Eastern District of New York.

Following remand of the case, the District Court reappointed
counsel to represent members of the putative class seeking
primarily (but not exclusively) damages pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and appointed new counsel to
represent class members seeking primarily equitable relief
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  Counsel
for the Rule 23(b)(3) putative class members moved for leave to
file an amended complaint adding factual allegations and legal
theories to conform to developments in the law, as well as damage
claims for additional years of alleged damages.  Counsel for the
Rule 23(b)(2) putative class members filed a separate complaint
seeking broad equitable relief against allegedly anticompetitive
conduct as well as Visa and MasterCard network rules.

On September 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein granted
the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs' motion to amend in part and denied
it in part, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to
add their additional legal and factual theories, but holding that
those theories would only apply to the preceding four years and
would not relate back to the date of filing of the initial
complaints in 2005.  On October 30, 2017, the Rule 23(b)(3)
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.  The Rule 23(b)(3)
plaintiffs appealed Magistrate Judge Orenstein's ruling to
District Judge Margo Brodie.  That appeal is pending.
Defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint filed by
counsel for the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs and the new complaint
filed by Rule 23(b)(2) plaintiffs is adjourned until after the
District Court rules on the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs' appeal.
After the District Court rules, the District Court is likely to
establish a calendar for further fact and expert discovery as
well as substantive motions, including class certification
motions and summary judgment motions.

A number of merchants, including several large retailers, elected
against participation in the class settlement, "opting out" of
that settlement.  Opting out allows these merchants to pursue
separate actions on the same or similar claims as those alleged
by the putative class plaintiffs.  Some of these merchants
commenced new actions against Visa, MasterCard and certain member
banks, not including BBD.  Although the 2012 class settlement
fund was reduced to account for opt-outs, resulting in a refund
to BBD of a portion of its share of the settlement fund, total
settlement payments by BBD to opt-out plaintiffs may be higher
than the amount of that refund.  If so, BBD will be liable for
its share of the excess over the refund under the terms of a
judgment sharing agreement with Visa, MasterCard and the other
payment card issuing bank defendants.  As of the date hereof,
Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of these opt-out
actions and BBD has contributed to the settlement of those
actions in accordance with the judgment sharing agreement.  The
amount of those settlements has exceeded what each of those
plaintiffs would have been paid as a result of the class
settlement.


BESSEMER GROUP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bessemer Group
Incorporated. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bessemer
Group Incorporated d/b/a Bessemer Trust Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00996 (E.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Bessemer Group, Incorporated operates as a bank holding company
for Bessemer Trust.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BREMONT WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bremont Watch
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bremont
Watch Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01465 (S.D.
N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Bremont Watch Company is a luxury aviation-themed British
watchmaker based in England.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


CALIFORNIA CAREGIVERS: Faces "Rozyczko" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California
Caregivers Home Healthcare LLC. The case is styled as Matthew
Rozyczko, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. California Caregivers Home Healthcare LLC, Defendant, Case No.
34-2018-00227160-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super Ct., February 15, 2018).

California Caregivers Home Healthcare LLC offers home care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert W. Ottinger, Jr., Esq.
   The Ottinger Law Firm, PC
   401 Park Ave. S.
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-571-2000


CAMPO'S DELI: Faces "Conner" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Campo's Deli at
Market, Inc.  The case is styled as Mary Conner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Campo's
Deli at Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00734-JHS (E.D.
Penn., February 20, 2018).

Campo's Deli at Market, Inc. is a deli, well-known for their
cheesesteaks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. K. LEE, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 EAST 39TH STREET
   SECOND FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CAPITAL ONE: Augustine Sues for Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------
Ophelia Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 3:18-
cv-00180 (S.D. Calif., January 26, 2018), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for Defendant's violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine is an individual citizen and resident
of the State of California, City of San Diego, in this judicial
district.

Defendant Capital One Bank USA, N.A. offers banking and lending
products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 222-7429
      Fax: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CARLYLE GROUP: Securities Class Suits vs. Cobalt Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that securities class actions remain ongoing
against Cobalt International Energy, Inc.

The Company said, "Cobalt International Energy, Inc. was a
portfolio company owned by two of our Legacy Energy funds and
funds advised by certain other private equity sponsors.  Cobalt
filed for bankruptcy protection on December 14, 2017.  A federal
securities class action against Cobalt (In re Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation) was filed in
November 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, seeking monetary damages and alleging that
Cobalt and its directors made misrepresentations in certain of
Cobalt's securities offering filings relating to:  (i) the value
of oil reserves in Angola for which Cobalt had acquired drilling
concessions, and (ii) its compliance with the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act regarding its operations in Angola and a U.S.
government investigation regarding the same.  The securities
class action also named as co-defendants certain securities
underwriters and the five private equity sponsors of Cobalt,
including Riverstone and the Partnership.  The class action
alleged that the Partnership has liability as a "control person"
for the alleged misrepresentations in Cobalt's securities
offerings as well as insider trading liability.  The federal
court dismissed the insider trading claim against the
Partnership.  In addition to the class action in federal court, a
class action claim was also filed in Texas state court in Houston
(Ira Gaines v. Joseph Bryant, et al.) on similar grounds,
alleging derivative claims that Cobalt and the private equity
sponsors breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in insider
trading.  No Partnership employee served as a director or
executive of Cobalt, and we vigorously contest all allegations
made against the Partnership."

The Carlyle Group LP is an investment firm specializing in direct
and fund of fund investments in Fintech sector.  It was founded
in 1987 and is based in Washington, District of Columbia with
additional offices in 20 countries across six continents (North
America, South America, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Africa).


CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Faces Merger Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 15, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that
Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc. is facing a securities class action
lawsuit related to their merger deal.

Seattle Genetics said, "On January 30, 2018, we and our wholly
owned subsidiary, Valley Acquisition Sub, Inc., or Purchaser,
entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the
Merger Agreement, with Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., or
Cascadian, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company based in
Seattle, Washington, pursuant to which Purchaser has commenced an
offer, or the Tender Offer, to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Cascadian common stock at a price of US$10.00 per share
net to the seller in cash, without interest, less any applicable
withholding taxes.

"On February 13, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Cascadian and its board of directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.  Among other
things, the complaint seeks to enjoin the closing of the Tender
Offer and consummation of the Merger as well as compensatory
damages of an undisclosed amount.

"It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or
allegations received from Cascadian stockholders, with respect to
these same matters.  We cannot predict the timing or outcome of
this lawsuit or potential similar lawsuits, or the impact they
may have on the closing of the Tender Offer and consummation of
the Merger."

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer.


CATHAY GENERAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cathay General
Bancorp. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cathay
General Bancorp d/b/a Cathay Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00669-LMM (N.D. Ga., February 14, 2018).

Cathay Bank is a Sino-American bank based in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CEMTREX INC: 3 Securities Lawsuits in New York Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc. continues to face three alleged securities class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Three alleged securities class action complaints were filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
February 24, 2017.

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

A follow-on, related derivative complaint also was filed against
the Company and its executive officers and directors in New York
State court on April 10, 2017.  That derivative action has been
stayed by agreement of the parties until after the motion to
dismiss process in the consolidated alleged class actions has run
its course.

The allegations in all four complaints are based on the
assertions contained in a blog post published on an internet
website that challenged various aspects of the Company's stock
trading and relationships.  The Company denies these assertions,
and filed a lawsuit seeking damages in the amount of US$170
million, against the blogger on March 4, 2017 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The Company
voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit on June 12, 2017, because it
was unable to serve the defendant blogger within the required
time, but the Company has reserved the right to re-file its
claims against him at a later date.

The Company said that it believes the alleged class action and
derivative litigations are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.  The Company has retained Doug Green of Baker
Hostetler, a nationally renowned law firm with no previous
relationship to the Company, to defend the litigations, and
intends to seek dismissal of the litigations at the earliest
possible stage.  The Company has to wait until the courts decide
to consolidate the all actions into a single lawsuit and hence
the Company cannot predict the time table of this litigation.
Regardless of the merit of the claims, litigation is inherently
unpredictable and may be costly, time consuming and disruptive to
the Company's business.  Although the Company is covered by
insurance against this class action suit, the Company could incur
judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could
adversely affect its business, operating results or cash flows.

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


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Paid $245,000 Cash Portion of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the $245,000 cash portion
of a class action settlement has been paid in October.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial
Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the
Company and its current and former officers and directors Huichun
Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and
John F. Levy violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting in prior public filings certain material facts
about the risks associated with its loan guarantee business. On
October 2, 2014, purported shareholders Zhang Yun and
SanjivMehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar
claims against the same defendants in a putative class action
captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the
amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31,
2014, the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the
cases under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc.
Securities Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead
plaintiff ("Class Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead
counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at
that point was the only defendant served, entered into a
stipulation to transfer of the case to the Southern District of
New York. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been
served, joined in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J.
district court entered an order transferring the action. The
transfer was effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket
number 1:15-cv-00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was
to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities
Inc. and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company
engaged in a fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and
improper lending practices and made misleading representations
regarding its underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality,
the loan loss allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its
internal control systems.

In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr.
Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion
Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC,
which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court
adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the
Class Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants.
After the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action,
and Long Yi agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as
the sole remaining defendant to serve.

On November 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to settle the
Securities Class Action. The Stipulation resolves the claims
asserted against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the Securities Class Action
without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by
the Company or the other defendants.  On June 1, 2017, following
a final fairness hearing on May 30, 2017 regarding the proposed
settlement, the Court entered a final judgment and order that:
(i) dismisses with prejudice the claims asserted in the
Securities Class Action against all named defendants in
connection with the Securities Class Action, including the
Company, and releases any claims that were or could have been
asserted that arise from or relate to the facts alleged in the
Securities Class Action, such that every member of the settlement
class will be barred from asserting such claims in the future;
and (ii) approves the payment of $220,000 in cash and the
issuance of 950,000 shares of its common stock (the "Settlement
Shares") to members of the settlement class. The Company accrued
settlement cost aggregating US$1,863,500 and US$ 690,000 during
the six months ended June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2016,
respectively. In addition, the Company would incur a payment of
$25,000 in cash to class administrator.

On July 28, 2017, the Court entered a clarifying order to specify
the allocation of attorneys' fees in accordance with the
Stipulation. The Settlement Shares are exempt from registration
under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The settlement does not constitute any admission of fault or
wrongdoing by the Company or any of the individual defendants.

China Commercial Credit, Inc. is a holding company that is based
in Jiangsu Province, China and was incorporated under the laws of
the State of Delaware on December 19, 2011.


CITARELLA OPERATING: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citarella Operating
LLC.  The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Citarella Operating LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01535 (S.D.
N.Y., February 20, 2018).

Citarella Operating LLC is a New-York based gourmet grocery
chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


CITY NATIONAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City National Bank.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City National Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00997 (E.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

City National Bank is an American financial institution
headquartered in the City National Plaza in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CLIFTON BANCORP: Parshall Balks at Kearny Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIFTON BANCORP INC., PAUL M.
AGUGGIA, STEPHEN ADZIMA, JOHN H. PETO, CHARLES J. PIVIROTTO,
CYNTHIA SISCO, JOSEPH C. SMITH and KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02273-SDW-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 16,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
a proposed merger transaction, and in the event defendants
consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
November 1, 2017, pursuant to which Clifton Bancorp Inc. will be
acquired by Kearny Financial Corp. On November 1, 2017, Clifton
Bancorp's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Kearny. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Clifton Bancorp will
receive 1.191 shares of Kearny common stock for each share of
Clifton Bancorp they own. On January 23, 2018, defendants filed a
definitive proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Clifton is a publicly traded American retail savings bank
headquartered in Clifton, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DePALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street - Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation continues to face litigation related to
gas index price reporting, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as
defendants in four class action lawsuits and one individual
lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas
price reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of
trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for
an amount that was not material to CMS Energy.

In August 2017, the federal district court approved the
settlement.  The following provides more detail on the remaining
cases in which CMS Energy or its affiliates were named as
parties:

   * In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v.
XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural
gas between January 2000 and October 2002.  The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, treble
damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System
v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and
others.  The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages,
treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P.  Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity
as trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field
Services, and others.  The complaint alleges various claims under
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is seeking
statutory full consideration damages for its purchases of natural
gas in 2000 and 2001, costs, and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, these cases were transferred to a
single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision.  The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.  The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims.  The matter was appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth
Circuit's decision.  The cases were remanded back to the federal
district court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in
Kansas based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations.  The order of summary judgment has been appealed.

In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the two pending class action
cases.  The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has accepted the matter
for hearing.

In June 2017, an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in
these cases filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk
of loss to CMS Energy.

The Company said, "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate
of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS
Energy's reasonably possible loss would be based on widely
varying models previously untested in this context.  If the
outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could
negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition,
and results of operations."

CMS Energy Corporation operates as an energy company primarily in
Michigan.  It operates through three segments: Electric Utility,
Gas Utility, and Enterprises.  The Company was founded in 1987
and is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan.


CNA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Suit over 401(k) Plus Plan Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that it has entered into an agreement in
principle related to the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan Litigation.

In September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against CCC,
Continental Assurance Company (CAC) (a former subsidiary of CCC),
CNAF, the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan
(Plan), The Northern Trust Company and John Does 1-10
(collectively Defendants) related to the Plan.  The complaint
alleges that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan and
caused prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when the Plan's Fixed
Income Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled.

The plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of Plan
participants who had invested in the Fixed Income Fund suffered
lower returns in their Plan investments as a consequence of these
alleged violations and seeks relief on behalf of the putative
class.  The Plan trustees have provided notice to their fiduciary
coverage insurance carriers.

Through mediation, the plaintiff, Defendants and the Plan's
fiduciary insurance carriers reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter.  Upon completion of a definitive settlement
agreement, plaintiff and Defendants will propose a class
settlement for court approval.

The Company said, "Based on the agreement in principle,
management has recorded its best estimate of the Company's
probable loss and does not believe that the ultimate resolution
of this matter will have a material impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial position."

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance
writer and a property and casualty company.  The Company's
insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty
lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to face a putative class
action relating to Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the "Plan")
did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  This action has been certified as a class action.  The
relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Colgate-Palmolive stated, "The Company is contesting this action
vigorously.  Since the amount of any potential loss from this
case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of
reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the
case."

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet
Nutrition.  The Company was founded in 1806 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


COLLECTION LLC: "Fridman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fridman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Collection LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-20348
(S.D. Fla., January 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Michael Fridman was a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

Defendant The Collection LLC is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 200 Bird
Road, Coral Gables, FL 33146.  The Collection directs, markets,
and provides its business activities throughout the State of
Florida.  The Defendant is one of the nation's pre-eminent
retailers of luxury vehicles, including Jaguar, Porsche, Ferrari,
Maserati, Audi, Aston Martin, McLaren, or Alfa Romeo branded
vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      31 Samana Drive
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: FLSA Lawsuit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation continues to face class action
lawsuit related to alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to DXC Technology Company's Form 10-Q
filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Effective April 1, 2017, Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC")
completed its previously announced combination with the
Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company ("HPES"), which resulted in CSC becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of DXC (the "Merger").

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs Joseph Strauch, Timothy Colby,
Charles Turner, and Vernon Carre filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of
themselves and a putative nationwide collective of CSC system
administrators, alleging CSC's failure to properly classify these
employees as non-exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  Plaintiffs allege similar state-law Rule 23 class
claims pursuant to Connecticut and California statutes, including
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001 and the California Private Attorneys General Act.
Plaintiffs claim double overtime damages, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, civil penalties, and other
state-specific remedies.

In 2015 the Court entered an order granting conditional
certification under the FLSA of the collective of over 4,000
system administrators, and notice of the right to participate in
the FLSA collective action was mailed to the system
administrators.  Approximately 1,000 system administrators, prior
to the announced deadline, filed consents with the Court to
participate in the FLSA collective.

On June 30, 2017, the Court granted Rule 23 certification of a
Connecticut state-law class and a California state-law class
consisting of professional system administrators and associate
professional system administrators.  Senior professional system
administrators were found not to qualify for Rule 23
certification under the state-law claims.  On July 14, 2017, the
Company petitioned the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for
permission to file an appeal of the Rule 23 decision.  That
petition was denied on November 21, 2017.

As a result of the Court's findings in its Rule 23 certification
order, the parties entered into a stipulation to decertify the
senior professional system administrators from the FLSA
collective.  On August 2, 2017, the Court approved the
stipulation, and the FLSA collective action is currently made up
of approximately 700 individuals who held the title of associate
professional or professional system administrator.

A jury trial commenced on December 11, 2017.  On December 20,
2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, finding
that the Company had misclassified the class of employees as
exempt under federal and state laws, and finding that it had done
so willfully.  The Court will determine damages and address post-
trial motions in further proceedings.  The Company disagrees with
the verdict and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously,
including by appealing the verdict and the final judgment of the
Court.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.  It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS).  The
Company was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and
changed its name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a
result of its merger with the Enterprise Services business of
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.  DXC Technology Company was
founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces "Nelson" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent Business
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ricky Nelson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conduent
Business Services, LLC doing business as: Eppicard, Comerica,
Inc. and Comerica Bank, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00669-LMM
(N.D. Ga., February 14, 2018).

Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process
services in digital processing, automation, and analytics
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com

      - and -

   G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-9594
   Fax: (770) 444-0271
   Email: flemond@webbllc.com


CORESITE REALTY: Has Paid $600K to Settle Employment Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that it
has paid US$600,000 on December 12, 2017, pursuant to a Court-
approved settlement agreement related to a class action suit
alleging employment law violations.

On July 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against the Company, alleging various employment law
violations related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum
wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records
and business expenses.

On March 15, 2016, the Company filed a responsive pleading
generally denying the allegations.

On July 27, 2016, the parties agreed upon class-wide settlement
terms, subject to court approval.

CoreSite Realty said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the Superior Court set a
hearing for November 28, 2017, to determine whether final
approval of the settlement will be granted.  Notice of the
proposed settlement was sent to class members who were then
provided an opportunity to object or opt out of the settlement.

On November 28, 2017, the Superior Court granted final approval
of the parties' settlement, which resolves the matter on a class-
wide basis, on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California.

The settlement also resolves a related class action lawsuit filed
on July 22, 2016, alleging similar claims.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay US$600,000,
which amount was paid on December 12, 2017.

CoreSite Realty Corporation engages in the ownership,
acquisition, construction, and management of data centers.  It
was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


COUNTRY LIFE: Appeal in "Anderson" Suit Filed in 7th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Irene B. Anderson, Individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Country Life
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-1338, was brought
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on
February 14, 2018.

COUNTRY Life Insurance Company offers life insurance, long term
care, and disability policies and annuities in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
   BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
   2325 E. Camelback Road
   Phoenix, AZ 85016
   Tel: 602-776-5944

The Defendant is represented by:

   Glen E. Amundsen, Esq.
   SMITHAMUNDSEN, LLC
   150 N. Michigan Avenue
   Chicago, IL 60601-0000
   Tel: 312-894-3200


CREDIT ONE BANK: "Augustine" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Ophelia Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-
00184 (S.D. Calif., January 26, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine is a citizen and resident of the City
of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California.

Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. is a national banking
association, organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Nevada with a principal place of business located in Las
Vegas, Nevada 89119 in Clark County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Clark Conforti, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              clark@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART, APC
      2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              yana@westcoastlitigation.com


D&A SERVICES: Faces "Chwab" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A Services, LLC
of IL. The case is styled as Angelina Chwab, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&A Services, LLC
of IL, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01062 (E.D. N.Y., February 19,
2018).

D&A Services, LLC, also known as Dynia and Associates is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


DANIA ENTERTAINMENT: Receipt Shows Credit Card Info, Rehman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONEEB REHMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DANIA ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LLC,
d/b/a "The Casino at Dania Beach", the Defendant, Case No. CACE-
18-003760 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief resulting from
Defendant's violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The FCRA requires Defendant to truncate certain credit card and
debit card information on printed receipts provided to consumers.
Despite the clear language of the statute, Defendant willfully,
knowingly, or with reckless disregard failed to comply with the
FCRA by printing eight (8) of the credit card or debit card
numbers on printed receipts provided to consumers.

As such, Plaintiff and certain other consumers who conducted
business with Defendant during the time frame relevant to this
Complaint, each of whom engaged in a transaction using a credit
card or debit card, suffered violations. As a result of
Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered an invasion of their privacy, have been burdened with an
elevated risk of identity theft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEUTSCHE BANK: Blackrock Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RFS Holding, L.L.C. said in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018 that Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA) and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company (DBNTC) has until March 12, 2018 to file their
opposition to the class certification motion in the class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others,
filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York
State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit
of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged
violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"),
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based
on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as
trustees for the trusts.  Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their
state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label
RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at
issue in the state court action.

The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. US$89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.  DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on
January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on
procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by
pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise
jurisdiction.  The court did not rule on substantive defenses
asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in federal court.  In the amended
complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture
agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of
duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The amended complaint
alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized
collateral losses of U.S. US$9.8 billion, but the complaint does
not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted in
part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The
court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs'
conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those
claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the
parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for
breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017,
following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to
dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order
dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as
to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered
bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such
originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii)
plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  On
March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  DBNTC and DBTCA's opposition to plaintiffs'
motion is due on March 12, 2018, and plaintiffs' reply is due on
April 2, 2018.  Discovery is ongoing.


DEW RAW: "Boyer" Suit Seeks to Recover to Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Chelsee Boyer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dew Raw, Inc., dba Minsky's, Case No. 4:18-cv-00076
(W.D. Mo., January 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Chelsee Boyer previously worked as a server for
Defendant's place of business in Independence, MO from
approximately January 2013 until approximately September 2017.

Defendant Dew Raw is a corporation organized under the laws of
Missouri, with its principal place of business located in the
State of Missouri. Upon information and belief, Dew Raw owns
and operates Minsky's Pizza restaurants in Missouri.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
      3699 SW Pryor Rd.
      Lee's Summit, MO 64082
      Tel: (816) 600-0117
      Fax: (816) 600-0137
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


DIRECT ENERGY: "Dickson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Dickson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Direct Energy, LP, Case No. 5:18-cv-00182 (N.D. Ohio,
January 24, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In violation of the TCPA, Direct Energy, LP placed prerecorded
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number.
Plaintiff never consented to receive these calls, and they were
placed to him for telemarketing purposes in an attempt to
generate new business for Direct Energy, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Matthew Dickson is a resident of the state of Ohio and
this District.

Defendant Direct Energy is a provider of energy services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLPHIN ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Suit over Music Fest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dolphin Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit related to the
Fyre Music Festival.

A putative class action was filed on May 5, 2017, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
Kenneth and Emily Reel on behalf of a purported nationwide class
of individuals who attended the Fyre Music Festival, or the Fyre
Festival, in the Bahamas on April 28-30, 2017. The complaint
names several defendants, including 42West, along with the
organizers of the Fyre Festival, Fyre Media Inc. and Fyre
Festival LLC, individuals related to Fyre, and another entity
called Matte Projects LLC. The complaint alleges that the Fyre
Festival was promoted by Fyre as a luxurious experience through
an extensive marketing campaign orchestrated by Fyre and executed
with the assistance of outside marketing companies, 42West and
Matte, but that the reality of the festival did not live up to
the luxury experience that it was represented to be. The
plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and for violation of several states' consumer protection laws.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action
comprised of "All persons or entities that purchased a Fyre
Festival 2017 ticket or package or that attended, or planned to
attend, Fyre Festival 2017" and seek damages in excess of
$5,000,000 on behalf of themselves and the class.  The plaintiffs
sought to consolidate this action with five other class actions
also arising out of the Fyre Festival (to which 42West is not a
party) in a Multi District Litigation proceeding, which request
was denied by the panel.

Dolphin Entertainment, Inc. said "We believe the claims against
42West are without merit and that we have strong defenses to the
claims."

Dolphin Entertainment, Inc. is a leading independent
entertainment marketing and premium content development company.
Through their recent acquisition of 42West, the company provides
expert strategic marketing and publicity services to all of the
major film studios, and many of the leading independent and
digital content providers, as well as for hundreds of A-list
celebrity talent, including actors, directors, producers,
recording artists, athletes and authors. The company is based in
Coral Gables, Florida.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face ADEA Class Action vs. HP Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company continues to deal with class action
related to the alleged violation of the Federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act by HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Effective April 1, 2017, Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC")
completed its previously announced combination with the
Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company ("HPES"), which resulted in CSC becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of DXC (the "Merger").

The purported class and collective action, Forsyth, et al. v. HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, was filed on August 18, 2016
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.  Former business units
of HPE now owned by the Company will be proportionately liable
for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2016.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the
ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who
had their employment terminated pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral
states) and April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40
years of age or older at the time of termination.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under
California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older
employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated
pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On January 30, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss
and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by opt-in plaintiffs
who signed releases as part of their WFR packages.

On September 20, 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to
dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration.  Accordingly, the Court has stayed the entire
action pending arbitration, and administratively closed the case.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration as well as a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (which has been denied as
premature).  The reconsideration motion, and others pending
before the District Court relating to class arbitration, are
fully briefed and will be adjudicated without oral argument.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.  It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS).  The
Company was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and
changed its name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a
result of its merger with the Enterprise Services business of
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.  DXC Technology Company was
founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


E. I. DU PONT: W.Va. Medical Monitoring, Water Treatment Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to fund medical
monitoring program and providing water treatment in connection to
a settlement agreement in a class action captioned Leach v.
DuPont, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In August 2001, the class action was filed in West Virginia state
court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works
facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects
from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

A settlement was reached in 2004 that binds approximately 80,000
residents, (the "Leach Settlement".) In addition to paying US$23
million to plaintiff's attorneys for fees and expenses and US$70
million to fund a community health project, the company is
obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring
program for eligible class members and to pay administrative
costs and fees associated with the program.

In January 2012, the company put US$1 million into an escrow
account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  As of December 31, 2017, less than US$1 million has
been disbursed from the account.

E. I. du Pont said, "The Company also must continue to provide
water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to
six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water
Association, and private well users.  While it is probable that
the Company will incur liabilities related to funding the medical
monitoring program and providing water treatment, the Company
does not expect any such liabilities to be material."

Under the Leach Settlement, the company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel").  The C8
Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach
Settlement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced
hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular
cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high
cholesterol.

Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against
DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science
Panel determined a probable link exists.  Following the Leach
Settlement, approximately 3,550 lawsuits alleging personal injury
claims were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and
West Virginia.  These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

In the first quarter of 2017, the MDL was settled for US$670.7
million in cash (the "MDL Settlement"), half of which was to be
paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont.  At December 31, 2017,
all payments under the settlement agreement have been made by
both companies.  DuPont's payment is not subject to
indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours.  In exchange for
that payment, DuPont and Chemours receive releases of all claims
by the settling plaintiffs.  The MDL Settlement was entered into
solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way
an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours.  All of
the MDL plaintiffs participated and resolved their claims within
the MDL Settlement.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company.  The Company markets its products
through the company's sales force and distributors in the United
States and internationally.  E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.


E. I. DU PONT: Class Suits on Cape Fear River Pollution Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company defends itself against
several class actions related to chemicals discharged into the
Cape Fear River, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

At December 31, 2017, several actions, filed on behalf of
putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near
or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, are pending
in federal court against The Chemours Company, the Company and
one also names DowDuPont Inc.  These actions relate to the
alleged discharge of certain perflourinated chemicals into the
river from the operations and wastewater treatment at the
Fayetteville Works facility.

The three purported class actions, filed in the fourth quarter
2017 and now consolidated into a single purported class action,
seek various relief including medical monitoring, property
damages and injunctive relief.

Separate actions pending at December 31, 2017 were filed by the
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, NC
seeking actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.
These actions have since been consolidated and two additional
North Carolina water authorities have joined the action.

The Company said, "Management believes the probability of loss
with respect to these actions is remote."

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company.  The Company markets its products
through the company's sales force and distributors in the United
States and internationally.  E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.


EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: Faces "Hofstader" Suit in E.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emergency Physician
Services PS.  The case is styled as Nathan Hofstader,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Emergency Physician Services PS, Providence Health
and Services and Providence Holy Family Hospital, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00062 (E.D. Wash., February 20, 2018).

Emergency Physician Services PS is a medical group - health care
provider in Spokane, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Boyd McFadden Mayo, Esq.
   The Law Office of Boyd M Mayo PLLC
   220 W Main Ave
   Spokane, WA 99201-0112
   Tel: (509) 381-5091
   Fax: (509) 241-0834
   Email: mack@bmayolaw.com

      - and -

   Joshua B Swigart, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart
   2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

      - and -

   Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Email: ak@kazlg.com

      - and -

   Ryan L McBride, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group
   2633 East Indian School Road, Suite 460
   Phoenix, AZ 85016
   Tel: (602) 900-1288
   Email: ryan@kazlg.com


EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Albert" Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EquiTrust Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Howard Albert and Maria
Soyka, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-20584-UU (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2018).

EquiTrust Life Insurance Company is engaged in the life insurance
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Seth Eric Miles, Esq.
   Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq.
   David Buckner, Esq.
   Buckner Miles
   3350 Mary Street
   Miami, FL 33133
   Tel: (305) 964-8003
   Fax: (786) 523-0485
   Email: seth@bucknermiles.com
          vonborke@bucknermiles.com
          David@bucknermiles.com


ESSA BANCORP: Hearing on UCC Settlement Pact Set for April 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is set for April 2018 related to the final approval of
an agreement to resolve a potential class action against ESSA
Bank & Trust (The Bank) related to breaches of the Pennsylvania
Uniform Commercial Code, according to ESSA Bancorp, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

The Company's wholly owned subsidiary ESSA Bank & Trust was named
as the defendant in an action commenced on September 13, 2016 by
one plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleges that the Bank repossessed
motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought to collect
deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply with the
notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code
("UCC").  The plaintiff seeks to pursue the action as a class
action on behalf of the named plaintiff and other similarly
situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and
seek to recover damages under the UCC.

The Bank denies the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties attended a mediation in October, 2017 where they
reached an agreement to resolve the claims asserted against the
Bank on a class wide basis.  The terms of the settlement calls
for the Bank to make a payment of US$1,325,000 to the plaintiffs.

The Bank's insurance carrier will cover the payment made by the
Bank in excess of a US$125,000 retention.

The court has entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement.  The court has set a final approval hearing for April
2018.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank
& Trust that provides a range of financial services to
individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania.  It was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


ESSA BANCORP: Court Drops Potential Class Suit on RESPA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted ESSA Bank & Trust's motion to dismiss a case
alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
according to ESSA Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on February 9,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

ESSA Bank & Trust (The Bank) was named as a defendant in an
action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will
also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of
the entire class of people similarly situated.  The plaintiff
alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp, Inc., in
the process of making loans, received unearned fees and kickbacks
in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the court granted the Bank's
motion to dismiss the case.  The plaintiff still has the
opportunity to appeal the court's ruling.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank
& Trust that provides a range of financial services to
individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania.  It was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


EXPEDIA INC: City of Los Angeles Pursues Appeal in Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on February 9,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the appeal by the city
of Los Angeles from a court order favoring the online travel
companies in a purported class action is proceeding.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of online
travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia, Hotwire and
Orbitz.  The case is captioned City of Los Angeles, California,
on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los
Angeles County).

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel
occupancy taxes, and sought certification of a statewide class of
all California cities and counties that have enacted uniform
transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after December
30, 1990.  The complaint alleged violation of those ordinances,
violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and common-law conversion; it also sought a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel
occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and
imposition of a constructive trust, disgorgement, restitution,
interest and penalties.

In the administrative process preceding the litigation, the City
of Los Angeles had issued assessments in September 2009 totaling
US$29.5 million against certain Expedia companies (Expedia,
Hotels.com and Hotwire).

On April 18, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel
companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the
city of Los Angeles.

On January 8, 2014, the court entered final judgment in favor of
the online travel companies.

On March 21, 2014, the city of Los Angeles filed a notice of
appeal.

The California Court of Appeals stayed this case pending review
and decision by the California Supreme Court in the San Diego
litigation.  The stay is now lifted and the appeal is proceeding.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: 5th Cir. Drops City of San Antonio's Rehearing Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied on February 6,
2018, the city of San Antonio's petitions for rehearing and en
banc review in a case against several online travel companies,
according to Expedia, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire,
and Orbitz.

The case is City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District
of Texas, San Antonio Division).

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance.  The
complaint asserted claims for violation of that ordinance,
common-law conversion, and declaratory judgment, and sought
damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.

On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that
defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding
approximately US$15 million for historical damages against the
Expedia companies.  The jury also found that defendants were not
liable for conversion or punitive damages.

On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the
online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to
counties and cities in the statewide class action.  The online
travel companies filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law
or, in the alternative, for a new trial.  The cities filed a
motion to amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties.

On February 20, 2014, the court denied the online travel
companies' motion.

On January 22, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
the cities' motion regarding penalties.

On April 11, 2016, the court entered an amended judgment
including approximately US$68 million in tax, interest and
penalty amounts for the Expedia companies, including Orbitz.

The online travel companies filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 6, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross appeal on May 12, 2016.

The Fifth Circuit heard argument on the parties' cross appeals on
September 26, 2017.

On November 29, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion
reversing the district court and rendering judgment for the
defendant online travel companies, finding that the amounts
charged by the defendants for their services are not subject to
the hotel accommodations taxes at issue.

The plaintiff municipalities filed petitions for rehearing and en
banc review, which were denied by the Fifth Circuit Court on
February 6, 2018.

On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys' fees
and costs in the trial court; the defendant online travel
companies opposed that request.

On February 16, 2017, the court referred the matter to a
magistrate judge for review and recommendation.

On April 10, 2017, the defendant online travel companies filed a
motion to stay further proceedings on plaintiffs' fee request
pending resolution of their substantive appeal to the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 17, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation as to attorneys' fees.

On April 20, 2017, the district court stayed further proceedings
on plaintiff's fee petition pending resolution of the parties'
appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 8, 2017, the district court dismissed plaintiff's fee
petition as moot in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Nassau's Appeal over Claims Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the county of Nassau, New York, among other
counties, from a court's dismissal of their claims against online
travel companies remain pending, according to Expedia, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York, filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com,
Hotwire, and Orbitz.

The case was Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York).

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain
New York cities, counties and local governments in New York.  The
complaint asserted claims for violations of those ordinances, as
well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition
of a constructive trust, and sought unspecified damages.

The county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 on the
basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and refiled in state
court.

The new case is County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau).

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the refiled state court
case.

On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel companies'
motion to dismiss.

On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

On April 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff s motion for class
certification.

The online travel company defendants appealed both the court's
certification order and its prior order denying their motion to
dismiss.

On September 10, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate
Division reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff
s motion for class certification.  In a separate opinion, the
Appellate Division also affirmed in part and reversed in part the
trial court's denial of the online travel companies' motion to
dismiss.

On September 11, 2015, the parties filed cross motions for
summary judgment.

On September 25, 2015, Erie County, Orange County, Rensselaer
County and Saratoga County, New York (the "first group of
intervenors") filed a motion seeking leave to intervene as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit; the defendant online travel companies
opposed the motion.

On February 23, 2016, the court granted the counties' motion to
intervene.

The defendants filed their notice of appeal from the February 23,
2016 Order on April 26, 2016.

On July 20, 2016, the court entered a stipulated order permitting
the addition of another group of taxing jurisdictions - the
Counties of Chautauqua, Oswego, Steuben, Westchester, and the
City of Saratoga Springs (the "second group of intervenors") - as
Intervenor-Plaintiffs in the lawsuit and agreeing that these
Intervenor-Plaintiffs will be bound by the disposition of the
defendants' appeal from the Supreme Court's February 23, 2016
Order granting intervention.

On December 2, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nassau County's motion for
summary judgment.  The court concluded that the enabling statute
for plaintiff's tax ordinance did not impose a tax on defendants'
fees.  The court further invited defendants to file a successive
motion for summary judgment against the first group of
intervenors on similar grounds.  The court also vacated its prior
order granting the second group of intervenors permission to
intervene.

On December 23, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment against the first group of intervenors.

On March 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order which would permit the second group of intervenors to re-
enter the case and be subject to the pending motion for summary
judgment against the first group of intervenors.

On March 22, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment against the first and second group of
intervenors.

Nassau County and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have appealed the
court's dismissal of their claims.  That appeal remains pending.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Okays Summary Judgment Bid in Arkansas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court in the tax case in Arkansas granted on February 1,
2018, a plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, according to
Expedia, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz.

The case is Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission,
Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly situated v.
Hotels.com LP, et al. CV-2009- 946-5 (In the Circuit Court of
Jefferson, Arkansas).

The complaint alleged that defendants have failed to collect
and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances.  The court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted on February 19,
2013.  Defendants appealed the class certification decision, and
on October 10, 2013 the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that
decision.

On October 10, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of liability.  Defendants opposed
that motion and filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment
on November 22, 2017.

On January 31, 2018, the court heard argument on the parties'
cross motions.

On February 1, 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of tax liability.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Colo. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Tax Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals, on January 25, 2018, has affirmed
the trial court's decision on all grounds in a lawsuit filed by
the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, against several online travel
companies, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on
February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Specifically, the Colorado Court of Appeals finds that the
defendant online travel companies are not liable for
accommodations taxes, that the Town's sales tax claims were
properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
that class certification was properly denied.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit
on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Orbitz.

The case is Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County,
Colorado).

The complaint included claims for declaratory judgment,
violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy
and unjust enrichment.

The online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss.  On June
8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the online
travel companies' motion to dismiss.

On March 26, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment and, on April 20, 2016, the court granted the online
travel companies' motion for summary judgment, and denied the
town's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Breckenridge
Accommodations Tax does not apply to the online travel companies
or the amounts they charge for their services.

On June 8, 2016, the Town of Breckenridge filed a notice of
appeal from the court's order on the parties' cross motions for
summary judgment, as well as the court's prior rulings denying
class certification and dismissing claims for state sales tax.

On September 8, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the
Town of Breckenridge's appeal without prejudice for lack of a
final appealable judgment on the ground that the Town had failed
to demonstrate that the trial court had disposed of claims
against two non-online travel company defendants.

On September 22, 2016, the trial court granted the Town's motion
to dismiss one of the non-online travel company defendants and
entered final judgment for all other remaining defendants.

On November 7, 2016, the Town again filed notice of appeal.  The
Colorado Court of Appeals heard argument on the Town's appeal on
January 11, 2018 and on January 25, 2018 affirmed the trial
court's decision on all grounds, finding that the defendant
online travel companies are not liable for accommodations taxes,
that the Town's sales tax claims were properly dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and that class certification was
properly denied.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Online Travel Companies Win Illinois Hotel Tax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of
the online travel companies in a case filed by a group of
Illinois municipalities, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Form 10-K
filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Specifically, on November 22, 2017, the Seventh Circuit denied
the plaintiffs' appeal, affirming the district court's decision
finding no liability for occupancy taxes in 12 of the 13
plaintiff municipalities, and granted the defendants' appeal,
reversing the district court's finding of liability for occupancy
taxes in the Village of Lombard.

On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of
Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace,
Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford
and Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in
Illinois federal court against a number of online travel
companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz.

The case was City of Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, D.  Ill.,
Eastern Division).

The complaint sought certification of a class of all Illinois
municipalities (broken into four alleged subclasses) that have
enacted and collect a tax on the percentage of the retail rate
that each consumer occupant pays for lodging, including service
costs, denominated in any manner, including but not limited to
occupancy tax, a hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege
tax, a hotel or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations
tax, a rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel
operator's occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or letting
tax.

The complaint alleged claims for relief for declaratory judgment,
violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, damages
and punitive damages.

On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily
dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in Illinois state court.

The refilled case is City of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia,
Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division).

The online travel companies removed the case to federal district
court.

On September 13, 2013, the online travel companies filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims.  On March 13, 2014, the
court granted the defendant online travel companies' motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' common law claims.

On October 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the court denied without prejudice on
January 6, 2015.  Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification, which the court denied on September 28, 2015.

The case proceeded only on the claims brought by the individual
plaintiff municipalities named in the suit.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On February 29, 2016, the defendant online travel
companies filed a cross motion for summary judgment.

The Expedia and Orbitz defendants reached a settlement with one
of the plaintiff municipalities -the city of Oakbrook Terrace,
Illinois and on March 4, 2016, those parties filed a stipulation
for voluntary dismissal of the city's claims.

On June 20, 2016, the court granted the defendant online travel
companies' motion for summary judgment as to 12 of the 13
plaintiff municipalities, finding no liability for occupancy
taxes in those jurisdictions.  The court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendants' motion,
as to the Village of Lombard.

On October 19, 2016, the trial court entered a stipulated
judgment on plaintiff Village of Lombard's claims.  The parties
filed cross notices of appeal from the trial court's summary
judgment ruling in November 2016.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument on the
cross appeals on October 23, 2017.

On November 22, 2017, the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
appeal, affirming the district court's decision finding no
liability for occupancy taxes in 12 of the 13 plaintiff
municipalities, and granted the defendants' appeal, reversing the
district court's finding of liability for occupancy taxes in the
Village of Lombard.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Consolidated Case over False Advertising Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. still defends itself in a consolidated class action
case related to alleged false advertising, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On August 17, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in the Northern District of California
against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Expedia Australia
Investments Pty Ltd. and Trivago relating to alleged false
advertising.

The case is Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v.
Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-SK (U.S. District
Court, Norther District of California).

Plaintiff has not effected service of process as to trivago.  The
putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of
overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia
defendants' websites with whom the Expedia defendants did not
have a booking agreement during the relevant time period.

The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia defendants for
violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business &
Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and
restitution.

On January 12, 2017, the court granted the Expedia defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for intentional and
negligent interference with prospective economic advantage
without prejudice.

On March 7, 2017, a related putative class action was filed in
the same court, 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc.,
et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-01186-JSC, asserting similar Lanham Act
claims, and claims for Unfair Competition, and Unjust Enrichment
and Restitution.  The court determined that the cases were
related and assigned them to the same judge.

Expedia accepted service of the Complaint on March 13, 2017.

On May 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: Unit Still Faces "Silis" Israeli Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc.'s brand, Hotels.com, continues to face the "Silis"
putative class action lawsuit for alleged violations of Israeli
consumer protection laws, according to Company's Form 10-K filed
on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In or around September 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel against
Hotels.com.

In the case, Silis v. Hotels.com, (Case No. 23241-09-16CA), the
plaintiff generally alleges that Hotels.com violated Israeli
consumer protection laws in various ways by failing to calculate
and display VAT charges in pricing displays shown to Israeli
consumers.

On March 15, 2017, Hotels.com filed an application with the
District Court challenging service.

On June 22, 2017, the court registrar rejected Hotels.com's
application.  Hotels.com appealed this decision.

On November 7, 2017, the court denied the appeal.  Hotels.com has
sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel.

The Supreme Court has ordered the parties to send the pleadings
to the General Attorney of the Israeli Government and has asked
the General Attorney to provide a written opinion with respect to
the subjects addressed in Hotels.com's appeal.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: "Ze'ev" Israeli Putative Class Action Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on February 9, 2018,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that it has not yet been served
related to the putative class action suit filed by Ze'ev in
Israel against the Company, among other online travel companies.

In or around January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Lod, Israel, against a number of
online travel companies including Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com.

In the case, Ze'ev v. Expedia, Inc., et al (Case No. CA 6771-01-
18), the plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants violated
Israeli consumer laws by limiting hotel price competition.

The Company said, "The Expedia defendants have not yet been
served."

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA INC: HomeAway Unit Still Faces Service Fee Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in putative class action suits filed against Expedia,
Inc.'s unit, HomeAway.com, Inc., are still awaiting ruling on the
appeals from the trial court's decisions on HomeAway's motions to
compel arbitration, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed
on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On March 15, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in
federal district court in Texas against HomeAway.com, Inc.
related to its recent implementation of a service fee.

In the case, Arnold v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. l-16-cv-00374
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas), the putative
class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on
HomeAway's websites for rent.  The complaint asserts claims
against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

On April 15, 2016, another putative class action suit was filed
against HomeAway, also related to the implementation of a service
fee.

In the case, Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16- cv-00479
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas), the putative
class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on
HomeAway's websites.  The complaint asserts claims against
HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and other state
consumer protection statutes.

HomeAway moved to compel arbitration and dismissal in both of
these cases on July 11, 2016; a hearing on both motions to compel
took place on August 24, 2016.

On January 10, 2017, the court denied HomeAway's motion in
Arnold.

On January 31, 2017, HomeAway filed a notice of appeal.  On March
10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in
Arnold.

On August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and
recommendation to the court, recommending the court grant
HomeAway's motion to dismiss the complaint in part, and deny the
motion in part.

On September 25, 2017, the court adopted the magistrate's report
in Arnold.

On October 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On November 10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint and/or to strike the class
allegations.

On January 10, 2018, the district court referred the motion to
the Magistrate Judge.

On January 18, 2017, the court granted HomeAway's motion in Seim
and entered final judgment dismissing the case.

On February 2, 2017, Seim filed a notice of appeal.

On December 7, 2017, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals heard argument in the Arnold and Seim matters on the
parties' appeals from the trial court's decisions on HomeAway's
motions to compel arbitration.  The parties await a ruling.

On June 23, 2016, another putative class action was filed against
HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of a
service fee.

The case is Brickman v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00733
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas).  This putative
class is comprised of homeowners from nine different states that
list their properties on HomeAway's websites.

The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, restitution,
and violations of various state consumer protection statutes.

On October 26, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dismissing
certain named Plaintiffs and adding two new Plaintiffs.

On December 6, 2016, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed.

On August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and
recommendation to the court, recommending the court grant
HomeAway's motion to dismiss the complaint in part, and deny the
motion in part.

On August 25, 2017, the district court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation and ordered plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint by September 8, 2017.

On September 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On November 10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint and/or to strike the class
allegations.

On January 10, 2018, the district court referred the motion to
the Magistrate Judge.

On November 7, 2016, another putative class action was filed
against HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of
a service fee.

In the case May v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01211
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas), the complaint
asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, fraud,
fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Oregon Unlawful
Trade Practices Act.  It also names Expedia as a defendant.

HomeAway and Expedia moved to compel arbitration and dismissal in
this case on May 1, 2017.

On July 6, 2017, the court held a hearing on the motion.

On July 10, 2017, the court entered an order directing the
parties to advise it when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
issues decisions in the Arnold and Seim appeals.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class
action lawsuit remains pending, according to its regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, putative class action complaints
alleging violations of securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger,
Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the
cases were consolidated (In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF).  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and concealing
material adverse facts regarding the Company's financial
condition, business operations and growth prospects. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock from September
12, 2013 through April 9, 2015.  On June 28, 2016, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff.  On September 26, 2016, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On November 10, 2016,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted
with leave to amend on April 27, 2017.

On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled to be heard on
December 14, 2017, the Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2017.

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December
31, 2017, the Company said the Court held a hearing on
Defendants' motion to dismiss on December 14, and a ruling is
expected in the next few months.

Extreme Networks said "The Company believes plaintiffs' claims
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously."

Extreme Networks, Inc. is a provider of network infrastructure
equipment and offers related maintenance contracts for extended
warranty and maintenance to its enterprise, data center and
service provider customers.  The company was incorporated in
California in May 1996, and reincorporated in Delaware in March
1999.  The company's corporate headquarters is located in San
Jose, California.


FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suit over Preferred Stock Purchase Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie Mae continues to face the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreements Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "A consolidated class action and two non-class
action lawsuits filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders
are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, and Freddie Mac
that challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior
preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.  In the
consolidated class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations"),
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2017 that
alleges the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior
preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012
amendments nullified certain of the shareholders' rights,
particularly the right to receive dividends.  Plaintiffs allege
claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, and
violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law against us,
FHFA and Freddie Mac, and breach of fiduciary duties claims
derivatively on our and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA.
Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or
common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held
stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012
amendments.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.  The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 10, 2018.

"In the two non-class action suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v.
Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, the plaintiffs, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholders, filed amended
complaints on November 1, 2017 against us, FHFA as our
conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity) and
Freddie Mac alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions
nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders,
particularly the right to receive dividends, and exceeded FHFA's
statutory authority.  Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Delaware
and Virginia corporate law.  They also assert claims for
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against FHFA.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.  The defendants
moved to dismiss both amended complaints on January 10, 2018.

"Plaintiffs in all three cases filed the amended complaints after
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.  Circuit issued a ruling
on February 21, 2017 that affirmed in part and reversed in part
the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' original
complaints.  In addition to filing the amended complaints,
plaintiffs also filed petitions for certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court on October 16, 2017 seeking review of the
Court of Appeals' rulings that plaintiffs could not pursue claims
alleging violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and no
conflict existed in allowing FHFA to decide whether to pursue
derivative claims on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while
they are in conservatorship."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") chartered
by Congress.  It serves as a stable source of liquidity for
purchases of homes and financing of multifamily rental housing,
as well as for refinancing existing mortgages.


FIKA ESPRESSO: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fika Espresso Bars
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fika
Espresso Bars LLC and Pachanga, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01346 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Fika Espresso Bars LLC is in the coffee shop business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


FMR LLC: Faces "Musso" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMR LLC. The case
is styled as Christopher Musso, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMR LLC, Fidelity Global
Brokerage Group, Inc and Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02108 (D. N.J., February 14, 2018).

FMR LLC is a privately owned investment manager. The firm was
formerly known as FMR CORP. FMR LLC is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FRANCK MULLER USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franck Muller USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Franck Muller
USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01461 (S.D. N.Y., February
18, 2018).

Franck Muller is a Swiss watchmaker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Ohio Public Employees Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation continues to defend itself
in the case Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuit: Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "This putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on
January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20,
2007.  FHFA later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff
amended its complaint on several occasions.  The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning our business, risk management, and the procedures we
put into place to protect the company from problems in the
mortgage industry.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

"In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.  In October 2014, the District Court granted
defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety
against all defendants, with prejudice.  In November 2014,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.  On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.  In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation and the fact
that the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment.  In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,"

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States.  The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.  It
operates in three segments: Single-Family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Investments.  Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Lawsuit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation continues to defend the
case In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European
Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July
30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal
National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013.  (The Marneu case was
also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in December 2013.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.
The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012.  The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued
by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of
time.

The case, Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
FHFA and Treasury, was filed on September 20, 2013.  The
allegations and demands made by plaintiffs in this case were
generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations.  Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit
also requested that, if injunctive relief were not granted, the
Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in
an amount to be determined including, but not limited to, the
aggregate par value of their junior preferred stock, the total of
which they stated to be approximately US$42 million.

The case, American European Insurance Company, Cacciapalle and
Miller vs. Treasury and FHFA, was filed as a shareholder
derivative lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a
"nominal" defendant, on July 30, 2014.  The complaint alleged
that, through the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement, Treasury and FHFA breached their respective fiduciary
duties to Freddie Mac, causing Freddie Mac to suffer damages.
The plaintiffs asked that Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory
damages and disgorgement, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and
other expenses.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case and the other related
cases in January 2014.  Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the
same day.  In September 2014, the District Court granted the
motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.  All plaintiffs
appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part
and remanded in part the decision granting the motions to
dismiss.  The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all claims
except certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of
contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims.  On
July 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted the petitions for
rehearing and issued a modified decision, which permitted the
institutional plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that
had been remanded.  The Court of Appeals also removed language
related to the standard to be applied to the implied duty claims,
leaving that issue for the District Court to determine on remand.

On October 16, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs
filed petitions for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging whether HERA's prohibition on injunctive relief
against FHFA bars judicial review of the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement, as well as whether HERA bars shareholders from
pursuing derivative litigation where they allege the conservator
faces a conflict of interest.  The Solicitor General has opposed
the petitions.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs
and plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not
originally a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc.  v. FHFA, Treasury,
and Federal National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended
complaints in the District Court.  Each of the proposed amended
complaints names Freddie Mac as a defendant for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law.  On January
10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to dismiss the
amended complaints.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States.  The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.  It
operates in three segments: Single-Family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Investments.  Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is based in McLean, Virginia.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Ramlagan" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Seetaram Ramlagan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01065
(E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bakers Fund Sues over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, the Plaintiff,
v. General Electric Company, Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S.
Bornstein, John L. Flannery, and Jamie Miller, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01404 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded GE securities
between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

GE is a New York corporation that was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GE is a global
conglomerate that operates across a number of business segments
and trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the
symbol "GE." GE Capital Global Holdings, LLC is the financial
services unit of GE. GE Capital provides commercial lending and
leasing, as well as a range of financial services for commercial
aviation, energy, and support for GE's industrial business units.

During the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding GE's business, as well as its
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) GE was failing to make meaningful adjustments to its
insurance actuarial assumptions; (ii) this resulted in inadequate
insurance reserves being maintained in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Practices ("GAAP"), which caused billions in
unreported impairment charges for GE; (iii) GE's Power and Oil &
Gas segments, among others, were knowingly underperforming; (iv)
consequently, the value of GE was overstated during the Class
Period, and additional undisclosed impairments were necessary;
and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, GE's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  GE's
fraudulent statements and omissions regarding its financial
affairs caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially-
inflated levels throughout the Class Period, reaching a high of
$32.88 on July 11, 2016.

On January 16, 2018, GE announced that the comprehensive review
and reserve testing for GE Capital's insurance had concluded, and
that GE would be required to assess an "after-tax GAAP charge of
$6.2 billion for the fourth quarter of 2018." GE further advised
that "GE Capital expects to make statutory reserve contributions
of $15 billion over seven years" and will suspend its dividend to
GE for the "foreseeable future."

That same day, on a conference call with investors and analysts,
Defendant Flannery stated, in part, that "[c]learly, in
hindsight, we underappreciated the risk in [GE's insurance
business] book." Disclosure of this information caused a
precipitous drop in GE's stock price causing investors to suffer
substantial losses. In particular, the price of GE's common stock
fell from $1.43 per share, or 7.62%, over the following two
trading sessions, to close at $17.33 on January 17, 2018,
shedding approximately $12.4 billion in market capital.

On January 24, 2018, during a conference call with investors and
analysts, GE announced that the Securities Exchange Commission
had notified GE that it would be "investigating [GE's] process
leading to the insurance reserve increase and the fourth-quarter
charge as well as GE's revenue recognition and controls for long-
term service agreements." On this news, GE's stock price dropped
again, by $0.45 to $16.44 on January 24, 2018, and continued to
decline another $0.26 closing at $16.18 on January 25, 2018,
shedding approximately $6.15 billion in market capital. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of GE's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters
Pension Fund:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 19801
          Telephone: (646) 722 8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722 8501


GENERAL MOTORS: "Davis" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jenni Davis, Robert Valles, Jr.,
Kevin Blagg, and Matthew Dexter, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company and
General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00045, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Flint) on Feb. 16, 2018. The Eastern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-10527-MFL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman.

General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Schechter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C.
          1 Greenway Plaza, Suite 740
          Houston, TX 77046-0102
          Telephone: (713) 623 8919
          Facsimile: (713) 622 1680
          E-mail: richard@rs-law.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Billy Frank and John O'Brien, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) on Feb. 16, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-10526-MFL to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Matthew F. Leitman.

General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Lieff, Cabraser, Esq.
          150 Fourth Ave North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219-2423
          Telephone: (615) 313 9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313 9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com


GERBER LIFE: "Abramson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Gerber Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00104 (W.D. Pa., January 24, 2018), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Stewart Abramson is a Pennsylvania resident.

Defendant Gerber Life Insurance Company is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business located at 1311 Mamaroneck
Avenue in White Plains, NY 10605. Plaintiff provides life
insurance contracts to consumers. Gerber Life uses telemarketing
to promote its products and solicit new clients.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
      MORROW & ARTIM, PC
      304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 209-0656
      E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com

          - and -

      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com


GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Faces "Kodirova" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Receivables
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Aziza Kodirova, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global
Receivables Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 11:18-cv-01064
(E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Global Receivables Solutions, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


GRAFTON, OHIO: Martin Files Suit v. Warden
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the warden at
Grafton Correction Institution. The case is styled as Robert
Martin and all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Warden at Grafton
Correction Institution, Institution Inspector at G.C.I., Chief
Inspector at Central Office, Cashier Ramey, Bus. Adm Capelety and
Doctor Optometry, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00376-PAG (N.D.
Ohio, February 16, 2018).

The Grafton Correctional Institution is a state prison for men
located in Grafton, Lorain County, Ohio, owned and operated by
the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GUSTO THAI: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gusto Thai Inc.
doing business as: Tum & Yum. The case is styled as Deybi Monzon
Barrios, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gusto Thai Inc. doing business as: Tum & Yum, Tum
Yum Plus Inc. doing business as: Tum & Yum, Mung Mee Thai Inc.
doing business as: Prik Thai Kitchen, Jakrapop Panurach,
Patchanee Taitong, Phannarai Chantanukul and Wachara Nittayarot,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01098 (E.D. N.Y., February 20,
2018).

Gusto Thai Inc. is a restaurant and cafe offering authentic Thai
food.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HAGAMAN PROPERTY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hagaman Property
Development LLC. The case is styled as Troy Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Hagaman Property Development LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00024-DPM (E.D. Ark., February 16, 2018).

Hagaman Property Development LLC is a company located in Toms
River New Jersey. They buy houses and refurbish them for rentals
and or for resale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com

     - and -

   Daniel D. Ford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Email: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com

      - and -

   Joshua Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss to Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action remains pending, The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in a
recent regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., (the "Flora Complaint"); (2)
Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn
Complaint"); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,
et al. (the "Spadola Complaint" and, together with the Flora and
Lynn Complaints, the "Securities Complaints").  On June 5, 2017,
the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-
Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel.
Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were
consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities
Action"), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were
appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  On June 21, 2017, the Company
received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his
claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the
Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member.

On August 4, 2017, Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed an amended complaint on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").  The
Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of
its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants")
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially
false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.

On August 9, 2017, the court approved the Defendants' proposed
briefing schedule and ordered that the Defendants move to dismiss
the Amended Complaint by October 3, 2017, Hain Celestial said in
its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and
Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. The motion to
dismiss is pending before the Court, Hain Celestial said in its
Form 10-Q report for the Quarterly period ended December 31,
2017.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.
The Company's mission has continued to evolve since its founding,
with health and wellness being the core tenet -- To Create and
Inspire A Healthier Way of LifeTM and be the leading marketer,
manufacturer and seller of organic and natural, "better-for-you"
products by anticipating and exceeding consumer expectations in
providing quality, innovation, value and convenience.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class
and Derivative Litigation, has been stayed pending a court
decision in a separate securities class action lawsuit involving
the Company, The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in a recent
regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively.  Both the Silva Complaint and the
Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint
under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board
of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company
violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016
Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

On August 9, 2017, the court granted an order to unseal this case
and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Compliant, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Compliant under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel,
with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs, Hain Celestial said in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.

The parties agreed that the defendants in the Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action shall have 60 days to answer or otherwise
move to dismiss after the plaintiffs file a consolidated
complaint with the court or designate an already filed complaint
as the operative complaint.

Hain Celestial said in its Form 10-Q report for the Quarterly
period ended December 31, 2017, that on September 14, 2017, a
related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et
al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder
Class and Derivative Action.  The Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On
December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to
answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
consolidated Securities Class Actions.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.
The Company's mission has continued to evolve since its founding,
with health and wellness being the core tenet -- To Create and
Inspire A Healthier Way of LifeTM and be the leading marketer,
manufacturer and seller of organic and natural, "better-for-you"
products by anticipating and exceeding consumer expectations in
providing quality, innovation, value and convenience.


HANA FINANCIAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hana Financial
Group, Inc.  The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hana
Financial Group, Inc. d/b/a KEB Hana Bank USA, NA, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01052 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Hana Financial Group is one of the largest bank holding companies
in Korea.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HANOVER BANCORP: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanover Bancorp,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hanover Bancorp,
Inc. d/b/a Hanover Community Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00994 (E.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Hanover Bancorp, Inc. is a one-bank holding company. Bank of
Hanover and Trust Company, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
is Hanover's oldest and only remaining independent financial
institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HENRI STERN WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Henri Stern
Watch Agency, Inc.  The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
The Henri Stern Watch Agency, Inc. d/b/a Patek Phillipe,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01431 (S.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018).

The Henri Stern Watch Agency, Inc. manufactures watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Torres" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Financial
Recovery Services.  The case is styled as Daniel Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Heritage Financial Recovery Services, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02261 (D. N.J., February 16, 2018).

Heritage Financial Recovery Services is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HOME BANCSHARES: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of NY
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Bancshares
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Bancshares
Inc. d/b/a Centennial Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00999
(E.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Home BancShares, operating as Centennial Bank, is a major
southern bank based in Conway, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


IDB CAPITAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IDB Capital Corp.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDB Capital Corp. d/b/a
IDB Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01057 (E.D. N.Y., February
19, 2018).

IDB Capital Corp. operates as a subsidiary of Israel Discount
Bank of New York Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ILLINOIS: State Treasurer Sued over Illinois College Savings Pool
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA KAY, on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, the
Illinois State Treasurer, Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-02119 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., County Cty., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks retroactive,
injunctive, and equitable relief to compel the Treasurer to
comply with the College Savings Pool Act, its own regulations,
and the Declarations of Trust governing the College Savings Pool.

According to the complaint, in violation of both statute and its
own regulations, the Illinois Treasurer is illegally
administering the $9 billion Illinois College Savings Pool,
commonly known as Bright Start and Bright Directions. As a
result, the Treasurer has overcharged participants for the better
part of a decade, depriving them of funds the Illinois General
Assembly intended them to have to pay for higher education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Hurst, Esq.
          Matthew Heffner, Esq.
          HEFFNER HURST
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
          Chicago, IL 60602 42827
          Telephone: (312) 346 3466
          Facsimile: (312) 346 2829
          E-mail: rnhurst@heffnerhurst.com
                  rnheffner@heffnerhurst.com


INFINITY PROPERTY: Class Suits over Business Operations Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation disclosed in its Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that as of December 31,
2017, pending putative (i.e., not certified) class action
lawsuits that challenge certain of Infinity's business operations
and practices included the following:

   * allegations the Company sold a lessor liability endorsement
affording only illusory coverage.

   * a challenge to denial of personal injury protection benefits
to a class of injured third parties in vehicle accidents.

   * a challenge to the Company's payment of a percentage of
arbitration awards to collection agencies in successful
intercompany arbitrations.

   * allegations that the Company is obligated to reimburse
Medicare or secondary payers for accident-related medical
payments in which personal injury protection benefits were
denied.

Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation is a holding company
that provides insurance through subsidiaries for personal auto
with a concentration on nonstandard risks, commercial auto and
classic collectors.


INSURANCE COMPANY: "Hiskey" Suit Moved to District of Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David L. Hiskey and Randy A
Fallang, Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs. v. Insurance
Company of the West, the Defendant, Case No. DDV-17-00695, was
removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County,
MT, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Great
Falls) on Feb. 16, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:18-cv-00038-BMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Brian Morris.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 2608
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone: (406) 727 8466
          Facsimile: (406) 771 8812
          E-mail: laalaw@me.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Robert J. Phillips, Esq.
          Emma L. Mediak, Esq.
          GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
          350 Ryman Street, PO Box 7909
          Missoula, MT 59807-7909
          Telephone: (406) 523 2500
          Facsimile: (406) 523 2595
          E-mail: rjphillips@garlington.com
                  elmediak@garlington.com


INTERAUDI BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interaudi Bank. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Interaudi Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01053 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Interaudi Bank provides personal, commercial, and asset
management banking services to the United States and foreign
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


INVESTOR'S BANCORP: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Investor's Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00620
(E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Plaintiff Eugene Duncan, at all relevant times, is a resident of
Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of
individuals under the ADA.

The Defendant operates Investor's Bancorp, Inc. as well as the
Investor's Bancorp, Inc. website, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the products and services which
Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (646) 645-8482
      Fax: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: dan@dccohen.com

          - and -

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


INWOOD BEER: Faces "Aza" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inwood Beer Garden
& Bistro Inc. The case is styled as Orlando De Aza, individually
and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro Inc. d/b/a Inwood Bar
and Grill and Maria T. Figueroa, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01477 (S.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro Inc. is in the Beer Garden (Drinking
Places) business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lian Zhu, Esq.
   Hang & Associates, PLLC
   136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10g
   Flushing, NY 11354
   Tel: (718) 353-8588
   Fax: (718) 353-6288
   Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


JCN CHUNG: "Carchi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Julio Carchi and Andres "Alex" Gomez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. JCN Chung International, Corp. dba
Osaka Japanese Restaurant, and Hyunsoo Chung, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00529 (E.D. N.Y., January 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

On or about May 18, 2005, Plaintiff, Julio Carchi, was hired by
Defendants to work as a food preparer, dishwasher, and cook for
Defendants' "Osaka Japanese Restaurant", a food/beverage
establishment located at 11 Wall Street, Huntington, NY 11743.
Plaintiff Carchi worked for Defendants until on or about January
20, 2018.

On or about August 4, 2007, Plaintiff, Andres "Alex" Gomez, was
hired by Defendants to work as a food preparer, dishwasher, and
cook for Defendants' "Osaka Japanese Restaurant", a food/beverage
establishment located at 11 Wall Street, Huntington, NY 11743.
Plaintiff Gomez worked for Defendants until on or about January
20, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Huntington, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lian Zhu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288


JIMMY JOHN'S: "Butler" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Sylas Butler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, Jimmy John's
Enterprises, LLC, Jimmy John's LLC and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00133 (S.D. Ill., January 24, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act.

This action challenges under Section 1 of the Sherman Act an
employee non-solicitation and no-hire agreement orchestrated by
Defendants Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, Jimmy John's Enterprises,
LLC, Jimmy John's LLC between and among Jimmy John's restaurant
franchisees, pursuant to which the franchisees agreed not to
solicit, recruit, or hire each other's employees. Jimmy John's,
at its principal place of business located in Illinois,
orchestrated, designed, monitored, and enforced this anti-
competitive contract, combination, or conspiracy, notes the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Jimmy John's
franchise restaurants. Plaintiffs suffered reduced wages and
benefits and diminished employment opportunities as a result of
the unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy alleged herein,
the complaint adds.

Defendants Jimmy John's is a sandwich restaurant chain with over
2,700 locations in more than 40 states plus the District of
Columbia. Approximately Ninety-eight percent of Jimmy John's
restaurants are franchise businesses that are independently owned
and operated as separate and distinct entities from Jimmy John's.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      100 North Main Street, Suite 11
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Tel: (618) 307-6116
      Fax: (618) 307-6161
      E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com


JOHN HARDY USA: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Hardy USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
John Hardy USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01004 (E.D.
N.Y., February 15, 2018).

John Hardy USA Inc. designs and manufactures jewelry and
lifestyle accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KEARNY BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kearny Bank. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kearny Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01055 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Kearny Bank, a community bank, provides personal and business
banking products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


KENJO JEWELRY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenjo Jewelry 57th
Street Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kenjo
Jewelry 57th Street Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01463 (S.D.
N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Kenjo Jewelry 57th St Inc (trade name Techno Marine Store) is in
the Jewelry Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


LA BOUCHERIE: "Storey" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bryant Storey, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. La Boucherie on 71, Defendant
IHG Management (Maryland) LLC, and DOES 1-100, the Defendants,
Case No. BC678045, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Feb.
16, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-
01301 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Michael J Burns, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com


LOEWS CORP: Tentative Accord to Settle Plus Plan Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that an agreement in principle has been
reached to settle a class action lawsuit related to the 401(k)
Plus Plan of subsidiary CNA Financial Corporation.

In September of 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Continental Casualty Company (CCC), Continental Assurance Company
("CAC") (a former subsidiary of CCC), CNA Financial Corporation
(CNA), the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan
("Plan"), The Northern Trust Company and John Does 1-10
(collectively "Defendants") related to the Plan.  The complaint
alleges that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan and
caused prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when the Plan's Fixed
Income Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled.

The plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of the Plan
participants who had invested in the Fixed Income Fund suffered
lower returns in their Plan investments as a consequence of these
alleged violations and seeks relief on behalf of the putative
class.  The Plan trustees have provided notice to their fiduciary
coverage insurance carriers.

Through mediation, the plaintiff, Defendants and the Plan's
fiduciary insurance carriers reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter.  Upon completion of a definitive settlement
agreement, plaintiff and Defendants will propose a class
settlement for court approval.

The Company said, "Based on the agreement in principle,
management has recorded its best estimate of CNA's probable loss
and the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of
this matter will have a material impact on its condensed
consolidated financial statements."

Loews Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides commercial
property and casualty insurance in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, and Singapore.  The Company
was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


LOS OLIVOS: "Garay" Suit Alleges NY Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Flores Garay and Eric Sandoval, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated v. Los Olivos, Ltd.,
Ester Alvarado, and Vicente Alvarado, Case No. 601284 (N.Y. Sup.,
January 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Antonio Flores Garay was employed by the Defendants as
a driver's helper from August 4, 2016 until December 7, 2017.

Plaintiff Eric Sandoval worked for the Defendants as a driver's
helper from approximately September 2013 to September 2014.

The Defendants owned and operated a food delivery business in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Samuel, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd St., Ste 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884


LUPE'S EAST: "Chirix" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Eduardo Chirix, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Lupe's East L.A. Kitchen, Inc., David Seixas, and
Rene Hernandez, Case No. 1:18-cv-00819 (S.D. N.Y., January 30,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Jose Eduardo Chrix worked as a food preparer/kitchen
worker, porter and food delivery worker for the Defendants'
restaurant from March 25, 2013 until January 19, 2018.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


LVMH WATCH & JEWELRY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVMH Watch &
Jewelry USA, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVMH
Watch & Jewelry USA, Inc. d/b/a Tag Heuer USA, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01462 (S.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

LVMH Watch & Jewelry USA, Inc. provides luxury products. The
Company offers jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume
jewelry, watches, and silverware. LVMH Watch & Jewelry USA
operates worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


M CULINARY: "Eulogio" Suit Seeks to Recover to Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Noe Eulogio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. M Culinary Concepts, Inc. dba Bite, Novel Foods Inc.
dba Bite, A.M. Catering Solutions, Inc. dba Bite, and Amichai
Melamed aka Ami Melamed, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff Eulogio was employed as a delivery worker and a cook at
the restaurant located at 62 West 22nd Street, New York, New York
10010. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from November 2016 until
on or about January 22, 2018.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Middle Eastern &
Mediterranean restaurant located at 62 West 22nd Street, New
York, New York 10010 under the name "Bite."

Individual Defendant Amichai Melamed a.k.a. Ami Melamed, serve or
served as owner, manager, principal, or agent of Defendant
Corporations and, through these corporate entities, operates or
operated the restaurant as a joint or unified enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MAOZ VEGETARIAN: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maoz Vegetarian
U.S.A., Inc.  The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Maoz Vegetarian U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01347 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Maoz Vegetarian U.S.A., Inc. (trade name Maoz Vegetarian) is in
the fast-food restaurant chain business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


MASTERCARD INC: Accrues $708MM Interchange Fees Suit Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated has accrued a liability of US$708 million
at December 31, 2017, as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation as well as the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant
cases related to complaints over interchange fees, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled
as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf
of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard
International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service
Association and a number of financial institutions.  Taken
together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.  The complaints allege,
among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial
institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees,
enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no
surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in
unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to
assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities.  The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.  Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment
sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The
agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in
the merchant litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed
by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving
the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard,
Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the
settlement.  In the event of a settlement involving only
Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their
issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the
monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation
(including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the
defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with
the individual merchant plaintiffs.  The settlements included
cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant
to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement.

Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge"
rule.  The court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In
June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings.  The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement.  Mastercard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions.  Mastercard has executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants.

The Company said, "Mastercard believes these settlement
agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the court of
appeals.  The defendants have consolidated all of these matters
(except for two state court actions) in front of the same federal
district court that approved the merchant class settlement.  In
July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim.  Deposition discovery commenced in December 2016 and the
parties in the class action are in mediation.

"As of December 31, 2017, Mastercard had accrued a liability of
US$708 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.
As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, Mastercard had US$546 million
and US$543 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement
fund related to the merchant class litigation and classified as
restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet.  Mastercard
believes the reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants represents its best
estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters at December
31, 2017.  The portion of the accrued liability relating to both
the opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation
settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if
the matters were litigated to a final outcome.  Mastercard cannot
estimate the potential liability if that were to occur."

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Court OK on Canadian Suit Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated's class settlement agreement to resolve
all of the Canadian class action litigation is still subject to
court approval in each applicable province, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants.
The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau
to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's
favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules.  The Quebec suit sought compensatory and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive
relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions.  The British Columbia suit sought compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought
compensatory damages of US$5 billion on the basis of alleged
conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian
Competition Act.  Additional purported class action complaints
were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that
largely mirror those in the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement
agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation.
The settlement, which is subject to court approval in each
applicable province, requires Mastercard to make a cash payment
and modify its "no surcharge" rule.  During the first quarter of
2017, the Company recorded a provision for litigation of US$15
million related to this matter.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Complaints on ATM Surcharge Rule Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated is still facing class action complaints
related to ATM non-discrimination rule surcharge, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate.  Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's
respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for
transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of
the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens
of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely
mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint,
although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of
ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and
non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of
the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens
of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint
and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action
complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints.  In
February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim.  On appeal,
the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in
August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Liability Shift Litigation Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated continues to defend itself in the U.S.
Liability Shift Litigation, which has been transferred to New
York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint
was filed in federal court in California alleging that
Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network
Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank
Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for
card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet
in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United
States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman
Act and California law.  Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the
value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as
a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015.  The
plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an
injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.  In September 2016,
the court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank
Defendants.  In May 2017, the court transferred the case to New
York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MDL 1720: Visa Reached Settlement Deals with Several Merchants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that in the Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL), a number of individual merchant actions
previously filed have been settled, and remain settled. In
addition, following the automatic termination of the settlement
agreement with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Visa and Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. entered into a new, unconditional settlement agreement on
October 31, 2017.  Consequently, as of the filing date, Visa has
reached settlement agreements with individual merchants
representing approximately 51% of the Visa-branded payment card
sales volume of merchants who opted out of the 2012 Settlement
Agreement.

Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa
member financial institutions. The complaints challenged, among
other things, Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees under the federal
antitrust laws, and, in some cases, certain state unfair
competition laws.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in
MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs subsequently
filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which,
together with the complaints brought by individual merchants,
sought money damages alleged to range in the tens of billions of
dollars (subject to trebling), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The class plaintiffs also filed a Second
Supplemental Class Action Complaint against Visa Inc. and certain
member financial institutions challenging Visa's reorganization
and IPO under the antitrust laws and seeking unspecified money
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order
that the IPO be unwound.

The Company and certain individual merchants whose claims were
consolidated with the MDL signed a settlement agreement to
resolve their claims against the Company for approximately $350
million. This payment was made from the U.S. litigation escrow
account on October 29, 2012, and the court has dismissed those
claims with prejudice.

In addition, Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated,
various U.S. financial institution defendants, and the class
plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (the "2012 Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims. The terms of
the 2012 Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, (1) a
comprehensive release of claims asserted in the litigation and
protection against future litigation regarding default
interchange and other U.S. rules; (2) settlement payments from
the Company of approximately $4.0 billion and a further
distribution of 10 basis points of default interchange for an
eight-month period; (3) certain modifications to the Company's
rules, including modifications to permit surcharging on credit
transactions under certain circumstances; and (4) the Company's
agreement to meet with merchant buying groups that seek to
collectively negotiate interchange rates.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from
the U.S. litigation escrow account into a settlement fund
established pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment order
approving the settlement, from which a number of objectors
appealed. On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the lower court's certification of the
merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement. The
Second Circuit determined that the class plaintiffs were
inadequately represented, and remanded the case to the lower
court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its decision.

On November 23, 2016, class plaintiffs that signed the 2012
Settlement Agreement filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27,
2017.

On November 30, 2016, the district court entered an order
appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of
plaintiffs, a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class."
Following the district court's order, on February 8, 2017,
plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages
Class sought leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint. The complaint sought money damages alleged to
range in the tens of billions of dollars (subject to trebling),
as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief, and named as
defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard
Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and
certain U.S. financial institutions. The plaintiffs asserted that
the proposed complaint updated, among other things, claims for
damages and accounted for industry developments.

Defendants opposed the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion on March
10, 2017.

Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that on September 27, 2017, the magistrate
judge granted in part and denied in part the motion seeking leave
to amend the complaint, and plaintiffs objected to the portions
of the magistrate judge's order denying their motion on October
23, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on October 27, 2017.

A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
attorneys' fees. That complaint seeks, among other things, an
injunction against: the setting of default interchange rates;
certain Visa rules relating to merchants, including the honor-
all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed
acquirer network fee. The complaint names as defendants Visa
Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International
Incorporated, and certain U.S. financial institutions.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


MELMIC ENTERPRISES: "Spencer" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY SPENCER, both in his individual capacity and, in addition,
as a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. MELINDA HENSON and MICKY D. HENSON, SR.,
individuals, and MELMIC ENTERPRISES, INC., and WOODBURN 24HR
TOWING INC., Oregon corporations, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00308-MO (D. Oreg., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime and liquidated damages and penalty
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is an individual and class and collective action under
state and federal wage and hour laws for certain present and
former employees of M+M Towing. The Plaintiff requested the
production of the class and collective's time and pay records
from M+M Towing before this litigation, but M+M Towing refused to
produce them.

M+M Towing often issued checks to Plaintiff and class and
collective members after the regular payday on which such checks
were due. In doing so, M+M Towing failed to pay them the minimum
wage and/or overtime on payday, when they were due.  In addition,
M+M Towing refused to count more than 40 hours on class and
collective members' pay stubs even when they worked in excess of
40 hours, and failed to implement an effective, accurate method
of tracking drivers' time. Plaintiff worked approximately 80
hours every week, for example, but he never got paid for more
than 40.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697 3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311 5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


METROCITY BANCSHARES: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metrocity
Bancshares, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Metrocity Bancshares, Inc. d/b/a Metro City Bank, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01056 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

MetroCity Bankshares, Inc. is a bank holding company for Metro
City Bank that provides financial products and services for small
business owners, professionals, consumers, and real estate
developers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MIAMI BEACH-MIAMI LGBT: Faces "Ferrell" Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miami Beach-Miami
LGBT Sports & Cultural League, Inc. The case is styled Rodney
Ferrell, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Miami Beach-Miami LGBT Sports &
Cultural League, Inc. also known as: World Outgames Miami 2017
also known as: Miami Out Games, a Florida corporation, Keith
Hart, Ivan Cano and The Gay and Lesbian International Sport
Association also known as: GLISA International a Canadian
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20628-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
February 19, 2018).

Miami Beach-Miami LGBT Sports & Cultural League, Inc. is a non-
profit organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
   Wites Law Firm
   4400 North Federal Highway
   Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
   Tel: (954) 570-8989
   Fax: (954) 354-0205
   Email: mwites@wklawyers.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kentebe" Suit in N.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Peter Kentebe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01072 (N.D. Cal., February 20, 2018).

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
   11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MJS AMERICA: Faces "Louis" Suit in Eastern District New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MJS America LLC.
The case is styled as Danielle Louis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MJS America LLC
d/b/a Majans America LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01046 (E.D.
N.Y., February 18, 2018).

Mjs America, LLC (trade name Majans America, LLC) is in the
Groceries, General Line business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
   Levin-Epstein & Associates
   One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 792-0046
   Fax: (212) 563-7108
   Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "Whitmire" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monat Global Corp.
The case is styled as Trisha Whitmire and Emily Yanes de Flores,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Monat Global Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
20636-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2018).

MONAT Global Corp. is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor
of hair care products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Janet Robards Varnell, Esq.
   Varnell and Warwick, P.A.
   P. O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 504-3301
   Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

      - and -

   Brian William Warwick, Esq.
   Varnell & Warwick, P.A.
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 753-8606
   Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Fishman" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Anna Fishman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01016 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018).

MRS BPO, LLC, is a debt collection agency, providing accounts
receivables solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


MY PILLOW: Wuest Sues over Monitoring of Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WUEST, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MY PILLOW, INC. and DOES l through
50, the Defendants, Case No. RG18893465 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb.
16, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages and injunctive
relief under California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

This class action lawsuit arises out of the policy and practice
of Defendant to record and/or monitor without the consent of a1l
the parties, consumer initiated telephone calls made or routed to
Defendant's toll-free and other customer service telephone
numbers, including but not limited to the My Pillow toll-free
telephone numbers. The Defendant intentionally and
surreptitiously recorded and/or monitored telephone calls made or
routed to Defendant's toll-free and other customer service
telephone numbers.

My Pillow, Inc., is a pillow manufacturing company based in
Chaska, Minnesota. The company was founded in 2004 by Michael J
Lindell, who invented and patented MyPillow, an open-cell, poly-
foam pillow design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone; (415) 543 1301
          Facsimile: (415} 543 7861
          E-mail: eagtovet@kellergtover.com


NASSIEF AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Kelsy" Suit in N.D. of Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nassief Automotive,
Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Kelsey, On behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nassief
Automotive, Inc. doing business as: Nassief Honda, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00398-JG (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2018).

Nassief Automotive, Inc. is a car dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
   46 Chagrin Falls Plaza, Ste. 104
   Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
   Tel: (440) 973-9000
   Fax: (440) 210-4610
   Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com

      - and -

   Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
   Tittle Law
   2012 West 25 Street, Ste. 515
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 308-1522
   Fax: (888) 604-9299
   Email: tittle@tittlelawfirm.com


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "O'Dell" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Recovery
Agency. The case is styled as Corine O'Dell, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Recovery
Agency, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00743-EGS (E.D. Penn.,
February 20, 2018).

National Recovery Agency is a nationwide provider of accounts
receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   NICHOLAS J. LINKER, Esq.
   ZEMEL LAW LLC
   78 JOHN MILLER WAY, SUITE 430
   KEARNY, NJ 07032
   Tel: (862) 227-3106
   Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


NEW RESIDENTIAL: SDNY Court Okays Securities Class Action Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
on February 15, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
Court has approved the settlement and dismissal of claims in a
consolidated securities action.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No.  15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29,
2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No.  15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and
(iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No.  15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
February 13, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "Securities Action."

On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison
counsel were appointed in the Securities Action.

On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint.

On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D.  Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter.

The Securities Action asserts causes of action under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on certain public
disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen
and HLSS's risk management and internal controls.  More
specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges
that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially
false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's
servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal
proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls; and
(iv) certain related party transactions.

The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege
that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and
2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and
misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement.

Lead plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS
misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things,
information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's
business practices.

Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange Act in an
amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs, expenses, and
fees.

On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Securities Action in its entirety.

On June 6, 2016, all allegations except those regarding certain
related party transactions were dismissed.

On June 15, 2017, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving a settlement of the Securities Action for US$6.0
million, certifying a settlement class, approving the form and
content of notice of the settlement to class members, and setting
a hearing to determine whether the settlement should receive
final approval.

Following a hearing on November 17, 2017, the court entered an
order and judgment finally approving the settlement and
dismissing all claims with prejudice.

New Residential is an independent publicly traded real estate
investment trust ("REIT") primarily focused on investing in
residential mortgage related assets. New Residential is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "NRZ."


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Appeal on Nixed Stockholder's Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed on
February 15, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that
parties to a class action and derivative action in Delaware are
awaiting argument and decision on the plaintiff's appeal from a
Court order dismissing the case.

On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class action and
derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly
on behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR.

On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").  The lawsuit names the Company, its
directors, its Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I
LP as defendants, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company, its directors, its Manager, Fortress and Fortress
Operating Entity I LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition.

The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment, among other things,
as to the applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation and as to the validity of the
release of claims of the Company's stockholders related to the
termination of the HLSS Initial Merger Agreement.  The Amended
Complaint seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief and damages.

On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing
without prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and
declaratory judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the
applicability of Article Twelfth.

On October 14, 2016, plaintiff moved to reargue the Court's
dismissal opinion, and defendants filed an opposition to the
motion for reargument on October 28, 2016.  On December 1, 2016,
the court denied the motion for reargument.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint") on February 27, 2017 containing allegations and
seeking relief similar to that in the Amended Complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March
30, 2017.

The court held an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on July
7, 2017, which the court granted in the defendants' favor on
October 6, 2017.

On November 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the Delaware Supreme Court appealing the court's original motion
to dismiss opinion, motion for reargument opinion, and second
motion to dismiss opinion.  The parties have briefed the appeal
and are currently awaiting argument and decision.

New Residential is an independent publicly traded real estate
investment trust ("REIT") primarily focused on investing in
residential mortgage related assets. New Residential is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "NRZ."


NEW YORK MELLON: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Case No.  1:18-
cv-00610 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Plaintiff Eugene Duncan, at all relevant times, is a resident of
Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of
individuals under the ADA.

The Defendant operates NY Mellon Banks as well as the NY Mellon
website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the products and services which Defendant offers in
connection with their physical locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (646) 645-8482
      Fax: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: dan@dccohen.com

          - and -

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


NEWBANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newbank. The case
is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Newbank, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01054 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2018).

Newbank is a banking institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown, et al. Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BROWN, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v. NHS PENNSYLVANIA,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01617 (E.D. La., Feb. 16,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees would typically work in the field in excess of
40 hours per week performing necessary functions of their job,
but were not compensated anything whatsoever for any hours worked
over 40 in a work week. Instead, Defendant offered Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees "comp time" which ultimately
was never received due to the demands of their position. In
addition, Plaintiff and other hourly paid employees were paid a
flat fee for "on call" work hours. On call work hours had no
relation to the specific hours worked. On call pay was not based
on an hourly rate. On call pay was pay based on a flat rate
regardless of the on-call hours worked. Plaintiff and the hourly
paid employees did not receive overtime at one and a half their
regular rate of pay for the on-call hours worked.

NHS is a provider of education and human services to individuals
with special needs in the United States of America.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Rd. Suite #213
          Winter Park FL 32789
          Telephone: (321) 287 6021
          Facsimile: (833) 423 5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com

               - and -

          Craig B. Mitchell, Esq.
          Kendale J. Thompson, Esq.
          MITCHELL & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          615 Baronne Street, Suite 300
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 527 6433
          Facsimile: (504) 527 6450
          E-mail: cbmitchell@mitchellaplc.com
                  kthompson@mitchellaplc.com


NOAH BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noah Bank. The case
is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Noah Bank, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00995 (E.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018).

Noah Bank is a community bank that offers banking products and
services to businesses and consumers primarily in the Asian-
American communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


OFF LEASE: "Foster" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Scott Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Off Lease Only, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-80089 (S.D.
Fla., January 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the AT&T monthly
prepaid plan.

Defendant, Off Lease Only, Inc., is a Florida corporation whose
principal office is located at 3531 Lake Worth Road, Lake Worth,
FL 33460. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
              patrick@scottdowens.com
              sean@scottdowens.com

          - and -

      Brett L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRET LUSSKIN, ESQ.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (954) 454-5841
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


ONE WAY: "Fisher" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------
Nick Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. One Way Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00309 (D.
Ariz., January 29, 2018), seeks statutory damages plus court
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Nick Fisher is a resident of the State of Arizona.

Defendant One Way Funding, LLC is a purported financial services
company that provides capital primarily to small businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Chami, Esq.
      PRICE LAW GROUP, APC
      1204 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 102
      Tempe, AZ 85283
      Tel: (866) 881-2133
      E-mail: david@pricelawgroup.com


ORCHARD SUPPLY: "Branco" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Lawrence C. Branco, individually and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Orchard Supply
Company, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00531 (N.D. Calif., January 24,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Lawrence C. Branco is a resident of the State of
California and has been employed by Defendant during the
statutory time period covered by this complaint. Plaintiff Branco
was employed as an Assistant Store Manager by Defendant

Defendant Orchard Supply Company, LCC is a home improvement
retailer doing business under the name "Orchard Supply Hardware"
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lowe's Home Centers, LLC.
Orchard Supply Hardware's principal place of business and
corporate office is located within this judicial district at 6450
Via Del Oro, San Jose, California.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
      J.E.B. Pickett, Esq.
      WYNNE LAW FIRM
      80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Tel: (415) 461-6400
      Fax: (415) 461-3900
      E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
              jebpickett@wynnelawfirm.com


PALACE ELITE: "Baker" Suit Alleges RICO Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey T. Baker and Frank W. Baker, and all others similarly
situated v. Palace Elite Resorts, S.A De C.V., trading as Palace
Elite and Palace Resorts et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00319 (E.D.
Pa., January 26, 2018), seeks damages under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case involves a scheme by which the Defendants have engaged
and engaged in fraudulent transactions, including, but not
limited to, mail fraud and wire fraud.

Plaintiffs Kelsey Baker and Frank Baker, wife and husband, are
residents of Jamison, Pennsylvania.

Defendant Palace Elite Resorts, S.A. De C.V., is a Mexican
corporate entity. Defendant is in the resort hotel business and
sells time shares to consumers.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Carol B. McCullough, Esq.
      MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC
      65 West Street Road, A-204
      Warminster, PA 18974
      Tel: (215) 957-6411
      E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com
              mccullougheisenberg@gmail.com


PARAGON COIN: "Davy" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Astley Davy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paragon Coin, Inc., Jessica Versteeg, and Egor
Lavrov, Case No. 4:18-cv-00671 (N.D. Calif., January 30, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Act.

The Plaintiff brings the class action in connection with Paragon
Initial Coin Offering, which ran from approximately
August 15, 2017 through October 16, 2017. Defendants raised at
least $70 million in digital cryptocurrencies by offering and
selling unregistered securities in direct violation of the
Securities Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Astley Davy invested in the Paragon ICO on September
21, 2017, September 23, 2017, September 28, 2017, September 30,
2017, October 3, 2017, and October 15, 2017.

Defendant Paragon is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated
on July 6, 2017. Defendant Paragon is controlled by Defendant
VerSteeg and Defendant Lavrov.  Defendant Paragon is the
"operating entity" for the PRG Token project.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 291-2420
      Fax: (415) 484-1294


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Cases Pending at Feb. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
on February 13, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that as
of February 9, 2018, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against it, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as
follows:

  * 57 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (30),
Brazil (10), Canada (4), Chile (5), Costa Rica (1), Italy (3),
the Philippines (1), Russia (1), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1),
compared with 64 such cases on December 31, 2016, and 68 cases on
December 31, 2015; and

  * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on December 31, 2016, and 11 such cases on December 31,
2015.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs' allegations of liability
in these cases are based on various theories of recovery,
including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes.  Plaintiffs in
these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory
and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief.  Defenses
raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a
claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the
risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White. Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli Unit Still Faces Label-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s Israeli affiliate remains a
defendant in a purported class action related to product labeling
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February
13, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

An individual plaintiff filed the purported class action, Aharon
Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and Globrands Ltd., on July 18,
2017, in the Central District Court of Israel. The Company's
Israeli affiliate and an Israeli importer and distributor for
other multinational tobacco companies are defendants.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of smokers in Israel who
have purchased cigarettes imported by defendants since July 18,
2010.  Plaintiff estimates the class size to be 7,000,000
smokers.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants misled consumers by not
disclosing sufficient information about carbon monoxide, tar, and
nicotine yields of, and tobacco contained in, the imported
cigarettes.  Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including
an order for defendants to label cigarette packs in accordance
with plaintiff's demands, and damages for misleading consumers,
breach of autonomy and unjust enrichment.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White. Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Resolves "Mouzon" & "Cantley" Suits
---------------------------------------------------
FC Global Realty Incorporated, formerly PhotoMedex, Inc., said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017,
that during the three months ended September 30, 2017, Radiancy,
Inc., a subsidiary of the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release with regard to Mouzon, et al. v. Radiancy,
Inc., a civil action filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.

The settlement also includes the potential plaintiffs under April
Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., a purported class action lawsuit
originally filed in the Superior Court in the State of
California, County of Kern, which was removed to the Federal
Court system and consolidated with the Mouzon litigation.

The terms and conditions of the Mouzon Settlement Agreement are
also confidential; the parties will dismiss the suit between them
with prejudice.

PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing on September 18,
2017, that Radiancy, Inc. ("Radiancy"), a subsidiary of
PhotoMedex, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB, NASDAQ and TASE: PHMD)
has entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the
"Settlement Agreement") with regard to Mouzon, et al. v.
Radiancy, Inc., a civil action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Mouzon civil action alleged certain marketing and warranty
claims against Radiancy and its President, Dolev Rafaeli, who was
earlier dismissed from the suit, on behalf of a purported class
of individuals who had purchased the nono! Hair(R) removal
product marketed and sold by Radiancy.

The settlement also includes the potential plaintiffs under April
Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., a purported class action lawsuit
originally filed in the Superior Court in the State of
California, County of Kern, which was removed to the Federal
Court system and consolidated with the Mouzon litigation.

The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are
confidential.

FC Global Realty Incorporated (and its subsidiaries), re-
incorporated in Nevada on December 30, 2010, originally formed in
Delaware in 1980, is a real estate investment company holding or
in the process of acquiring investments in a variety of current
and future real estate projects, including residential
developments, commercial properties such as gas station sites,
and hotels and resort communities.

Under its previous name, PhotoMedex, Inc., the Company was, until
the recent sale of the Company's last significant business unit
(its consumer products division which was sold to ICTV Brands,
Inc. on January 23, 2017), a Global Skin Health company providing
integrated disease management and aesthetic solutions to
dermatologists, professional aestheticians and consumers. The
Company provided proprietary products and services that addressed
skin diseases and conditions including psoriasis, acne, actinic
keratosis (a precursor to certain types of skin cancer), photo
damage and unwanted hair.

Starting in August 2014, the Company began to restructure its
operations and redirect its efforts in a manner that management
expected would result in improved results of operations and
address certain defaults in its then commercial bank loan
covenants. As part of such redirected efforts, management
maintained comprehensive efforts to minimize the Company's
operational costs and capital expenditures. During this time, the
Company also sold off certain business units and product lines to
support this restructuring and on January 23, 2017, sold the last
remaining major product line, its consumer products division.


POLY PAK: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Olivo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO OLIVO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. POLY PAK AMERICA INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC694261 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least 4 years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendants
have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees in the State of California in violation of California
state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not
limited to, unevenly rounding time worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eduardo Olivo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603


PURDUE PHARMA: "Cleveland Teachers" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland Teachers Union, Local 279, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00241 (N.D. Ohio, January 30, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

CTU Local 279, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated purchasers, seeks damages, trebled where available under
applicable law, against Defendants based on allegations of the
creation of a conspiracy and conduct of an illegal enterprise to
expand the market for opioids.

Plaintiff Cleveland Teachers Union represent more than 4,800
teachers, paraprofessionals, nurses, guidance counselors,
psychologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists,
substitute teachers, and other related service providers in the
Cleveland Metropolitan School District.  The Cleveland
Metropolitan School District is consistently in the top 5-10
employers in Cuyahoga County of total employees and the Cleveland
Teachers Union represent over 60% of those employees.  The
Cleveland Metropolitan School District is self-insured for their
employees' healthcare.  CTU Local 279 negotiates both healthcare
and prescription benefits for its members.  Currently, the
employees that CTU Local 279 represents pay a monthly employee
premium equal to 7-9% of the COBRA rate.

The Defendants are or have been in the business of manufacturing,
selling, promoting, and/or distributing opioids throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip S. Kushner, Esq.
      Michael R. Hamed, Esq.
      Christian J. Grostic, Esq.
      KUSHNER, HAMED & GROSTIC CO., LPA
      1375 East Ninth Street, Suite 1930
      Cleveland, OH  44114
      Tel: (216) 696-6700
      Fax: (216) 696-6772
      E-mail: pkushner@kushnerhamed.com
              Mhamed@Kushnerhamed.Com
              Cgrostic@Kushnerhamed.Com


RETAIL GROCERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Grocers
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Retail Grocers
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01537 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 20, 2018).

Retail Grocers Group, Inc. operates in the grocery industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


RICHEMONT NORTH: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richemont North
America, Inc. The case is styled Jason Camacho, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richemont
North America, Inc. d/b/a Piaget, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01036 (E.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018).

Richemont North America, Inc. was founded in 1976. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of jewelry such as
diamonds and other precious stones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


RICHEMONT NORTH: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richemont North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richemont
North America, Inc. and Vacheron Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01552 (S.D. N.Y., February 20, 2018).

Richemont North America, Inc. was founded in 1976. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of jewelry such as
diamonds and other precious stones.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata Sues over Steep Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
CREIGHTON TAKATA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC.
F/K/A, BIOPTIX, INC., JOHN O'ROURKE, and JEFFREY G. MCGONEGAL,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02293 (D.N.J., Feb. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded
Riot securities from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018,
both dates inclusive. On October 4, 2017, the Company announced
it was changing its name from Bioptix, Inc. to Riot claiming this
name change was in line with a shift in the Company's direction.

As Bioptix the Company focused on animal healthcare and
veterinary products. As Riot, however, the Company was now going
to focus on being a strategic investor and operator in the
blockchain ecosystem. Blockchain protocols offer a secure way to
store and relay information without the need for middlemen. It
uses a decentralized and encrypted ledger that offers a secure,
efficient, verifiable, and permanent way of storing records and
other information. Blockchain protocols are the backbone of
numerous digital cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Ethereum and
Litecoin.

On November 13, 2017, Riot filed its quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2017 with the Securities
Exchange Commission, which provided the Company's quarterly
financial results and position. The 3Q17 10-Q was signed by
Defendants O'Rourke and McGonegal. The 3Q17 10-Q contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
Defendants O'Rourke and McGonegal attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to
the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.

The 3Q17 10-Q stated that the Company's principle executive
offices were located at 202 6th Street, Suite 401, Castle Rock,
CO 80104. On December 27, 2017, the Company issued a press
release entitled "Riot Blockchain Announces Adjournment of Annual
Meeting of Stockholders" which announced the cancelation of the
annual meeting of stockholders scheduled for the following day.

On January 31, 2018, the Company issued another press release
entitled "Riot Blockchain Announces Adjournment of Annual Meeting
of Stockholders" which again announced the cancelation of the
annual meeting of stockholders scheduled for the following day.
On this news, shares of Riot fell $5.74 per share or over 33.37%
to close at $11.46 per share on February 16, 2018, damaging
investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


ROLEX WATCH: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rolex Watch U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rolex Watch U.S.A.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428 (S.D. N.Y., February 16,
2018).

Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and distributes watches in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROSS WINDOW: Faces "Hamann" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ross Window Corp.
The case is styled as Grobert Hamann, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. Ross Window
Corp., Martin Rosenberg, Micky Ross and Evan Ross, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01422 (S.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018).

Ross Window Corporation provides window installation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


SAFAVIEH INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safavieh, Inc. The
case is styled as Virginia Norman and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Safavieh, Inc. and
Safavieh Carpets, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01530 (S.D.
N.Y., February 20, 2018).

Safavieh Inc. provides home products. The Company offers
furniture, lighting, fire pits, umbrellas, mirrors, wall decor,
and mattresses. Safavieh operates in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SCS SERVICE: Faces Madison Landing Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCS Service Works
Inc. The case is styled as Madison Landing LP, individually and
on behalf of all similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. SCS Service
Works Inc, individually and as successor to Coinmach Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00272-UJH-MHH (N.D. Ala., February
16, 2018).

CSC ServiceWorks is a provider of home and commercial laundry
solutions as well as tire inflation and vacuum vending services
at stores and gas stations nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jack R Dodson, III, Esq.
   DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
   424 Church Street, Suite 800
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 620-1731
   Fax: (615) 256-8386
   Email: rdodson@dickinsonwright.com


SEATTLE GENETICS: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. has sought to dismiss a second
consolidated amended complaint in a securities class action
pending in Washington, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "On January 10, 2017, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers.  The lawsuit alleges
material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements
regarding our business, operational and compliance policies,
violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages of
an undisclosed amount.

"The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that SGN-
CD33A presents a significant risk of fatal hepatotoxicity and
that we had therefore overstated the viability of SGN-CD33A as a
treatment for AML.  We filed a motion to dismiss this complaint
on July 28, 2017.

"On October 18, 2017, the Court granted our motion to dismiss
with leave for plaintiff to file a second consolidated amended
complaint.

"Plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
November 17, 2017 and we filed a motion to dismiss this new
complaint on January 5, 2018.

"It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these
same matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors
as defendants."

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer.


SENEX SERVICES: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senex Services
Corp. The case is styled as Crystal Solis, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Senex Services
Corp. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00678-BMS
(E.D. Penn., February 15, 2018).

Senex Services Corp. offers revenue cycle and hospital capacity
management services to healthcare organizations. It also provides
commercial insurance, managed care insurance, Medicare, Medicaid,
worker's compensation, and self-pay collections management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARI MARCUS, Esq.
   MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
   1500 ALLAIRE AVE SUITE 101
   OCEAN, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Lawsuit Still under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face the
plaintiff's appeal on the dismissal of claims in a class action
filed by Karen Moulton, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017,

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and the Company's subsidiary in
connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of
directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises
with a subsidiary of SCI.  The plaintiffs seek damages concerning
the combination. The Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs'
complaint that were granted in June 2014.  Thus, subject to
appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit.

The case has continued against the Company's subsidiary, Stewart
Enterprises, and its former individual directors.  However, in
October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs have filed documents indicating
that they are appealing the dismissal.

The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Has Met All Obligations under "Linda" Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Company has met all
obligations under the settlement agreement for the class action
filed by Linda Allard.

Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, was filed in
June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the Act).

Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that
were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Act.  Plaintiff
seeks actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees
and costs.

The Company said, "The parties reached a settlement of the
lawsuit as reported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017.
The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and notice
to the class.  The financial terms of the settlement call for SCI
Direct to pay US$15.0 million, of which US$3.5 million will be
paid by its insurer.  As of December 31, 2017, the Company has
met all obligations under the settlement agreement."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Potential "Bernstein" Class Action Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is facing a potential class
action lawsuit filed by Caroline Bernstein in Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on
behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and
Service Corporation International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in
the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding the
Company's Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania and its Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, in this matter."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SITEL OPERATING: Faces "Pinkney-Oliver" Suit in M.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sitel Operating
Corporation. The case is styled as Felicia Pinkney-Oliver, an
individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sitel Operating Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00112-MHT-CSC
(M.D. Ala., February 15, 2018).

Sitel Operating Corporation, a business process outsourcing
company, provides telephone call center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Kirksey Wood, Jr., Esq.
   Wood Law Firm, LLC
   P. O. Box 382434
   Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
   Tel: (205) 612-0243
   Fax: (866) 747-3905
   Email: ekirkwood1@cs.com


SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Perdomo Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES PERDOMO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE,
INC., MM RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, LLC, SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE
FRANCHISING, INC., and related or affiliated entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 151497/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation pursuant
to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and Putative
Class members their earned wages, including failing to pay them
for every hour worked, failing to pay them overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, and failing to
provide Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class the required
uniform maintenance allowance.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Paige Davis, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Solis" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P.  The case is styled as Crystal Solis, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southwest
Credit Systems, L.P. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00677-MMB (E.D. Penn., February 15, 2018).

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. was founded in 2003. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARI MARCUS, Esq.
   MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
   1500 ALLAIRE AVE SUITE 101
   OCEAN, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


SPARKLES CAR WASH: Faces "Suria" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sparkles Car Wash &
Quick Lube, Inc. d/b/a Sparkles Car Wash & Quick Lube.  The case
is styled as Pablo Suria, individually and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sparkles Car Wash &
Quick Lube, Inc. d/b/a Sparkles Car Wash & Quick Lube and Pietro
Oppedisano, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01077 (E.D. N.Y, February
20, 2018).

Sparkles Car Wash & Quick Lube, Inc. is a vehicle service center
in New York city.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in "Anderson" Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Stonemor Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that an appeal in the case,
Anderson v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., is now pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor
Partners, LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06275, filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
December 2, 2016, which has been consolidated with this case)
brought an action on behalf of a putative class of the holders of
Partnership units and allege that the Partnership made
misrepresentations to investors in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things and in
general, failing to clearly disclose the use of proceeds from
debt and equity offerings by making allegedly false or misleading
statements concerning (a) the Partnership's strength or health in
connection with a particular quarter's distribution announcement,
(b) the connection between operations and distributions and (c)
the Partnership's use of cash from equity offerings and its
credit facility. Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this
case, and filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
April 24, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 8, 2017; the motion is
pending. Plaintiffs seek damages from the Partnership and certain
of its officers and directors on behalf of the class of
Partnership unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Anderson case
discussed in Note 9. The court entered judgment dismissing the
case on November 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
December 29, 2017.

Stonemor Partners L.P. is one of the largest companies in the
deathcare industry, servicing thousands of families in a caring
personalized manner. The company provides a broad scope of
products and services through the ownership, development, and
operation of cemeteries and funeral homes in multiple states. The
company is based in Trevose, Pennsylvania.


STRAUB DISTRIBUTING: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straub Distributing
Company, Ltd., a California Company. The case is styled as Juan
Garcia, Fernando Gomez and Marco Veltri, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Straub
Distributing Company, Ltd., a California Company, Defendant, Case
No. BCV-18-100377 (Cal. Super Ct., February 15, 2018).

Straub Distributing Company, Ltd. distributes beers in America.
The company was founded in 1948 and is based in Tustin,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Han, Esq.
   411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: 818-230-7502
   Fax: 818-230-7259


STRAX WELLNESS: "Aparicio" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Aparicio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Strax Wellness Center, LLC dba Strax
Rejuvenation, Case No. 18-cv-60202 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2018),
is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Joshua Aparicio was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant Strax Wellness Center, LLC owns and operates a cosmetic
surgery institute located in Broward County, Florida.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


SUNPOWER CORP: Apr. 12 Trial Set for Bid to Drop Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation, among other defendants, has until February
27, 2018, to reply to the plaintiff's opposition to the motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On August 16, 2016 and August 26, 2016, two securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's
securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016 (the
"Class Period").  The substantially identical complaints allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.  The
complaints were filed following the issuance of the Company's
August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and
generally allege that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

On December 9, 2016, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  Following the withdrawal of the
original lead plaintiff, on August 21, 2017, the court appointed
an investor group as lead plaintiff.

An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 18, 2017.

Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on January 26, 2018, the
defendants' reply is due February 27, 2018, and the hearing on
the motion is set for April 12, 2018.

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


SUSSEX BANK: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sussex Bank. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sussex Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01385-JMF (S.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018).

Sussex Bank offers business, personal and digital banking
products & services, as well as insurance and wealth management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (917) 796-7437
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


TRANS UNION: Faces "Allen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC.
The case is styled as Angela Allen, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Union, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00649-WB (E.D. Penn., February 14,
2018).

TransUnion LLC operates as a credit reporting agency that
provides data/insights and information to help consumers and
businesses make informed decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   RICHARD H. KIM, Esq.
   THE KIM LAW FIRM LLC
   1500 Market Street
   Centre Square West, Suite W-3110
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
   Tel: (855) 996-6342
   Email: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Landau" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Yitzchok Landau, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01030 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 16, 2018).

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Nikadam Khaimov, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01020 (E.D.
N.Y., February 16, 2018).

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial
service, communication, and student markets) and individuals in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


USG CORP: Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation is still defending itself in litigations,
including a class action in Canada, related to a conspiracy in
fixing wallboard prices, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In 2015, USG, subsidiary United States Gypsum Company, former
subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation, and seven other wallboard
manufacturers were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in
federal court in California by twelve homebuilders alleging that
since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in
the United States and to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by
ending the practice of providing job quotes on wallboard.

The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy
in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward.

The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have
not been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims.
USG has agreed to defend and indemnify L&W Supply Corporation
with regard to this matter.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits
making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of
purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG, United States
Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard manufacturers as
defendants.

The Company said, "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving
the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation
will not have a material effect on our results of operations,
financial position or cash flows."

USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
building materials worldwide.  The Company distributes its
products through building material dealers, home improvement
centers and other retailers, specialty wallboard distributors,
and contractors.  USG Corporation was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Settlement in TiO2 Price Fixing Suit Paid
------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company has paid the settlement
amount in TiO2 Price Fixing Suit.

Venator Materials said "We were named as a defendant in
consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February
9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland alleging that we, our co-defendants and other alleged
co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO2 sold in the U.S."

The other defendants named in this matter were E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), Kronos and National Titanium
Dioxide Company, Ltd. ("Cristal") (formerly Millennium). On
August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased TiO2 directly from the defendants
(the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.

On December 13, 2013, the company and all other defendants
settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved
the settlement.

Venator Materials said "We paid the settlement in an amount
immaterial to our condensed consolidated and combined financial
statements."

Venator Materials PLC is a global manufacturer and marketer of
chemical products that improve the quality of life for downstream
consumers and promote a sustainable future. The company's
products comprise a broad range of innovative chemicals and
formulations that bring color and vibrancy to buildings, protect
and extend product life, and reduce energy consumption.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Settlement in Opt-Out Litigation Paid
--------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company reached an agreement to
settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid the
settlement amount.

Venator Materials said "On November 22, 2013, we were named as a
defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser
who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the
"Opt-Out Litigation")."

On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against the
company from the other defendants sued and ordered our case
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also
severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were
transferred and consolidated for trial with the company's case in
the Southern District of Texas.

Venator Materials said "On February 26, 2016, we reached an
agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid
the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed
consolidated and combined financial statements."

Venator Materials PLC is a global manufacturer and marketer of
chemical products that improve the quality of life for downstream
consumers and promote a sustainable future. The company's
products comprise a broad range of innovative chemicals and
formulations that bring color and vibrancy to buildings, protect
and extend product life, and reduce energy consumption.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Aug. 16 Final Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled for August 16, 2018, to consider
final approval of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by purchasers
of products made from TiO2, Venator Materials PLC said in
regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Venator Materials said "We were named as a defendant in a class
action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by the
purchasers of products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers." On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing TiO2.

On August 11, 2015, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend
the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
on September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of
architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust
claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims
under the laws of nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under
the laws of 16 states.

Venator Materials said "On November 4, 2015, we and our co-
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the
court substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to
consumer protection claims in one state."

Venator Materials said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties have entered
into a settlement, subject to court approval, for an amount
immaterial to the Company's condensed consolidated and combined
financial statements.

In its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, the Company said that the court preliminarily
approved the settlement on December 13, 2017 and the final
approval hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2018.

Venator Materials PLC is a leading global manufacturer and
marketer of chemical products that improve the quality of life
for downstream consumers and promote a sustainable future. The
company's products comprise a broad range of innovative chemicals
and formulations that bring color and vibrancy to buildings,
protect and extend product life, and reduce energy consumption.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Says Home Depot Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC disclosed in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that an antitrust dispute with
Home Depot over alleged price-fixing of TiO2 remains pending.

Venator Materials said "On August 23, 2016, we were named as a
defendant in a fourth civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by an
Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot."

Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through paints it
purchases from various manufacturers.

Venator Materials said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017: "We settled this matter for an amount
immaterial to our condensed consolidated and combined financial
statements and the court dismissed the case on May 31, 2017."

However, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that, "we filed a motion to dismiss
the Home Depot case, which remains pending. We do not expect this
matter to have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements."

Venator Materials PLC is a global manufacturer and marketer of
chemical products that improve the quality of life for downstream
consumers and promote a sustainable future. The company's
products comprise a broad range of innovative chemicals and
formulations that bring color and vibrancy to buildings, protect
and extend product life, and reduce energy consumption.


VERU INC: Still Faces Lawsuit on Aspen Park Acquisition Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit related to its
acquisition of Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to
Veru Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2017.

In connection with the acquisition of Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. through a merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
into APP, two purported derivative and class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, which were captioned Glotzer v. The Female Health
Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish,
et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488.

On January 9, 2017 these two lawsuits were consolidated.  On
March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members
of the Company's board of directors prior to the closing of the
APP Acquisition and the members of the Company's board of
directors after the closing of the APP Acquisition.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and
abetted such breaches, by consummating the APP Acquisition in
violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ
voting requirements and by causing the Company to issue the
shares of its common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the
former stockholders of APP pursuant to the APP Acquisition in
order to evade the voting requirements of the Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that Mitchell S. Steiner,
a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Veru
and a co-founder of APP, and Harry Fisch, a director of Veru and
a co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in receiving shares
of the Company's common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock in the
APP Acquisition.

Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Acquisition,
money damages, disgorgement of the shares of the Company's common
stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner and Dr.
Fisch, and costs and expenses of the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.

On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On August 15, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the claims that the post-acquisition directors aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the pre-
acquisition directors and that Dr. Steiner and Dr. Fisch were
unjustly enriched.

The court did not dismiss the claims that the pre-acquisition
directors breached their fiduciary duties and the claims that
Veru consummated the APP Acquisition in violation of the
Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting
requirements, and the action is continuing as to those claims.

The Company said, "Veru believes that this action is without
merit and is vigorously defending itself.  No amount has been
accrued for possible losses relating to this litigation as any
such losses are not both probable and reasonably estimable."

Veru Inc. operates as a urology and oncology biopharmaceutical
company.  It operates through two segments, Commercial; and
Research and Development.  The Company was formerly known as The
Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July
2017.  Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


VISA INC: Quebec Court Reserves Decision in Merchant Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the court in Quebec held a class
certification hearing in November 2017 in the Merchant Litigation
and reserved decision.

Meanwhile, Visa said in its Form 10-K report filed in November
2017, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, that the
company executed an agreement with merchant class plaintiffs to
settle, on a national basis, the active class actions filed in
Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta and
that the agreement is subject to final court approval across all
of these provinces.

Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits
were filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Alberta against Visa Canada, MasterCard and ten financial
institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa
and/or MasterCard credit cards. Three separate actions were filed
(including one against Visa Canada Corporation and Visa Inc., two
MasterCard entities and smaller Canadian issuing banks), but
those three cases have been discontinued.

The remaining cases allege a violation of Canada's price-fixing
law and various common law claims based on separate Visa and
MasterCard conspiracies in respect of default interchange and
certain of the networks' rules. Five of the named financial
institutions have now settled with the plaintiffs, and one of
these settlements is awaiting court approval.

On March 26, 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in one of
the class action suits noted above, Watson v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al., granted the plaintiff's application for
class certification in part. On appeal from both the defendants
and the plaintiff, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed
the class proceedings to advance but limited the time period of
plaintiff's main price-fixing claim to prior to March 2010. The
related lawsuits in Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have
effectively been stayed pending further proceedings in British
Columbia. The Quebec case is proceeding to class authorization in
November 2017.

On June 2, 2017, Visa executed an agreement with merchant class
plaintiffs to settle, on a national basis, the active class
actions filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan
and Alberta. The agreement is subject to final court approval
across all of these provinces.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


VISA INC: Continues to Defend Data Pass-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in a class action complaint related to the Data Pass Litigation.

On November 19, 2010, a consumer filed an amended class action
complaint against Webloyalty.com, Inc., Gamestop Corporation, and
Visa Inc. in Connecticut federal district court, seeking damages,
restitution and injunctive relief on the grounds that consumers
who made online purchases at merchants were allegedly deceived
into incurring charges for services from Webloyalty.com through
the unauthorized passing of cardholder account information during
the sales transaction ("data pass"), in violation of federal and
state consumer protection statutes and common law.

On October 15, 2015, the court dismissed the case in its
entirety, without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal on November 12, 2015. On December 20, 2016, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal as to
certain claims against Gamestop Corporation, Webloyalty.com, Inc.
and Visa, vacated the dismissal as to certain claims against
Webloyalty and Gamestop, and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings on the remaining claims.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


VISA INC: Continues to Defend U.S. ATM Access Fee-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in the U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation.

National ATM Council Class Action

In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank
ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa
(Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System,
Inc.) and MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar
MasterCard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge
consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee
cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on
other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees.

Consumer Class Actions

In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed
against Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging
the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class
actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in
October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, MasterCard
and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek
treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees where available under federal and state law, including under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes.

These cases are proceeding in the district court.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


VISA INC: EMV Chip Liability Shift Underway in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that the district court granted a motion to
transfer the EMV Chip Liability Shift Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC
filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, Discover, American Express,
EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The amended
complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected
payment card transactions from defendants to the purported class
of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the United
States who have been subjected to the "Liability Shift" since
October 2015. Plaintiffs claim that the so-called "Liability
Shift" violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain
state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted motions to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by EMVCo and the financial institution
defendants, but denied motions to dismiss filed by Visa Inc.,
Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, American Express and Discover. On March
10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On May 4, 2017, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, which has clarified that this case is not part of MDL
1720.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


VISA INC: Resolves Claims in UK Merchant Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. has negotiated settlements of claims asserted by more
than 75 claimants in the UK Merchant Litigation, Visa said in its
Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Since July 2013, in excess of 300 Merchants have commenced
proceedings against Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and Visa International
relating to interchange rates in Europe. They seek damages for
alleged anti-competitive conduct in relation to one or more of
the following types of interchange fees for credit and debit card
transactions: UK domestic, Irish domestic, other European
domestic, intra-European Economic Area and/or other inter-
regional. As of the filing date, Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and Visa
International have settled the claims asserted by over 75
Merchants, leaving more than 200 Merchants with outstanding
claims.

In November 2016, a trial commenced relating to claims filed by a
number of Merchants. All of these Merchants except one settled
before the trial concluded in March 2017. On November 30, 2017,
the court found entirely in Visa's favor and entered judgment
dismissing the remaining claim. An appeal has been lodged, and
the Court of Appeal listed the matter for hearing in April 2018.
A further judgment on exemption issues is expected to be released
in early 2018, which will not change the overall finding on
liability set out in the November 30, 2017 judgment.

In addition, over 30 additional Merchants have threatened to
commence similar proceedings. Standstill agreements have been
entered into with respect to some of those Merchants' claims.
While the amount of interchange being challenged could be
substantial, these claims have not yet been filed and their full
scope is not yet known. The Company has learned that several
additional European entities have indicated that they may also
bring similar claims and the Company anticipates additional
claims in the future.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
fast, secure and reliable electronic payments across more than
200 countries and territories.


XEROX CORPORATION: Iron Workers Balks at Fuji Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY BENEFIT
AND PENSION PLAN on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION, JEFFREY JACOBSON,
GREGORY Q. BROWN, JOSEPH J. ECHEVARRIA, WILLIAM CURT HUNTER,
ROBERT J. KEEGAN, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, CHARLES O. PRINCE, ANN
N. REESE, STEPHEN H. RUSCKOWSKI, SARA MARTINEZ TUCKER and
FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
650795/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from applying or enforcing Section 4.01(b)(xiv) of the
Share Subscription Agreement, and any other disclosed or
undisclosed agreement between Xerox, Fuji Xerox, and Fuji, that
prohibits Xerox from amending, altering, or terminating any
material agreement that the Company currently has until the
Transaction closes.

The Plaintiff brings the following class action complaint
against members of the board of directors of Xerox for breaches
of fiduciary duty, including Xerox's Chief Executive Officer and
director Jeffrey Jacobson, and against FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation, for aiding and abetting those breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the proposed merger of Xerox and Fuji
Xerox Co., Ltd.

According to the complaint, on January 31, 2018, only
approximately 45 days of negotiations, Xerox, Fuji, and Fuji
Xerox agreed on the final terms of the Transaction documents,
including the Redemption Agreement between Xerox, Fuji and Fuji
Xerox and the Share Subscription Agreement between Xerox and
Fuji. Per the Transaction Agreements, Fuji will sell its 75%
interest to Fuji Xerox for $6.1 billion, funded entirely by new
debt that Fuji Xerox will acquire, leaving Fuji Xerox to be 100%
owned by Xerox. Fuji will then purchase newly issued shares of
Xerox stock, representing 50.1% of the outstanding shares in the
post-Transaction entity. Xerox stockholders, in turn, would
receive a "special cash dividend" of $9.80 per share, paid for
with $2.5 billion in new debt that Xerox will carry on its
balance sheet.

Thus, Xerox's public stockholders will become minority
stockholders in the new Company, which itself will be saddled
with an additional $2.5 billion in debt. The Transaction is
financially unfair to Plaintiff and the other public stockholders
of Xerox, who are not receiving any control premium in the
Transaction. Meanwhile, the Transaction is incredibly favorable
to Fuji, who is managing to acquire majority control of
Xerox, in exchange for its less valuable interest in a joint
venture that makes its money on the back of Xerox's technology
and branding. Indeed, Fuji's CEO has bragged that the "scheme" by
which Fuji is acquiring majority control of Xerox "will allow us
to take control of Xerox without spending a penny."

Worse yet, the Board's deal with Fuji ensures that no competing
bidder will emerge. To begin, the Board agreed to a "no shop"
provision that prevents Xerox from conducting any true market
check for the Transaction. More importantly, under the Share
Subscription Agreement between Xerox and Fuji, Xerox also agreed
that it would not terminate or amend any "Material Contract"
prior to the closing of the Transaction. Accordingly, the
Company cannot terminate or renegotiate the terms of the joint
venture agreement to make itself more attractive to other
bidders. Meanwhile, any competitor attempting to acquire the
Company will understand that its purchase will trigger Fuji's
right to terminate the joint venture, while keeping its rights
with respect to Xerox's intellectual property and the
distribution of Xerox products in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Transaction, however, provides several benefits to Jacobson
and his fellow directors. First, if approved, the Transaction
will thwart Deason and Icahn's proxy contest and ensure that
Fuji, rather that Xerox's current public stockholders, dictate
the composition of the Board moving forward. Second, Jacobson and
at least five other Xerox directors will keep their positions in
the post-Transaction entity, with Jacobson actually being
designated as a member of the Board by Fuji and not Xerox. Third,
the "noise" created from the Transaction announcement, including
the $9.80 "special cash dividend," provided the perfect cover to
finally disclose the restrictive terms of the joint venture
agreements and its impact on the Company's ability to pursue
strategic alternatives. In light of these benefits, Jacobson and
the other members of the Board were more than willing to quickly
negotiate and agree to the sale of control of Xerox to Fuji, at a
price that does not reflect the true value of Xerox. Stated
differently, facing the threat of a very public and potentially
embarrassing proxy contest, which would raise questions about
each of the directors' candor and effectiveness, the Board
decided to put their interests ahead of the interests of Xerox's
public stockholders and entrench themselves in their positions
with the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Rudy, Esq.
          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          Justin Reliford, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer
          James J. Sabella
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722 8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722 8501

               - and -

          Michael Barry
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: New Jersey Class Action Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that a class action complaint has been
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

Zoompass Holdings has learned that a class action complaint had
been filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The complaint alleges, inter
alia, that defendants violated the federal securities laws by,
among other things, failing to disclose that the Company was
engaged in an unlawful scheme to promote its stock.

Neither the company nor the other defendants have yet been served
with the complaint. Zoompass Holdings has analyzed the complaint
and, based on that analysis, has concluded that the complaint is
legally deficient and otherwise without merit.

Zoompass Holdings said "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these claims if the complaints are served upon it."

Zoompass Holdings operates as a holding company and through its
subsidiaries, offers financial technology services including both
platform and mobile money solutions. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. is
formerly known as UVIC. Inc. and was incorporated under the laws
of the State of Nevada on August 21, 2013.


                            *********


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  * * *