CAR_Public/180228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, February 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 43



                            Headlines


99 CENTS: "Bradford" Suit Underway in California
99 CENTS: Appeal from "Barriga" Case Ruling Underway
99 CENTS: Says "Picket" Suit Has Concluded
99 CENTS: Settlement in "Clavel" Suit Being Administered
99 CENTS: Trial in "Mejia" Suit Moved to April 16

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
AMERICAN INCOME: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ANGLO AMERICAN: Reports Progress in Silicosis Prevention
APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit Still in Discovery

APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Putative Class Action Remains Stayed
APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Amend ClubCorp Shareholder Complaint
APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Bid to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Granted
APOLLO GLOBAL: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Expired
APOLLO GLOBAL: AEG Pays $2.1MM as Counsel Fees and Expenses

APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action
AURORA ICE: Judge Rules Detainees Can Proceed With Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Redlynch Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Towers
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BEBE STORES: Court Okays Settlement Agreement with Employees

BEBE STORES: Settlement Pact in TCPA Class Action Okayed
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: SDNY Court Okays $28-Mil. Settlement Agreement
BROTHERS OF SACRED HEART: Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action
BURGER & LOBSTER: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Time to Refile "Koskie" Suit Has Elapsed

CALAVO GROWERS: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suits Awaits Court OK
CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dep't Sued Over Oroville Dam Breach
CALIFORNIA: DA Sues Water Resources Dep't Over Oroville Dam
CAVIUM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Marvell Deal
CDK GLOBAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California

CHICAGO, IL: Parents of Disabled Students File Class Action
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger
COMMAND SECURITY: "Beavers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Write-downs
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pontiac Securities Suit Still Ongoing

DEUTSCHE BANK: March 12 Deadline Set to Oppose RMBS Class Status
DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Status Bid in Trust Suit Still in Discovery
DH RIDGEWOOD: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DICK SMITH: NSW Court Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed
DOMINION ENERGY: Faces Metzler Asset Suit in South Carolina

DOMINION ENERGY: Firemen's Retirement Files Suit in S. Carolina
DOUGLASTON DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Intends to Deny Hiring Collusion Claims
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: New Englanders File Antitrust Class Action
FIRESTAR DIAMOND: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

FIRST POTOMAC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Class Action
FIRST SOLAR: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment
FORSTER & GARBUS LLP: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E.D. New York
GLAMOUR BY ISSAM: "All Hair" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations
GLOBAL POWER: Third Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Project Fi"
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Humana Sale
HABIB AMERICAN BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Drop "Magruder" Class Suit Still Pending
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Former Salespeople Sue Over Commissions

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Jones Day Lawyers Examine Class Decertification
HY'S LIVERY: "Belgada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Suit Still Pending
J.L.C. JEWELERS: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochester Drug Files Suit in Pa. Over Remicade

KINDER MORGAN: UPRR Easements and Related Lawsuits Still Ongoing
KINDER MORGAN: Appeal from "Brinckerhoff" Suit Dismissal Pending
MDL 2804: El Dorado Reverses Decision to Join Opioid Suit
METLIFE INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Financial-Services Reps File Class Action
MIZUHOD BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Bitcoins Currency
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: CFTC Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Putative Class Lawsuit
NAVIENT CORP: "Pope" and "Gross" Stockholder Class Suits Pending

NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" and "Blyden" Suits Pending
NAVIENT CORP: Expects Amended Complaint in Lord Abbett Funds Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in "Johnson" Suit
NCAA: Judge Set to Hear Summary Judgment Motions
NESTLE USA: Must Face Class Action Over Raisinets, Judge Rules

NQ MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
OAKHURST DAIRY: To Pay Workers $5MM Because of Missing Comma
OHANA MILITARY: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "B.R." Suit
PARKWAY INC: "Price" and "Scarantino" Merger Suits Nixed

PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway
PG&E CORP: Faces 6 Putative Class Action Lawsuits at Jan. 31
POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Norwood Files Class Suit v. Founder, Officers
PURDUE PHARMA: To Stop Marketing Opioids to U.S. Physicians
RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Certification Bid Due March 9

REALPAGE INC: Screening Co. Settles FCRA Case for $1MM
REDFIN CORP: Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay
REGAL ENERTAINMENT: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger
REGAL ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Pact to Dismiss "Baldassano" Claims
RHODE ISLAND: EOHHS Sued Over Non-Payment of Medicare Premiums

RIGHT SOLUTIONS: "Brock" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
SAN DIEGO, CA: "Arellano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SEARS CANADA: Pensioners Want Ex-Judge Named Litigation Trustee
SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D. of New York

SEVCON INC: Scarantino and Wilkinson Drop Class Suits
SHORETEL INC: Lawsuits Over Mitel Merger Terminated
SIGNATURE BANK: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. of New York
SIU MEDICINE: Three Female Doctors Join Wage-Discrimination Suit
SPARTON CORP: Paid $200,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Indemnification Suit Still Ongoing
STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SUPER MICRO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
SYNDICATED OFFICE: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
TEZOS: SEC Denies Release of Project Documents Amid Lawsuit

TRUCKPRO LLC: "Broaden" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
TRUNK CLUB: Judge Dismisses Noncompete Agreement Class Action
ULTA BEAUTY: Lawsuit Alleges Resale of Used Cosmetics as New
UNION NU DONUTS: Faces "Bakul" Suit in E.D. New York
UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Face Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suit

UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Stay CSR Class Action
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2nd Amended Federal Securities Suit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on Nixed TCPA Claims Still Ongoing
UTAH: No Hearing Date Yet in I/DD Class Action v. Health Dep't.
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel

WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Faces "Shadwick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WEINSTEIN CO: New York AG Sues Amid Pending Class Action
WILLIAM BARTHMAN JEWELER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. N.Y.
XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing

XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK on TCPA Suit Settlement Agreement

* UK Cos. May Face More Data-Protection Related Class Actions


                            *********


99 CENTS: "Bradford" Suit Underway in California
------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores LLC continues to face the lawsuit, Venzel
Bradford v. BaronHR, Inc., et al. in California court.

Former warehouse worker Venzel Bradford filed a putative class
action complaint against BaronHR, Inc., Solvis Staffing Services,
Inc., Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, and the Company on April 26,
2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles.  On behalf of himself and all others alleged to be
similarly situated, Bradford is asserting claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
waiting time penalties, failure to provide proper wage
statements, and unfair competition.

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2017, 99 Cents said, "Bradford was not employed by the Company;
he was employed by one or more of the staffing agencies named as
defendants.  The Company has sought indemnity from the employing
agency(ies).  The Court proceeding was stayed and an initial
status conference was scheduled for September 15, 2017."

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October
27, 2017, 99 Cents said, "The Company has sought indemnity from
the employing agency(ies), and BaronHR, LLC has agreed to provide
the requested indemnity.  On or about September 21, 2017,
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, as
a Defendant.  On or about October 10, 2017, the Company filed an
answer, generally denying the allegations in the complaint and
asserting a number of affirmative defenses.  An initial status
conference was held on September 15, 2017.  Because the other
defendants (including BaronHR, which apparently employed
Plaintiff Bradford) were not given notice of the hearing, a
continued status conference was set for October 30, 2017.

"Following further discussions among the parties, Plaintiff
agreed to dismiss his classwide allegations but he indicated that
he intended to proceed with his suit as a PAGA action instead of
a class action.  On or about October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
request and declaration in support of his request to dismiss his
classwide allegations.

"The Company took the position that Plaintiff must first
arbitrate his individual claims prior to attempting to pursue his
PAGA claim.  In addition, because Plaintiff Bradford was included
among the allegedly aggrieved employees in the Clavel PAGA
action, the Company identified the Clavel action to the Court
since the Judgment there will affect -- and may preclude --
Plaintiff Bradford's ability to bring PAGA claims in this action.
Following these submissions, the Court independently rescheduled
the status conference to December 15, 2017.  Pending this
conference, discovery in the matter remains stayed.  The Company
cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the amount of
potential loss, if any, that could result from such lawsuit.

99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of
consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The
company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available
consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality
closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic
and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and
refrigerated food products.


99 CENTS: Appeal from "Barriga" Case Ruling Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff has taken an appeal from a court ruling in the case,
Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99› Only Stores.

The case Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99› Only Stores, was filed by a
former store associate against the Company on August 5, 2013, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Riverside alleging on behalf of the plaintiff and all others
allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor Code that
the Company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, provide
meal periods, pay wages timely upon termination, and provide
accurate wage statements.  The plaintiff also asserted a
derivative claim for unfair competition under the California
Business and Professions Code.  The plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of all non-exempt employees who were employed in
California in the Company's retail stores who worked the
graveyard shift at any time from January 1, 2012, through the
date of trial or settlement.  Although the class period as
originally pled would extend back to August 5, 2009, the parties
have agreed that any class period would run beginning January 1,
2012,  because of the preclusive effect of a judgment in a
previous matter.  The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs,
and restitution.

On September 23, 2013, the Company filed an answer denying all
material allegations.  A case management conference was held on
October 4, 2013, at which the court ordered that discovery may
proceed as to class certification issues only.  After discovery
commenced, a mediation was held on March 12, 2015, resulting in a
confidential mediator's proposal, which the parties verbally
accepted.  The parties were unable to negotiate and finalize a
written settlement agreement.  Subsequent settlement discussions
directly and through the mediator, as well as a court-ordered
settlement conference, were unsuccessful.  Discovery resumed and
plaintiff's motion for class certification was fully briefed.
Plaintiff also brought a motion to strike the evidence submitted
in support of the Company's opposition to class certification.
At the Court's request the parties mediated this matter prior to
any ruling on the class certification motion and the motion to
strike.  That mediation took place on March 2, 2017, and did not
result in a settlement.

The motion for class certification and motion to strike were
heard on April 20, 2017, and on April 26, 2017, the Court issued
a minute order denying both motions.  The Court issued a more
detailed order setting forth its reasoning on August 10, 2017,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2017.

On October 26, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed another action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, entitled Ivan Guerra v. 99 Cents Only
Stores LLC (Case No. BC599119), which asserts PAGA claims based
in part on the allegations at issue in the Barriga action.  By
stipulation of the parties, the Guerra action has been
transferred to Riverside Superior Court. This action was mediated
along with the Barriga action in the March 2, 2017 mediation that
did not result in a settlement.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 27, 2017, that on October 10, 2017, Plaintiff
Barriga filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's August 10 Order.

On November 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to stay the
Guerra action pending the outcome of the appeal in the Barriga
action.  That motion was scheduled to be heard on December 14,
2017.

99 Cents said "The Company cannot predict the outcome of these
lawsuits or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could
result from such lawsuits."

99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of
consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The
company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available
consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality
closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic
and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and
refrigerated food products.


99 CENTS: Says "Picket" Suit Has Concluded
------------------------------------------
The case Shelley Pickett v. 99› Only Stores, has concluded,
according to 99 Cents Only Stores LLC's regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Plaintiff Shelley Pickett, a former cashier for the Company,
filed a representative action complaint against the Company on
November 4, 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging a Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claim that the Company violated
section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 by failing to provide seats for
its cashiers behind checkout counters.  Pickett seeks civil
penalties of $100 to $200 per violation, per each pay period for
each affected employee, and attorney's fees.  The court denied
the Company's motion to compel arbitration of Pickett's
individual claims or, in the alternative, to strike the
representative action allegations in the complaint, and the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.  On June 27, 2013,
Pickett entered into a settlement agreement and release with the
Company in another matter.  Payment has been made to the
plaintiff under that agreement and the other action has been
dismissed.

The Company's position is that the release Pickett executed in
that matter waives the claims she asserts in this action, waives
her right to proceed on a class or representative basis or as a
private attorney general and requires her to dismiss this action
with prejudice as to her individual claims.  The Company notified
Pickett of its position by a letter dated as of July 30, 2013,
but she refused to dismiss the lawsuit.  On February 11, 2014,
the Company answered the complaint, denying all material
allegations, and filed a cross-complaint against Pickett seeking
to enforce her agreement to dismiss this action.  Through the
cross-complaint, the Company seeks declaratory relief, specific
performance and damages.  Pickett has answered the cross-
complaint, asserting a general denial of all material allegations
and various affirmative defenses.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to its cross-complaint and granted
leave to Pickett to amend her complaint to add another
representative plaintiff, Tracy Humphrey.  Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on October 8, 2014, and the Company answered on
October 10, 2014, denying all material allegations.  On April 4,
2016, in an unrelated matter involving similar claims against a
different employer, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling
that provides guidance to lower courts as to California's
employee seating requirement, which is a largely untested area of
law.  The instant action had been stayed pending the issuance of
the California Supreme Court ruling.  The stay was lifted and the
parties mediated this matter on October 19, 2016.

The mediation did not result in a settlement. A bench trial was
originally scheduled for May 31, 2017, and had been continued by
the Court to June 6, 2017.  The Court bifurcated the trial so
that it will address liability in the first phase, and penalties
in a second phase, if necessary.

The Company filed a motion to strike the representative
allegations in the complaint and focus the trial on the two
stores where the named Plaintiffs worked.  That motion was heard
on May 9, 2017, and, on May 25, 2017, the motion to strike was
denied and the motion to phase trial was granted.  The parties
engaged in settlement discussions and reached agreement to
resolve the matter for an immaterial amount, subject to statutory
notice requirements and court approval.  The settlement has now
been finalized and the Court approved the settlement on August 1,
2017, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2017.

The time to appeal has expired, the Company has fulfilled its
obligations under the settlement, including payment, and this
matter is now concluded, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2017.

99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of
consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The
company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available
consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality
closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic
and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and
refrigerated food products.


99 CENTS: Settlement in "Clavel" Suit Being Administered
--------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the case, Phillip Clavel v. 99 Cents Only
Stores LLC, et al., is being administered, 99 Cents Only Stores
LLC said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Former warehouse worker Phillip Clavel filed an action against
the Company on March 30, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of himself and all
other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking civil penalties under
the PAGA for the following alleged Labor Code violations: failure
to pay regular, overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to provide proper meal and rest periods, failure to pay
wages timely during employment and upon termination, failure to
provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and failure to provide notice of the material terms of
employment under the Wage Theft Prevention Act.  Plaintiff
alleges that his claims arose during two periods of employment --
one from March 2015 through mid-October 2015, during which he was
employed by the Company as a forklift operator in the Commerce
Distribution Center, and a second period from late October 2015
through February 2016, when he was similarly employed (through a
staffing agency, BaronHR) at the Company's Washington Boulevard
warehouse. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.  The Company answered the First Amended Complaint on
June 14, 2016, generally denying the allegations in the complaint
and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. BaronHR has also
answered the First Amended Complaint. Trial has been set to
commence on July 18, 2017. A mediation took place on January 19,
2017, and at the conclusion of the mediation, the parties
executed a term sheet settlement agreement to resolve the alleged
PAGA claims.

The parties have now executed a long-form settlement agreement
reflecting the final terms; however, the settlement is contingent
on Court approval.  The Court conducted a preliminary approval
hearing on August 10, 2017, and requested additional information
from Plaintiff. At a further hearing on August 29, 2017,
preliminary approval of the settlement was granted, 99 Cents said
in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2017.

99 Cents said "The Company accrued an immaterial amount related
to this matter as of January 27, 2017 and July 28, 2017.  If the
proposed settlement is not finalized or not approved by the
Court, the Company will not be able to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could
result from such lawsuit."

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October
27, 2017, the Company said, "At a further hearing on August 29,
2017, the Court entered an order granting approval of the
settlement and entered a Judgment in accordance with the terms of
the Order and the Parties' PAGA Settlement Agreement.  The
Company contributed $175,000 to the total settlement amount of
$500,000.  The settlement is presently being administered and a
declaration from the Settlement Administrator certifying that
payments have been made pursuant to the Judgment will be provided
after all payments are made."

99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of
consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The
company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available
consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality
closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic
and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and
refrigerated food products.


99 CENTS: Trial in "Mejia" Suit Moved to April 16
-------------------------------------------------
Trial in the case, Jimmy Mejia, et al. v. 99 Cents Only Stores
LLC, has been continued at the parties' request to April 16,
2018, 99 Cents Only Stores LLC said in a regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Former store associates Jimmy Mejia and Yamilet Serrano filed an
action against the Company on September 16, 2016, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf
of themselves and all other alleged aggrieved employees, seeking
civil penalties under the PAGA for the following alleged Labor
Code violations: failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for
all hours worked, failure to provide proper meal and rest
periods, failure to pay timely wages during employment and upon
termination, and failure to provide proper wage statements. On
November 14, 2016, the Company answered the complaint, generally
denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting a number
of affirmative defenses. Trial has been scheduled for January 8,
2018, 99 Cents said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2017.

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October
27, 2017, 99 Cents said the trial was initially scheduled for
January 8, 2018, and has been continued at the parties' request
to April 16, 2018.

99 Cents said "The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could
result from such lawsuit."

99 Cents Only Stores LLC is an extreme value retailer of
consumable and general merchandise and seasonal products. The
company's stores offer a wide assortment of regularly available
consumer goods as well as a broad variety of first-quality
closeout merchandise. In addition, the company carries domestic
and imported fresh produce, deli, dairy and frozen and
refrigerated food products.


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against
Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical
Staffing, LLC, alleging the companies failed to pay their non-
exempt employees working in California for all their overtime
hours worked and allegedly failed to provide all legally required
meal and rest periods under California law. The pending class
action lawsuit against Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc.,
and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, is currently pending in the
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2018-00226320.

The Complaint alleges that Advanced Medical Personnel Services,
Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC failed and continues to fail
to accurately calculate and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members
of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their overtime worked. State law
provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half
times their "regular rate of pay."

The pending class action lawsuit against both Advanced Medical
Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing, LLC, alleges
that the companies failed to have a policy or practice which
provided a full off-duty, thirty-minute uninterrupted meal break
to their California non-exempt employees. Consequently, employees
working for the California companies allegedly forfeited meal and
rest breaks without additional compensation.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., and Rise Medical
Staffing, LLC call attorney Nicholas De Blouw, Esq.
nick@bamlawca.com at (858) 952-0354.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco,
Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. The firm has a
statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency
basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay,
discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types
of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP and LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-00306 (S.D. Ind., February 1, 2018), seeks damages for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff, Edward Taylor is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom
Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt which
was allegedly owed to Springleaf Financial Services.

Defendant Alltran Financial, LP operates a defaulted debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers
in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of
Indiana. In fact, Defendant Alltran was acting as a debt
collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to
collect from Plaintiff.

Defendant LVNV operates a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every
state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. In fact,
Defendant LVNV was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted
consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              carissa@philippslegal.com


AMERICAN INCOME: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Austin Bruce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  American Income Life Insurance Company and Stephen
Jubrey, Case No. 3:18-cv-00258 (N.D. Tex., January 31, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other
applicable penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Austin Bruce worked for Defendants as an Insurance
Agent from June 2017 until August 2017.

Defendant American Income Life Insurance is an international
company that sells life, health, and accident insurance
throughout the United States, New Zealand, and Canada.

Defendant Stephen Jubrey works for American Income Life Insurance
as an Insurance Agent, owning and operating the Dallas division
for Defendant American Income Life Insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              austin@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com
              cgordon@a2xlaw.com


ANGLO AMERICAN: Reports Progress in Silicosis Prevention
--------------------------------------------------------
Pete Lewis, writing for GroundUp, reports that the gold mines may
at last be making progress with the prevention of silicosis among
miners, figures presented at the Mining Indaba in Cape Town
suggest.

Graham Briggs, retired CEO of Harmony Gold, and part of the
Occupational Lung Diseases Working Group, said silicosis
diagnoses had dropped 24% from 853 cases in 2015 to 635 cases in
2016 on the four gold mines in the group.  These are Anglo
American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, and Harmony.  Over
the same period cases of pulmonary TB had dropped almost 14%
(from 1,666 to 1,436 cases).

Silicosis is a progressive, deadly lung disease caused by silica
dust.  Workers' lungs scarred by silica dust are much more likely
to contract TB.

The Working Group is a collaboration between senior management of
the six largest mining groups in the industry (African Rainbow
Minerals, Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields,
Harmony, and Sibanye Stillwater) focused on occupational lung
disease prevention and compensation.

In 2003 the tripartite Mine Health and Safety Council, set up by
an Act in 1996, set a target that no worker joining the industry
after 2008 would contract silicosis. Briggs said that the drop in
numbers was not conclusive proof that this milestone had been
reached.

The current silicosis class action case against the mines has
shown that one reason for Briggs' caution on achievement of the
target is that when workers leave employment at a mine, and
return to rural homes, the onset of silicosis may not be detected
by local health services.  TB might be detected, but local health
services might not connect this to the patient's work and so
would not report it to the mine. Privately run diagnostic mine
health services do not extend beyond a few centres of excellence
near the mines.

However, it should be easy to measure the incidence of these
diseases among miners joining mines after 2008, while they are
still in service, and this statistic would better assess success
or failure in meeting the "no harm" target.  In the past,
silicosis cases have emerged among mineworkers with less than 10
years exposure to mine dust, so the time lapse is now sufficient
to reveal any harm caused by insufficient reductions in dust
levels since 2003

Another reason for caution is that there is no clear and
consistent data on workers employed by labour brokers or
contractors.  Various estimates suggest that up to one-third of
an operating mine's total labour force may be employed in this
manner.  These workers are likely to be more heavily exposed to
mine dust, are more likely to lose their jobs when they contract
TB or other lung disease, and are less likely to be picked up by
the mine health surveillance system.  They may be off the radar
when it comes to evaluating progress on the milestone targets.

Briggs reported significant progress with the "Ku-Riha" project,
which is aimed at dealing with the enormous backlog of unclaimed
compensation and unprocessed claims.  From 2015 to 2016, settled
claims leaped from 1,628 to 7,756, and total payouts to sick
workers climbed from R79 million to R226 million.  This chimes
with similar progress being made on the backlogs of claims for
injury and disease outside the mines, reported by the Department
of Labour in December.

But Briggs was much less forthcoming on progress with dust
monitoring.  He said sampling frequencies and dust analysis
methods had improved in recent years, but he did not give any
detail.  For a long time South African mines have lagged behind
world standards in this regard.  State-of-the-art measurements
outside SA are based on real-time camera imagery with graphical
presentation of respirable dust levels to show individual
workers' exposure over an entire shift.  This enables scientists
to analyse precisely which tasks and working places or
technologies are causing peak silica exposures.  The aim is
efficient dust control measures, rather than just compliance with
reporting requirements, as has been the case in South Africa for
many decades.

Briggs ended his presentation by drawing attention to the
imminent settlement, overseen by the High Court, of the massive
decade-long class action lawsuit on silicosis and TB by sick and
disabled former mineworkers against the gold mines for
negligence.  This settlement will pay "top-up" benefits to sick
workers, who will also receive their due compensation from the
state.

At last there may well be a seismic shift occurring in the
prevention of and compensation for disease in the mining
industry, but more transparency and independent scrutiny of data
held by mining companies is necessary to confirm this. [GN]


APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit Still in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
case, Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), is proceeding to discovery.

On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors
(including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts
Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP
Entities"), which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo
affiliates, and two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary
offering of SFM common stock.  The AP Entities sold SFM common
stock in the March 2015 secondary offering.

The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc.  (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a
materially misleading registration statement for the secondary
offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's
2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed
to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation.  The two
causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for
alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price.
Defendants removed the case to United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, but the court granted plaintiff's motion
to remand the case to state court, which the defendants have
appealed.  Meanwhile, defendants moved to dismiss the action in
state court, but the court denied that motion and the case is
proceeding to discovery.

The Company said, "Because this action is in its early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time."

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit
and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts,
on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as
well as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Putative Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
putative class action filed by Michael McEvoy remains stayed as
CEVA Investment Limited's bankruptcy proceedings continue.

On August 3, 2017, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against AGM, Gareth Turner (an Apollo Partner) and Mark Beith (a
former Apollo Principal) by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a class
of current and former employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group,
LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased restricted Class A shares in
CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of
CEVA Group.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to
purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt
restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not
receive a recovery.  The complaint purports to seek damages in
excess of EUR14 million.

On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a
motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to
prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant
claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate.  The Bankruptcy Court
has not yet ruled on the motion.

On November 21, 2017, the Florida court granted the parties'
joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the CIL
bankruptcy trustee's motion to enforce the automatic stay,
staying the case until further Order.

The Company said, "Based on the allegations in the complaint,
Apollo believes that there is no merit to the claims.
Additionally, as the case is in its early stages, no reasonable
estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time."

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit
and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts,
on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as
well as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Amend ClubCorp Shareholder Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on
February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on
January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint in a purported stockholder class action related to
ClubCorp Holdings Inc.

Between July 25 and August 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed three
purported stockholder class actions in the Nevada state and
federal court against ClubCorp Holdings Inc. ("ClubCorp"), the
directors of ClubCorp, and AGM, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of ClubCorp.

The cases in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada were
originally captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No.
A-17-758912-B ("Meng"); Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227-
C ("Baum"); and Solak v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759987-B
("Solak").

On August 16, 2017, the Meng and Baum actions were consolidated
with two other similar actions that did not name AGM as a
defendant.  The consolidated action is captioned In re ClubCorp
Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-17-758912-B ("In re
ClubCorp").

On September 21, 2017, the Solak action was consolidated into In
re ClubCorp.

On October 12, 2017, plaintiffs in In re ClubCorp filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The complaint purports to assert
claims against the directors of ClubCorp for allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and
candor owed to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of
ClubCorp.

The complaint includes allegations that the directors, among
other things, agreed to a transaction at an unreasonably low
price, failed to take the necessary steps to maximize stockholder
value, gave preferential severance benefits to certain
executives, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions, and
included materially incomplete and misleading information in the
proxy statement recommending that stockholders vote in favor of
the acquisition.

The complaint also purports to assert a claim against AGM for
aiding and abetting the directors' purported breach of fiduciary
duty.

On November 15, 2017, another plaintiff with separate counsel
filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint in
intervention containing similar allegations but asserting claims
only against ClubCorp and its directors, not AGM.

On December 19, 2017, a hearing was held in which the motion to
intervene was denied.

On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint.

The Company said, "Because this action is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made."

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit
and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts,
on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as
well as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Bid to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the Court granted the
parties' joint motion to dismiss all claims against CEC and the
former directors, and dismissed the former CEC directors from the
action.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed
in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action").

The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was
filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action
was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014.

The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on
January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the
"Dixon Action").

The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana
Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al.,
Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions").

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v.
Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County
Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action
was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the
transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that
Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those
alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among
other things, rescission of the various transactions associated
with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged
in limited discovery. On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class
action complaint was brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension
Trust in the Shareholder Actions that did not name as defendants
Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management
VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert
claims against CEC and its former directors, and added The
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that
CEC's former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to
impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially
deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further
alleges that two members of the board who also served as the
senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest and
that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 22, 2015, the
parties to the consolidated action moved to dismiss the
complaint.

On March 1, 2017, the special master appointed by the Kansas
court to oversee pre-trial proceedings recommended that the
Kansas court grant defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.
On March 30, 2017, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint. The proposed amended consolidated
complaint does not name as defendants CEC or its former
directors, and purports to substitute Goldman, Sachs & Co. in
place of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on the claim for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On June 1, 2017, the Court
granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss all claims against
CEC and the former directors, and dismissed the former CEC
directors from the action.

Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes
that such action is without merit.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading
global alternative investment manager. The company is a
contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity,
credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and
a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our
funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital
structure.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Expired
-----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the time to appeal the
order dismissing the lawsuit In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610, has
expired and no appeals have been filed.

After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc.,
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging
the proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A putative class
and derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court,
captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No.
24-C-16-002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders
among other things, consolidating the three actions under the
caption In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have
designated the Crago complaint as the operative complaint. The
operative complaint includes both direct and derivative claims,
names as defendants AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG
(the "AMTG Board"), ARI, Merger Sub and Athene Holding and
alleges, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board
breached their fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders and that
the other defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches.

The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed merger involves inadequate consideration, was the
result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene Holding are unfair and that the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016
contains materially misleading disclosures and omits certain
material information. The operative complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining
or rescinding the merger, unspecified damages, and an award of
other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.
Defendants' motions to dismiss were fully briefed on October 31,
2016, and oral argument was held on December 8, 2016.  On August
14, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motions and issued an
opinion dismissing the operative complaint in its entirety with
prejudice. The time to appeal the order dismissing the lawsuit
has expired, and no appeals have been filed.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading
global alternative investment manager. The company is a
contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity,
credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and
a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our
funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital
structure.


APOLLO GLOBAL: AEG Pays $2.1MM as Counsel Fees and Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the court in the case
captioned as, In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.), has
entered an Order and Final Judgment on October 6, 2017, and that
Apollo Education Group has paid $2.1 million to plaintiffs'
counsel for fees and expenses.

Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five
putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education
Group, Inc. ("AEG") asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches in connection
with a proposed acquisition of AEG. The defendants include, among
others, AEG, members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Fund VIII,
and certain subsidiaries of funds managed by Apollo. On April 12,
2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under the following
caption:  In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.).

Shortly thereafter, the parties informed the Court that they had
entered into a memorandum of understanding for a settlement that
would, among other things, (i) provide for the dismissal with
prejudice on the merits and release of any and all claims by the
proposed class against the Defendants; and (ii) recognize that
the pendency of the suit was, in part, a factor in the decision
by the purchasers of AEG to increase the price offered to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of AEG"s common stock from $9.50
per share to $10.00 per share. On April 10, 2017, the parties
filed settlement papers for the Court's review following the
consummation of the merger agreement on February 1, 2017, the
completion by plaintiffs of three confirmatory discovery
depositions on February 27, 2017, and the execution of a
stipulation of settlement by the parties.

On October 6, 2017, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment
in which it (i) decreed that the class notice had been provided
to the proposed class pursuant to and in the manner directed by
the Order for Notice and Hearing entered on May 23, 2017 and June
29, 2017, (ii) certified the non-opt-out settlement class, and
(iii) fully and finally approved the settlement in all respects,
including the dismissal of the action with prejudice in full and
final discharge of any and all claims by the class against the
defendants. The Order and Final Judgment further provides for the
agreed upon award of $2.1 million to plaintiffs' counsel for fees
and expenses and that amount has in fact been paid by Apollo
Education Group.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading
global alternative investment manager. The company is a
contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity,
credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and
a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our
funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital
structure.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on Jan. 29 of a class action
accusing Apple of wiretapping, by failing to deliver text
messages to people who had switched to other brands of
smartphones.

The appeals case is ADAM BACKHAUT; KENNETH MORRIS, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-
17523 (9th Cir.).


AURORA ICE: Judge Rules Detainees Can Proceed With Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS News Denver reports that a decision February 9 by a federal
appeals court clears the way for a class action lawsuit brought
by nine detainees against an immigrant detention facility in
Aurora.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling
affirmed a district court's decision to allow the nine detainees
to file the suit on behalf of approximately 60,000 people

The detainees allege that the Aurora ICE Processing Center, owned
and operated by The GEO Group, Inc., forced the detainees to
clean the facility without pay and under threat of solitary
confinement which, they claim, violates federal forced labor
statutes.

The detainees also claim GEO is breaking Colorado law by paying
some detainees $1 a day to work at the facility, unjustly
enriching the company.  "This ruling shifts the power from a huge
corporation to vulnerable detainees," said David Lopez of Outten
& Golden, LLP, a law firm that represents the class. "With that
power, detainees will be able to challenge long-standing
practices that have allowed GEO to exploit detainee labor while
pocketing taxpayer dollars."

GEO won a competitive bid process in December 1986 to build the
Aurora facility. It has capacity to hold 1,532 people and has won
accreditation every year since 1989.

A request for response to the court decision from GEO has not yet
been answered.

However, in July of 2015, when the district court judge ruled
against GEO's request to dismiss the lawsuit, GEO said in a
statement that its facilities "provide high-quality services in
safe, secure and humane residential environments, and our company
strongly refutes allegations to the contrary."

The nine detainees in the case are Alejandro Menocal, Marcos
Brambila, Grisel Xahuentitla, Hugo Hernandez, Lourdes Argueta,
Jesus Gaytan, Olga Alexaklina, Dagoberto Vizguerra, and Demetrio
Valegra.

"Immigrant detainees are exactly the type of workers who need the
class action mechanism to seek justice," explained Nina DiSalvo
of Towards Justice, a non-profit legal group that represents the
class. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Redlynch Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Towers
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin King, writing for Tropic Now, reports that furious
homeowners in Redlynch are in talks with a national law firm
about a potential class action over the installation of 8 giant
towers that will alert residents to major flooding emergencies at
Copperlode Dam.

The towers will feature loudspeakers and soar up to 20 metres
high -- almost half the length of an Olympic swimming pool, with
installation set to begin later this month throughout the
Redlynch Valley from Crystal Cascades to Brinsmead.

The towers are a joint project by Cairns Regional Council and the
State Government, with installation to begin regardless of
concerns and objections by homeowners.

But Redlynch residents say the new warning system could devalue
house prices and increase insurance premiums.  The towers are
being installed due to legislation introduced back in 2008.

Redlynch resident Steven Dean told TropicNow he is in talks with
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers about the potential for compensation,
saying his family home -- along with hundreds more in the valley
-- will be negatively impacted by the new risk profile of his
property.

"Thousands of dollars will be wiped off property prices in
Redlynch Valley and insurance prices will go up even further than
they already have over the last few years," he said.

"When I bought my property the government or council didn't tell
me about these legal requirements that put us in a major flood
risk zone, even though the legislation has been there since 2008.

"But when I go to sell my house, I will have to disclose that
it's in a major flood risk area, so of course that will devalue
my property.

"By my estimation there are up to 1000 homes affected by this new
flood zoning, and I'm sure more people will join me in looking at
what legal action we might be able to take against the council
and state government.

"I've never, ever thought of taking a class action or anything
like that before in my life, but this is my family asset and it's
totally wrong to bring this in now."

'NO INCREASED RISK'

In a letter distributed to affected households on January 31,
council told residents the new early warning towers would be
completed by June.

"Under direction from State Government, Council is enhancing the
measures contained within the (Copperlode Dam) Emergency Action
Plan and is expanding the early warning system.

"This correspondence is to advise you of outdoor warning stations
that will be installed in your area.

"Using the most advanced technology available, the outdoor
warning stations will consist of a series of towers housing
speakers mounted on metal poles at a height of 15-20 metres above
ground.  A visual lights warning system may also be included but
is yet to be confirmed.

"It is a requirement of state legislation that dam owners have a
robust early warning system to notify the population at risk in
the event of a dam emergency.  This does not imply there is an
increased risk, but provides greater security to the community in
the unlikely event of an emergency situation arising."

The towers will form part of council's "multi-channel"
communications during an emergency, with real-time alerts and
information also delivered via text messages, phone calls,
emails, radio broadcasts and social media.

More information about the Copperlode Dam Emergency Action Plan
is available at:

    http://data.dnrm.qld.gov.au/eap/copperlode-falls-eap.pdf[GN]


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, is investigating potential violations of the
federal and state securities laws by Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: BW) ("Babcock & Wilcox") and certain
of its officers.  Babcock & Wilcox provides fossil and renewable
power generation and environmental equipment for the power and
industrial markets worldwide.

Last year, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on
behalf of those who purchased securities of Babcock & Wilcox
between June 17, 2015 and August 9, 2017.  The complaint alleges
that defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose
that: (1) due to rapid growth in the Renewable segment and cost-
cutting strategies, the Company lacked sufficient expertise or
engineering and other resources to perform on time and within
budget the Renewable contracts in its backlog, thereby rendering
the backlog an improbable and unrealistic source of
profitability; and (2) there were ongoing, undisclosed material
problems within the Renewable segment that were exacerbated by
the undisclosed diversion of limited resources.  On February 9,
2018, Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss.

If you have held Babcock & Wilcox shares continuously before
June 17, 2015, you may have standing to hold Babcock & Wilcox
harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by
making them personally responsible.  You may also be able to
assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent
future wrongdoing.

If you are a Babcock & Wilcox shareholder continuously holding
shares before June 17, 2015, and are interested in learning more
about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please
include your phone number.

                    About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


BEBE STORES: Court Okays Settlement Agreement with Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on February 12,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2017, that the parties in the
Case No. CIVRS1011823 filed by a former employee are in the
process of the administration of the settlement with the class
members.

A former employee filed a complaint against the Company on
November 2, 2010, in the Superior Court of California, San
Bernardino County (Case No. CIVRS1011823) alleging failure to pay
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other
violations of the California Labor Code and Business &
Professions Code 17200 et. seq.

The plaintiff purported to bring the action on behalf of current
and former California bebe stylists and sales associates who are
similarly situated.  The complaint sought damages, civil
penalties, and injunctive relief among other remedies.

In June 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
conditioned upon final Court approval.

In December 2017, the Court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement.  The parties are in the
process of the administration of the settlement with the class
members.

bebe stores said, " The Company believes the settlement amounts,
accrued in Q4 of fiscal 2017, will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations."

bebe stores, inc. does not have significant operations.
Previously, it was engaged in the design, development, and
production of women's apparel and accessories.  The Company
marketed its products under the bebe and BEBE SPORT brand names
through its retail stores; bebe.com, an online store; and 39 bebe
outlet stores.  It also offered its products through its 82
international licensee operated stores in 22 countries.  bebe
stores, inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in
Brisbane, California.


BEBE STORES: Settlement Pact in TCPA Class Action Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted its final approval of a settlement agreement
in a purported class action filed against bebe stores, inc.
related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
February 12, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017.

A customer served the Company with a complaint on January 31,
2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Civil Action No. C14-267 DMR) alleging
various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47
U.S.C. 227 et seq.) and violations of California's unfair
competition law (California Business and Professions Code 17200,
et. seq.) stemming from an alleged failure to obtain customer
consent prior to sending text messages.

The plaintiff purported to bring the action on behalf of others
similarly situated.  The complaint sought damages and injunctive
relief among other remedies.

A companion proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-
01968)) was consolidated with this action.

In April 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
conditioned upon final Court approval.

In July 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the class action
settlement, bebe stores said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.  The parties are in
the process of the administration of the settlement with the
class members.

In December 2017, the Court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement.  The parties are in the
process of the administration of the settlement with the class
members.

bebe stores said, "The Company believes the settlement amounts,
accrued in fiscal 2017, will not have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations."

bebe stores, inc. does not have significant operations.
Previously, it was engaged in the design, development, and
production of women's apparel and accessories.  The Company
marketed its products under the bebe and BEBE SPORT brand names
through its retail stores; bebe.com, an online store; and 39 bebe
outlet stores.  It also offered its products through its 82
international licensee operated stores in 22 countries.  bebe
stores, inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in
Brisbane, California.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: SDNY Court Okays $28-Mil. Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on December 13, 2017, has granted final approval of the
settlement of the putative securities class action complaint
filed in March 2016 by the Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy &
Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds related to the review
conducted by Brixmor Property Group Inc.'s audit committee,
according to Brixmor Property's Form 10-K filed on February 12,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Pursuant to the approved settlement, without any admission of
liability, the Company will pay US$28 million to settle the
claims.  This amount is within the coverage amount of the
Company's applicable insurance policies.

The settlement provides for the release of, among others, the
Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective current and
former officers, directors and employees from the claims that
were or could have been asserted in the class action litigation.
Certain institutional investors elected to opt out of the
settlement and will not be bound by the release or receive any
settlement proceeds.

The Company expects that the resolution of any future related
claims asserted by such opt-outs will also be within the coverage
amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. engages in the ownership, management,
leasing, acquisition and development of retail shopping centers.


BROTHERS OF SACRED HEART: Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kugler Kandestin has filed a class action claiming millions of
dollars for victims of sexual abuse committed by Brothers of
Sacred Heart at College Mont Sacre-Coeur in Granby.

The class action seeks to enable access to justice to numerous
people who were victims of sexual abuse during their childhood,
by religious members of the Brothers of Sacred Heart associated
with College Mont-Sacre-Coeur in Granby.  The class action
alleges that the reprehensible and unacceptable sexual abuse was
perpetrated systematically for several decades by at least 18
religious Brothers.

If you, or anybody you know, was sexually abused by a religious
member of the Brothers of Sacred Heart Congregation, including
Brother Claude Lebeau (also known as Brother Gatien), Brother
Jean-Guy Roy, Brother Paul-Emile Blain, Brother Louis Raymond
(Raymond Decelles), Brother Majoric Duchesne, Brother Roch
Messier, Brother Herve Aubin (also known as "Frere Econome"),
Brother Georges-Arthur, Brother Gerry, Brother Eudes, Brother
Gilles, Brother Lucien Martel (Brother Gedeon), Brother Jean
Royer, Brother Jean-Claude Leduc, Brother Arcene, Brother Ephrem
Chaput (Brother Aldei), Brother Patrice (Cyrille Picard), Brother
Antonio, we encourage you to communicate with the undersigned
lawyers so that we may inform you of your rights.  Your
communications with us are free and will be kept strictly
confidential.

Contact information:

         Me Robert Kugler
         rkugler@kklex.com
         (514) 878-2861, ext. 116

         Me Pierre Boivin
         pboivin@kklex.com
         (514) 878-2861, ext. 103

         Me Olivera Pajani
         opajani@kklex.com
         (514) 878-2861, ext. 149 [GN]


BURGER & LOBSTER: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger & Lobster
Bryant Park LLC.  The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Burger & Lobster Bryant Park LLC and
Burger & Lobster Flatiron LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01624
(S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Burger & Lobster serves wild live lobster and corn fed Nebraskan
beef burgers since 2011.[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


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Time to Refile "Koskie" Suit Has Elapsed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the time granted to
plaintiff in the case, Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et
al., to refile has passed without there being any refiling.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class
action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company
("CAC") entitled, Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al.,
No. A-14-711712-C (Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie
Action"), against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of
CAC's Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur
(each an Apollo partner).

The lawsuit challenges CAC's and Caesars Entertainment's plan to
merge, alleging that the proposed transaction will not give CAC
shareholders fair value. Koskie asserts claims for breach of
fiduciary duty relating to the director defendants'
interrelationships with the entities involved the proposed
transaction.

The case has been dismissed for failure to prosecute, and the
time granted to the plaintiff to refile has passed without there
being any refiling.

Founded in 1990, Apollo Global Management, LLC is a leading
global alternative investment manager. The company is a
contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in private equity,
credit and real assets with significant distressed expertise and
a flexible mandate in the majority of our funds which enables our
funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital
structure.


CALAVO GROWERS: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suits Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the parties in two class action lawsuits
are awaiting court approval of a settlement agreement.

The company is a named defendant in two class action lawsuits
filed in Superior state courts in California alleging violations
of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all
wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as well as
statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor Code
and Minimum Wage Order-2014.

In August 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement of the
case, whereby we agreed to pay $0.4 million to resolve the
allegations and avoid further distraction that would result if
the litigation continued. The settlement is subject to court
approval. The Company recorded $0.4 million as a selling, general
and administrative expense in the third quarter of fiscal 2017.

Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes avocados, prepared
avocados, and other perishable foods to food distributors,
produce wholesalers, supermarkets, convenience stores, and
restaurants worldwide.  It operates in three segments: Fresh
Products, Calavo Foods, and RFG.  The Company was founded in 1924
and is headquartered in Santa Paula, California.


CALIFORNIA: Water Resources Dep't Sued Over Oroville Dam Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
dozens of farms and people sued the California Department of
Water Resources on Jan. 31 in Butte County Court for losses from
the breach of the Oroville Dam; the city of Oroville filed a
similar complaint two weeks ago.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
     Niall P. Mccarthy, Esq.
     Adam M. Shapiro, Esq.
     Toriana S. Holmes, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
     San Francisco Airport Office Center
     840 Malcolm Road
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Telephone: (650) 697-6000
     Facs1mile: (650) 697-0577
     Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
            nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
            ashapiro@cpmlegal.com
            tholmes@cpmlegal.com

        -- and --

     James V. Nolan, Esq.
     David W. Janes, Esq.
     GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, HUGO & NOLAN
     429 First Street
     Woodland, CA 95695
     Telephone: (530) 662-7367
     Facs1mile: (530) 666-9116
     Email: jvnolan@yololaw.com
            dwjanes@yololaw.com


CALIFORNIA: DA Sues Water Resources Dep't Over Oroville Dam
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that California residents,
represented by the Butte County district attorney, slapped the
state Department of Water Resources with another lawsuit related
to the near-collapse of the nation's tallest dam in 2017, this
time over the damage the torrent did to the Feather River.

The case is THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendant, Civil Case No. 18CV00415.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Michael L. Ramsey, Esq.
     District Attorney
     County of Butte
     25 County Center Drive
     Oroville, CA 95965
     Tel: (530) 538-7411
     Fax: (530) 538-7071


CAVIUM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Marvell Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse Service, reported that
Cavium shareholders claim self-seeking directors sold the
semiconductor company to (nonparty) Marvell Technology Group for
$1.8 billion less than it's worth, in Monterey County Court.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: 877.534.2590
     Fax: 310.247.0160


CDK GLOBAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a California car dealership
claims in a federal class action that software companies CDK
Global and Reynolds and Reynolds monopolized the dealer
management system and data integration services markets by
agreeing not to compete with each other.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Richard J. Prendergast, Esq.
     Michael T. Layden, Esq.
     Collin M. Bruck, Esq.
     RICHARD J. PRENDERGAST, LTD.
     111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 641-0881
     Email: rprendergast@rjpltd.com
            mlayden@rjpltd.com
            cbruck@rjpltd.com

        -- and --

     Michael N. Nemelka, Esq.
     Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
     Derek T. Ho, Esq.
     KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
        FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
     1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Telephone: (202) 326-7900
     Fax: (202) 326-7999
     Email: mnemelka@kellogghansen.com
            apanner@kellogghansen.com
            dho@kellogghansen.com

       -- and --

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
     Brian Morrison, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            cmcdonald@labaton.com
            bmorrison@labaton.com


CHICAGO, IL: Parents of Disabled Students File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that in a federal class-action
lawsuit, non-English speaking parents of disabled Chicago Public
Schools students claim the school system has not translated vital
documents or provided interpretation in the process to determine
what special-education services their kids need.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Donna Welch, Esq.
     Alec Solotorovsky, Esq.
     Jennifer Pinsof, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     300 North LaSalle
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 862-2421
     Fax: (312) 862-2200

        -- and --

     Olga Pribyl, Esq.
     Barry Taylor, Esq.
     Margo Weinstein, Esq.
     Margaret Wakelin, Esq.
     EQUIP FOR EQUALITY, INC.
     20 N Michigan, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 341-0022


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a federal class action, Chicago Bridge & Iron shareholders
challenge the $6 billion merger with McDermott International in a
stock swap.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
     3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Telephone: (214) 744-3000
     Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
     Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
            jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

Of Counsel:

     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

        -- and --

     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


COMMAND SECURITY: "Beavers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Torrence Beavers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Command Security Corporation, Case No.
3:18-cv-00194 (M.D. Fla., February 1, 2018), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the federal wage and hour laws
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Torrence Beavers was employed by Defendant as an hourly
paid "Security Officer" from on or about October 1, 2017 until
the present in Jacksonville, Florida.

Defendant Command Security Corporation is a foreign corporation
with its principal address located at 512 Herndon Parkway, Suite
A, Herndon, VA 20170. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
      6940 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101
      Tampa, FL 33625
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Write-downs
----------------------------------------------------------
Reshef Mashraky, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
Credit Suisse once again faces accusations of wrongdoing, as the
bank faces litigation for its illegal write-downs, associated
with its trading division.

The allegations indicate the wrongful write-downs took place
during 2015 and 2016.  Meanwhile Credit Suisse has publicly
denounced the claims, saying they are "without merit."

What Went Wrong

The cause of the entire ordeal stems from an initial inquiry into
the status of the bank's trading unit by Credit Suisse Chief
Executive Officer Tidjane Thiam.  Together with CFO David
Mathers, Mr. Thiam assessed the situation, and was rattled by the
bank's level of illiquid trades that the division held.  In
response, the two executives began a thorough write-down process,
which took two and a half months to complete, and approached the
$1 billion level.

At the forefront of the lawsuit, are pensions funds of police and
firefighters in Birmingham, Alabama.  The class action lawsuit
currently addresses Mr. Thiam and Mr. Mathers's involvement in
providing investors with false information.

The misguided advice, given with regard to potentially high-risk
propositions, led to a significant decline in the bank's stock
price, thereby inflicting heavy losses on investors and
shareholders.

In response to the recently filed class action lawsuit, Suisse
Bank has issued a statement: "The claim is unfounded and without
merit . . . In the last three years, Credit Suisse has analyzed
these allegations and responded to information requests from
supervisory bodies.  All regulatory reviews were closed without
any action against Credit Suisse."

Prior Accusations and Fines

Unfortunately for the Swiss bank, this is not the only time in
recent memory that the bank's conduct has been called into
question. In November of last year, Credit Suisse was issued a
hefty $135 million fine for misconduct and rigging practices in
its FX trading arm.

New York State Department of Financial Services pointed to the
unsound practices occurring during 2008 to 2015.

In another case, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of
Hong Kong, issued a $39 million fine against the bank for various
issues of control failures and a lack of proper client securities
segregation.

Cost-Cutting

At the start of 2018, Credit Suisse has taken steps to reduce
costs wherever possible.  The Zurich-based bank has announced it
will be closing one of its London offices, and will move some of
its current staff to an alternative office space in the coming
years.

The move will likely include additional cutbacks, after the UK
offices have already been trimmed from 9,000 employees in 2015 to
6,500.  The bank plans to shed more of its staff by an additional
1,500, which would bring their London operational occupancy to
5,000 members. [GN]


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pontiac Securities Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended November 3, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
securities class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned the City
of Pontiac Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case
No. 1:14-cv-03644).

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No. 1:14-
cv-03644).  The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain
current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made
false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations
and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The case was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and the case is proceeding with discovery. The defendants
believe the claims asserted are without merit and the risk of
material loss is remote.

Dell Technologies is a strategically aligned family of businesses
that brings together the entire infrastructure from hardware to
software to services -- from the edge to the data center to the
cloud. Dell Technologies is a leader in the traditional
technology of today and a leader in the cloud-native
infrastructure of tomorrow.


DEUTSCHE BANK: March 12 Deadline Set to Oppose RMBS Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas has until March 12, 2018 to oppose a group of
investors' motion for class certification in a lawsuit related to
certain residential mortgage backed securities trusts, according
to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filed on February 9,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

DBNTC and DBTCA have been sued by investors in civil litigation
concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

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 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 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.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Status Bid in Trust Suit Still in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas has until March 16, 2018, to oppose the motion
of "BlackRock plaintiffs" for class certification in a trust-
related suit, according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form
10-D filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the distribution period from December 1,
2017 to December 31, 2017.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County with respect to 513 trusts.

On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with
respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional
defendant.

The amended complaint asserts three causes of action:  breach of
contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to
avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the
action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of
certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges
that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral
losses of US$75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for
money damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach
of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and
motion to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of
action.

On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's
demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend,
and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did
not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016,
DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  DBNTC and DBTCA's opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion is due on March 16, 2018, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on
April 16, 2018.  Discovery is ongoing.


DH RIDGEWOOD: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Milton Boanerges Ayala Canas, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v.  DH Ridgewood Farm, Inc. dba
DH Ridgewood Farm, Do Hyung Kim and Joon Chul Lee, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00669 (E.D. N.Y., January 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.

Plaintiff Ayala was employed by Defendants at DH Ridgewood Farm
from approximately July 2016 until on or about January 29, 2018.

Defendants own, operate, or control a fruit and vegetable market,
located at 6638 Fresh Pond Rd, Ridgewood, New York 11385 under
the name "DH Ridgewood Farm".  [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


DICK SMITH: NSW Court Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Spencer, writing for ARN, reports that one of the two class
actions being launched against Dick Smith Holdings has been given
the green light to go ahead by the Supreme Court of NSW, joining
at least two other associated legal cases in the process.

The latest class action is being brought against the entity
remaining following the retailer's collapse in 2016 -- now under
the control of receivers, Ferrier Hodgson -- by Johnson Winter &
Slattery, in partnership with Investor Claim Partner (ICP).

It comes after Bannister Law, in partnership with Vannin Capital,
formally filed another class action against the liquidated entity
remaining following the retailer's collapse early last year in
the Supreme Court of NSW on 28 September 2017.

That action was also filed against two of Dick Smith Holdings'
former directors, former CEO, Nicholas Abboud, and former CFO,
Michael Potts.

Both class actions scrutinise the financial information Dick
Smith Holdings (DSH) and members of its leadership team presented
to shareholders, with allegations in both legal actions of
inflated figures.

The class action proceedings launched by Bannister Law is
understood to largely be representing the interests of smaller,
'mum-and-dad' investors, while the action filed by Johnson Winter
& Slattery has been lodged for larger, institutional investors.

The legal proceedings filed by Johnson Winter & Slattery allege
that the failed electronics and IT retailer inflated the combined
value of its assets and equity by about $150 million, after tax.

In an overview of the proposed claim against Dick Smith Holdings
(DSH), Johnson Winter & Slattery said that the action will allege
DSH made misleading and deceptive statements about its financial
standing.

Specifically, the action will allege that DSH omitted information
that investors and their professional advisers would "reasonably
require to make a properly informed assessment of DSH's assets
and liabilities, financial position, performance and future
performance".

The law firm also said it will allege that DSH engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct and breached its continuous
disclosure obligations by making representations and omitting to
disclose information.

The NSW Supreme Court's Justice Ashley Black, handed down a
decision on 9 February, granting leave for the commencement of
the latest class action -- dubbed the "Mastoris Proceedings" --
which was filed by Johnson Winter & Slattery in early December
last year.

"I am satisfied that the proposed Mastoris Proceedings have a
solid foundation and give rise to a serious dispute," Justice
Black said.

The earlier class action by Bannister Law alleges that DSHE,
Abboud and Potts "contravened the provisions of the Corporation
Act as DSHE's financial statement results published to the market
in 2015 were misleading and deceptive".

Specifically, the action alleges that the DSHE, along with the
two former directors, did not give a true and fair view of the
financial performance of the company and were not prepared in
accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

In particular, it is alleged that the accounting treatment of
rebates by DSHE artificially inflated its reported profit and
overstated EBITDA.

The cases were launched after the collapse of the retailer in
early 2016, along with the closure of its stores, followed
closely behind a $60 million inventory write-down revealed in
late 2015.

A rebate-focused inventory buying policy was one of the main
triggers of the company's collapse, according to a subsequent
creditors' report. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Faces Metzler Asset Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominion Energy
Inc. The case is styled as Metzler Asset Management GmbH and
Joseph Heinz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Gregory E Aliff, James A Bennett, John
F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A Decker, D Maybank Hagood, Lynne M Miller,
James W Roquemore, Maceo K Sloan, Alfredo Trujillo, Dominion
Energy Inc and Sedona Corp, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00505-
MBS (D.S.C., February 21, 2018).

Dominion Energy, Inc. produces and transports energy in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Graham Lee Newman, Esq.
   Chappell Smith and Arden
   2801 Devine Street, Suite 300
   PO Box 12330
   Columbia, SC 29205
   Tel: (803) 929-3600
   Fax: (803) 929-3604
   Email: gnewman@csa-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Andrew Addison Mathias, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1195
   Email: amathias@nexsenpruet.com

      - and -

   Burl Franklin Williams, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1165
   Fax: (864) 477-2633
   Email: bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com

      - and -

   William W Wilkins, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1198
   Fax: (864) 477-2698
   Email: bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com


DOMINION ENERGY: Firemen's Retirement Files Suit in S. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominion Energy
Inc.  The case is styled as Firemen's Retirement System of St.
Louis, Derivatively on Behalf of SCANA Corporation and
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Jimmy E Addison, D Maybank Hagood, Lynne M Miller,
James A Bennett, Maceo K Sloan, Sharon A Decker, James W
Roquemore, Alfredo Trujillo, John F.A.V. Cecil, Gregory E Aliff,
Kevin B Marsh, Stephen A Byrne, James M Micali, Harold C Stowe,
Dominion Energy Inc, Sedona Corp and SCANA Corporation a South
Carolina Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00501-MBS (D.
S.C., February 21, 2018).

Dominion Energy, Inc. produces and transports energy in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Mixon Griffin, Esq.
   Griffin and Davis
   1116 Blanding Street
   First Floor
   Columbia, SC 29201
   Tel: (803) 744-0800
   Fax: (803) 744-0805
   Email: jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com

      - and -

   Richard A Harpootlian, Esq.
   Richard A. Harpootlian Law Office
   1410 Laurel Street
   Columbia, SC 29201
   Tel: (803) 252-4848
   Email: rah@harpootlianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Andrew Addison Mathias, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1195
   Email: amathias@nexsenpruet.com

      - and -

   Burl Franklin Williams, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1165
   Fax: (864) 477-2633
   Email: bwilliams@nexsenpruet.com

      - and -

   William W Wilkins, Esq.
   Nexsen Pruet (Gville)
   PO Box 10648
   Greenville, SC 29603
   Tel: (864) 282-1198
   Fax: (864) 477-2698
   Email: bwilkins@nexsenpruet.com


DOUGLASTON DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglaston
Development, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Douglaston Development, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01603
(S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Douglaston Development is a real estate development company
affiliated with Levine Builders and Clinton Management, the
business construction and management wings, respectively.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Intends to Deny Hiring Collusion Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Ray Gronberg, writing for Herald Sun, reports that whether the
president is named Obama or Trump, or the attorney general is
named Lynch or Sessions, the U.S. Department of Justice has a
consistent opinion on the sort of hiring collusion that a former
Duke University radiologist alleges Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill have
practiced.

Namely, that it's illegal.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department confirmed that President
Donald Trump's team there is standing by an October 2016 memo
that equated formal or informal "no poach" agreements between
employers to illegal price fixing because they "eliminate
competition in the same irredeemable way."

As policy, the memo credited to the department's Antitrust
Division and the Federal Trade Commission "is still good," said
Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman who checked that at
the request of The Herald-Sun.

The memo is noteworthy for speaking directly to the question of
whether universities can collude to reduce the competition for
faculty hiring, even if the collusion is via a quiet "gentlemen's
agreement" between them.

Federal officials stressed that when it comes to collusion,
nothing need be written down for there to be a violation of anti-
trust law.

"If you stopped recruiting and bidding for faculty from another
university due to a gentleman's agreement, you have become a
member of that no-poaching agreement and could be subject to
criminal liability," they said, styling that as their answer to a
question from a hypothetical human resources staffer at a
hypothetical university who'd heard about an unwritten hiring
agreement from "someone in the dean's office."

Lawyers for former Duke radiologist Danielle Seaman have told a
judge the memo's wording "seems inspired by the facts of" her
lawsuit against Duke and UNC-CH.

Ms. Seaman claims she was shut out of a potential job swap from
an assistant professor's slot at Duke to an assistant professor's
slot at UNC because of a no-poach agreement between the
respective then-deans of the universities' medical schools,
Nancy Andrews and Bill Roper.  Ms. Seaman has documentation in
the form of an email from a UNC official that told her "lateral
moves between Duke and UNC are not permitted" because of the
agreement.

Subsequent investigation by her lawyers has secured a deposition
from Roper -- still dean of the UNC School of Medicine and CEO of
the UNC Health System -- that saw him admit to urging
subordinates to avoid "hostile, unneighborly behavior" toward
Duke on the hiring front.  He also conceded that he'd asked
Duke's former chancellor for health affairs, Victor Dzau, to
consider formalizing "some kind of understanding between us about
the movement of faculty."

UNC has since settled with Ms. Seaman, pledging cooperation with
her lawsuit, the avoidance of hiring collusion with any employer
and an in-house effort to train senior officials on the relevant
points of anti-trust law.

Meanwhile, Duke has signaled that it intends to deny any
wrongdoing.  Roper told lawyers Dzau rejected his push for an
understanding, and the Durham school can point to several
successful raids by it of UNC medical professors.  A federal
judge has nonetheless allowed the case to proceed as a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of about 5,649 Duke and UNC professors.

Needless to say, Ms. Seaman's lawyers aren't taking Duke's
forthcoming denials at face value.  They suspect the absence of a
formal agreement masked understandings and practices that
amounted to collusion.

They've also been keeping an eye on the Justice Department's
stance, and are pleased it didn't change after Trump and U.S.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions took over.

"There appears to be bipartisan support for the common-sense
proposition that these kinds of agreements are clearly unlawful,"
said lawyer Dean Harvey, a veteran of a successful collusion
lawsuit that targeted Silicon Valley companies like Apple Corp.
and Google Inc.

Indeed, the Antitrust Division's chief, Assistant Attorney
General Makan Delrahim, has signaled that the administration
adheres not just to its predecessor's view of the law, but its
get-tough strategy for enforcing it.

THERE APPEARS TO BE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON-SENSE
PROPOSITION THAT THESE KINDS OF AGREEMENTS ARE CLEARLY UNLAWFUL.

Dean Harvey, lawyer for former Duke radiologist Danielle Seaman

The Trump appointee, an Iranian immigrant who formerly served the
president as a deputy White House counsel, told attendees of a
recent conference at George Mason University's law school that
the Justice Department intends to file criminal charges soon
against several employers suspected of hiring collusion.

"In the coming couple of months you will see some announcements,
and to be honest with you, I've been shocked about how many of
these there are," Mr. Delrahim said, according to a report from
the legal-industry trade publication Law360.

A second publication, Bloomberg Law, reported that Mr. Delrahim
indicated that the department considers the October 2016 memo
issued while Loretta Lynch was still U.S. Attorney General a
dividing line.  It will treat collusion that happened before the
memo came out as a civil matter, resolvable through lawsuits.
Collusion that followed the memo's publication, on the other
hand, is a criminal matter, with its perpetrators subject to
prosecution.

That squared with the approach Obama administration officials
advocated in a memo that vowed criminal investigations "going
forward" and potential "felony charges against the culpable
participants."

Bloomberg Law reported that Mr. Delrahim also told his audience
at George Mason that the Antitrust Division will look for civil
lawsuits to file friend-of-the-court briefs in to get its point
of view across. [GN]


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: New Englanders File Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that New Englanders claim in a
federal class action that they overpaid for electricity and
natural gas by at least $3.6 billion from 2013 to 2016 because
Eversource Energy and Avangrid inflated prices.

Local counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed Classes:

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Kristie LaSalle, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: 617.482.3700
     Fax: 617.482.3003
     Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
            kristiel@hbsslaw.com

        -- and --

     David F. Sorensen, Esq.
     Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
     Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215.875.3000
     Fax: 215.875.4604
     Email: dsorensen@bm.net
            mdellangelo@bm.net
            gabramson@bm.net


FIRESTAR DIAMOND: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firestar Diamond,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firestar Diamond,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01600 (S.D. N.Y., February 21,
2018).

Firestar Diamond Inc. is a Jewellery manufacturer or wholesaler
icon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


FIRST POTOMAC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Potomac Realty Trust is defending a consolidated securities
class action lawsuits in federal court in Maryland.

On Feb. 15, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed by Robert H. Arnold, First Potomac Realty
Trust, James P. Hoffman, Robert Milkovich, Kati M. Penney, Thomas
E. Robinson, Terry L. Stevens.

The Trust said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in September 2017, that as disclosed in the
Definitive Proxy Statement, three purported federal securities
class action lawsuits (collectively, the "Lawsuits") have been
filed against the Company and each of the members of the Board of
Trustees of the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland. The first case, Schwartz v. First
Potomac Realty Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2214-CCB), was filed
on August 4, 2017; the second case, Sciabacucchi v. First Potomac
Realty Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2245-JKB), was filed on August
8, 2017, and also names the Company LP and the GOV Parties as
defendants; and the third case, Geml v. First Potomac Realty
Trust, et al., (No. 1:17-cv-2263-CCB), was filed on August 10,
2017. Each lawsuit, which purports to have been brought on behalf
of all holders of common shares of beneficial interest of the
Company, par value $0.001 per share (the "Common Shares"),
generally alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company with the SEC on July 31, 2017 failed to disclose
material information about the pending merger transaction in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Schwartz complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the shareholder vote on the proposed merger
transaction or consummating the proposed merger unless and until
the Company discloses the allegedly omitted information, in
addition to damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as a
result of the asserted omissions, as well as attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Sciabacucchi and Geml complaints seek to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the merger transaction, and seek
to compel defendants to disseminate a proxy statement that
contains the allegedly omitted information, in addition to
rescissory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.

The First Potomac Parties and the GOV Parties continue to believe
that all allegations in the complaints are without merit, and
further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws. However, the Company wishes to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger transaction solely
for the purpose of mooting the allegations contained in the
Lawsuits and avoiding the expense and burden of litigation.

In an order dated November 15, 2017, Judge Catherine C. Blake
granted a Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel.  The Schwartz case is the lead case.

First Potomac Realty Trust is a self-managed real estate
investment trust (REIT) that focuses on owning, operating, and
redeveloping office and business park properties in the
Washington, D.C. region. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, the
company maintains regional offices in Washington, D.C., Maryland
and Virginia.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/GEYALd.


FIRST SOLAR: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment on Jan. 31
to First Solar Inc. and its directors, whom shareholders accused
of insider trading to reap hundreds of millions of dollars before
the share price took a nosedive when defects in the company's
solar panels were disclosed.

Jordan Eth (argued), Paul Flum, Judson E. Lobdell, and James R.
Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California; Joseph
N. Roth, Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendants-
Appellants.

Luke O. Brooks (argued), Jason A. Forge, Daniel S. Drosman, and
Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego,
California; Matthew S. Melamed, Andrew S. Love, and Susan K.
Alexander, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco,
California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


FORSTER & GARBUS LLP: Faces "Kantor" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus
LLP.  The case is styled as Jonathan Kantor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster &
Garbus LLP, Midland Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01133 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

The Defendants are buyers of unpaid debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GLAMOUR BY ISSAM: "All Hair" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
All Hair and Beauty Products, Inc., and James Fugah, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Issam J. Matar, Amy Matar,
Cynthia G. Matar, Glamour by Issam and Exotica Corp., Case No.
1:18-cv-00501 (N.D. Ga., February 1, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act.

This antitrust, conspiracy and fraud lawsuit is brought against
the participants of two separate but related groups that are
working together to defraud the public, involved in interstate
commerce in the beauty business arena.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the business group, comprising of
Glamour by Issam and Exotica, Corp., and the personal group,
comprising of Issam Matar, Cynthia Gabriella Matar Matar, and Amy
Matar, agreed to fix prices, while conspiring to monopolize the
market.

Plaintiff All Hair and Beauty Products, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation with its principal office in the State of Georgia.

Plaintiff James Fugah is a resident of the State of New York.

Defendants diverted products, and engaged in group boycotts of
nonparticipating competitors, all in a quest to fix, raise,
lower, and stabilize the price, as they have wished or deemed
appropriate for their business interests. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Cecilia Perez-Matos, Esq.
      THE EAST COAST LAW FIRM
      3904 N. Druid Hills Rd. #136
      Decatur, GA 30033
      Tel: (800) 515-7154
      E-mail: cpm@eastcoastlawfirm.com


GLOBAL POWER: Third Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed their third amended complaint in the case,
Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc.

A putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v. Global
Power Equipment Group Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas. This action and another
action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, and on July
29, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a
lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second
consolidated amended complaint that names the Company and three
of our former officers as defendants. It alleges violations of
the federal securities laws arising out of matters related to our
restatement of certain financial periods and claims that the
defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of
material fact in certain public disclosures during the putative
class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of persons who
acquired our stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6, 2015,
monetary damages of "more than $200 million" on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Global Power said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that, "We intend to defend against this
action. On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion.
Defendants have until September 22, 2017 to file a reply in
further support of their motion. Litigation is subject to many
uncertainties and the outcome of this action is not predictable
with assurance. At this time, we are unable to predict the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may
have on us or our business or operations."

Global Power said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that, "On September 22, 2017,
defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their
motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2017, the court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss,
allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file an amended
complaint. The court found that, with respect to each of the
defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness.

"On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, which the Company is currently evaluating with
counsel."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a leading provider of
custom-engineered auxiliary equipment and maintenance support
services for the global power generation industry. The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Project Fi"
------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims Google, through its "Project Fi,"
charges mobile-phone customers for data they obtain through
sources other than Google.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

        -- and --

     Robert B. Carey, Esq.
     John M. DeStefano, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
     Phoenix, Arizona 85003
     Telephone: (602) 840-5900
     Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
     Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
            johnd@hbsslaw.com

        -- and --

     Jonathan Negretti, Esq.
     NEGRETTI & ASSOCIATES PLC
     2415 E Camelback Rd, Suite 700
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Telephone: (602) 531-3911
     Email: jonathan@negrettilaw.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Humana Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Otts, writing for WDRB, reports that Louisville-based
Kindred Healthcare has provided "incomplete and misleading"
information to investors about the proposed sale of the company
to Humana Inc. and two private equity firms, according to a
lawsuit that seeks to stop the merger in its tracks.

Mazy Sehrgosha, a Kindred shareholder, filed the lawsuit in
federal court in Delaware on Feb. 8, according to court records.

Mr. Sehrgosha asks for class-action status to represent all
Kindred stockholders and for a judge to block the sale, which the
companies hope to close this year.

A Kindred spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Kindred announced Dec. 19 that it had agreed to a buyout by
Humana, also based in Louisville, and private equity firms TPG
Capital and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.  The $9 per share
price values the company at a little more than $780 million.

Kindred, one of three Fortune 500 companies based in Louisville,
would be split up and taken private in the deal.

Its home-based care division would be folded into Humana, while
the surviving Kindred Healthcare would be a specialty hospital
company owned by the private equity firms.

One big Kindred investor, New York-based Brigade Capital
Management, has already said the deal price shortchanges Kindred
stockholders.

Kindred shareholders must vote on the proposed sale in a special
meeting that hasn't been scheduled.

No other information about Mr. Sehrgosha is disclosed in the
lawsuit.  He is the only plaintiff named.

The lawsuit finds fault in a 300-page document Kindred filed, in
which the company explains why its board of directors favors the
sale and the alternatives the board evaluated.

Kindred's so-called proxy statement failed to disclose key
financial information about the company, according to the
lawsuit.

The $9-per-share price is also "inadequate," according to the
lawsuit.  [GN]


HABIB AMERICAN BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Habib American
Bank. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Habib American
Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01119 (E.D. N.Y., February 21,
2018).

Habib American Bank is a full-service bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HALLIBURTON CO: Bid to Drop "Magruder" Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company 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 its request to dismiss
a class action suit filed by Magruder remains pending.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was
commenced against us in federal court alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.  In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us.  The class
action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint was filed and served upon us
in April 2003.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint that included claims arising out of our 1998
acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. and our disclosures and
reserves relating to our asbestos liability exposure.

"In December 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
this lawsuit, without any admission of liability and subject to
approval by the district court.  During the second quarter of
2017, we paid approximately US$54 million of the US$100 million
settlement fund, and our insurer paid the balance.  On July 31,
2017, the district court issued final approval of the settlement.

"The settlement resolves all pending cases other than Magruder v.
Halliburton Co., et al. (the Magruder case).  The allegations
arise out of the same general events described above, but for a
later class period, December 8, 2001 to May 28, 2002.  There has
been limited activity in the Magruder case.  In March 2009, our
motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to re-plead.  In March
2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in May 2012, we
filed another motion to dismiss, which remains pending.  We
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we
intend to vigorously defend."

Halliburton Company provides a range of services and products to
the upstream oil and natural gas industry worldwide.  The Company
was founded in 1919 and is based in Houston, Texas.


HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Former Salespeople Sue Over Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie LaReau, writing for Automotive, News, reports that thirty-
three former salespeople at Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples in
Florida are suing Hendrick Automotive Group, alleging the
nation's sixth-largest dealership group took actions that
deliberately reduced their commissions.

The group added "fictitious or wildly inflated" costs to the
sales associates' deals, thereby manipulating the gross margins
so as to pay smaller commissions, said allegations in an amended
complaint filed Feb. 5 in 20th Judicial Circuit in Collier
County, Fla., which includes Naples.

The lawsuit, which seeks to be certified as a class action, said
the damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, civil conspiracy
and unpaid wages exceed $75,000.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Ben Yormak, told Automotive News a payout
could be "well in excess" of $75,000.

"We would be seeking dollar-for-dollar what each sales associate
lost," said Mr. Yormak, president of Yormak Employment and
Disability Law in Bonita Springs, Fla.  "That means Hendrick and
the dealership have to produce records that substantiate the
payments that should have been made to each sales associate."

If a judge certifies the lawsuit as a class action, 250 Hendrick
sales associates in Florida could be included in it and thousands
more if it includes all 102 Hendrick dealerships, Yormak said.

Hendrick Automotive Group, of Charlotte, N.C., owned by Rick
Hendrick, moved to dismiss the initial lawsuit.  But at a hearing
last month, a judge allowed Yormak to file an amended complaint
instead.

A Hendrick spokesman said that the company does not comment on
pending litigation, but he added that Hendrick's lawyers believe
the case is without merit and should be dismissed.

Hendrick has 20 days to respond to the amended suit.  The
spokesman said lawyers are working on that response.

'Fast and loose'

The lawsuit's allegations are "fairly straightforward,"
Mr. Yormak said.  "The dealership is playing fast and loose with
the gross-profit numbers."

The lawsuit said the plaintiffs were to be paid 25 percent of the
gross profit on new cars sold and 30 percent on used cars in a
straight commission pay plan.  The dealership guaranteed minimum
payment of $200 per sale.  Gross profit is "the difference
between the sale price of the vehicle and the price the
dealership pays to get the vehicle on the lot," the lawsuit said.

But the dealership, "on the direction of Hendrick," consistently
used "deceptive and deceitful" practices to charge "wildly
inflated" costs against the profit margins, the lawsuit said.
This was done to avoid paying the higher percentage commissions,
instead paying just the $200 guaranteed minimum, the lawsuit
said.

Those costs included cleaning, detailing, adding equipment or
parts and other services, all at "marked up prices designed to
reduce the sales commissions" to the mandatory minimum, the
lawsuit alleges.

When the plaintiffs questioned dealership leadership about their
pay, managers "refused to provide the plaintiffs an accounting of
their deals," the lawsuit states.

Something's wrong

Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples was once Bob Taylor Chevrolet.
Hendrick Automotive Group bought it in October 2015.

Plaintiff Jack Lefevre, 72, worked for Taylor since 1977. He
stayed on with Hendrick, but he said his commissions did not
match what he had been promised.

Likewise, plaintiff Brett Trekell, 47, told Automotive News that
Hendrick owes "tens of thousands" of dollars in commissions to
him and thousands to his colleagues.

Mr. Trekell started at Rick Hendrick Chevrolet Naples in October
2015 as a sales associate and floor manager, training new sales
staff.  Before that, he worked at five dealerships in a 25-year
career in sales and management jobs.  He now is a sales associate
at Airport Kia, in Naples, Fla.

By early 2016, he and others started noticing something wasn't
right with their pay.

"One of the salesman sold three Chevy Tahoes at $65,000 each, yet
he got paid $200 on each," said Mr. Trekell.  A typical
commission on such a vehicle should be at least $700, he said.
The salesman asked him, "Why don't I have any gross on these?" he
recalled.

Shop bills

Mr. Trekell and the others soon learned why: Exorbitant shop
bills from the service department were being charged against the
gross profit margins, he said.  For example, the dealership
charged $600 to $700 to wash and vacuum a car and $500 to $600 to
tint the windows, he said.  Such services, which should be a
fraction of those figures, had shrunk the gross margins.

The service department also charged $299 per new or used car to
put nitrogen in every tire to stabilize tire pressure, said
Mr. Trekell.  There was just one problem: "The nitrogen machine
had not worked for a year and a half," said Mr. Trekell.

In June, Trekell said, the dealership replaced the nitrogen
machine.

Meanwhile, to make up for the lower commissions, managers offered
volume bonuses, said Mr. Trekell, paying $500 for 15 cars sold
and $1,000 for 20 cars sold per month.  But the store rotated so
many salespeople that it was nearly impossible to work enough to
hit the targets, he said.

The draw

Messrs. Trekell and Lefevre were terminated on June 29. In fact,
all the plaintiffs had either resigned or were terminated by that
date, said Mr. Yormak.

Mr. Trekell was given no explanation for his termination, he
said.  Mr. Lefevre was told he owed Hendrick about $8,000 in back
draws.  A back-draw results when a dealership pays an employee
before they make any sales.  If the employee fails to make
sufficient sales to cover that advance, he or she must pay back
the difference to the dealership.

But because Hendrick made "almost every deal a minimum deal, the
salesmen are never able to cover the monthly draw," said
Mr. Lefevre.

Yormak is confident the case will proceed to class action,
saying, "We feel all the prerequisites are there to be certified
as class action.  We feel this is exactly what goes on at every
dealership because every dealership is Hendrick-controlled."

No further court dates have been set, said a court clerk in
Collier County, Fla.

Mr. Yormak said when Hendrick is forced to reveal its accounting,
"You will see that all the allegations are true.  How much does
it cost to detail a car? $30? I mean, c'mon," Mr. Yormak said.

"We just want what's fair.  These sales associates signed a
contract expecting to be paid by what was in those terms and not
to be deceived by their employers." [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Jones Day Lawyers Examine Class Decertification
--------------------------------------------------------------
              Implications of the Ninth Circuit's
                 Latest Ruling on Multinational
               Consumer Protection Class Actions

By Michael McCauley, Esq. -- msmccauley@jonesday.com -- and
Alexandra Fries, Esq. -- afries@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day, Los
Angeles

The Ninth Circuit recently issued a ruling in a nationwide class
action that may have significant implications for certifying
class actions.  In In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation,
No. 15-56014 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Ninth Circuit set
aside a $210 million nationwide class settlement because the
district court abused its discretion in certifying a settlement
class without first rigorously analyzing the requirements for
certification.  Id. at 60.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that the
district court did not sufficiently analyze whether the
predominance element for class certification was satisfied in
light of material differences in the applicable state laws and
could not substitute the fairness hearing for this analysis.  Id.
at 60.  Counsel litigating class actions must consider this
ruling in shaping case strategy.

The In re Hyundai plaintiffs alleged that Hyundai and Kia
overstated the fuel efficiency of certain vehicles, which
prompted a 2011 EPA investigation into Hyundai's and Kia's fuel
efficiency test procedures.  Id. at 34.  The district court
issued a tentative decision holding that class certification was
improper, finding that Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581
(9th Cir. 2012), foreclosed certification "where California law
is applied to out-of state consumers. . . ."  Id. at 38.
Applying the California governmental interest test for resolving
choice of law issues, the district court found there were
material differences in the applicable state consumer protection
laws throughout the country (particularly as to scienter
requirements and remedies), the other states had legitimate
interests in applying their own laws, and those interests would
be more impaired if the court applied California law to the out-
of-state consumers.  Id.

A few months after this tentative ruling, and after the parties
reached a settlement agreeing to certify a nationwide class,
plaintiff asked the court to certify a nationwide settlement
class including all current and former owners and lessees of
certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles on or before November 2, 2012.
Id. at 40.  Several putative class members objected to the
settlement, arguing, among other things, that Virginia consumer
protection law, not California consumer law, applied.  Id. at 45.
In a later tentative ruling, however, the district court
determined that an extensive choice of law analysis was
unwarranted in the settlement context because it could address
variations in state law at the fairness hearing.  Id. at 46.  The
district court ultimately approved the settlement and failed to
resolve the state choice-of-law issues that it had acknowledged
in its tentative order denying class certification.  Id. at 47.

The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the district
court.  The court determined that the district court erred by not
analyzing choice-of-law issues or ensuring that Rule 23's other
prerequisites were satisfied when certifying the settlement
class.  Id. at 50.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that under Amchem
Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997), "district
courts must give 'undiluted, even heightened, attention in the
settlement context' to scrutinize proposed settlement classes."
Id. at 51.  The Ninth Circuit explained that the district court's
tentative decision put the parties on notice that the district
court would deny certification.  Class counsel was thus deprived
of the ability to "use the threat of litigation to press for a
better offer" and the court was deprived of the "benefit of
adversarial investigation."  Id. at 51.  The Ninth Circuit
concluded that the district court could not resolve these
certification issues at a fairness hearing.

Judge Nguyen issued a scathing dissent.  She found that Rule 23's
predominance inquiry was met and the majority improperly
"place[d] the burden on the district court or class counsel to
extensively canvass every state's laws and determine that none
other than California's apply."  Id. at 64.  She explained that
the majority opinion conflicted with well-established law that "a
nationwide class action cannot be decertified simply because
there are 'differences between state consumer protection laws.'"
Id. at 62.  When it comes to predominance, "more important
questions apt to drive the resolution of the litigation and are
given more weight[.]"  Id.  Judge Nguyen also explained that the
objectors failed to argue, much less meet their burden to show,
that law from any state other than California applied.  The law
is clear, Judge Nguyen found, that the proponent of class
certification does not have the burden to show that California
law applies.  Id. at 70.  Judge Nguyen concluded that the
majority did not properly apply California's choice of law rules
and created inconsistencies "the Erie doctrine is designed to
combat."  Id.

                        Potential Lessons

The Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Hyundai may make the
settlement of certain nationwide class actions more complex and
less predictable.  The Supreme Court held in Amchem that a
district court must conduct a rigorous choice of law analysis
when certifying a settlement class.  Nevertheless, in practice
district courts often take a more lenient approach to class
certification in the settlement context.  Counsel typically could
assume the district court would likely certify the settlement
class and approve the settlement with little inquiry.  The In re
Hyundai decision, however, highlights that counsel proceeds at
his or her own peril under this assumption.  Counsel should be
prepared to show how each of the requirements for class
certification is satisfied, even at the settlement stage.
Recognizing that this showing will be required will affect
overall case strategy, including what discovery is taken, what
arguments are made to the court concerning class certification,
and when those arguments are made.

The In re Hyundai decision also highlights how important
variations in state law can be to class certification, even
outside the settlement context.  Cases in the Ninth Circuit and
elsewhere have long held that material differences in state law
can be fatal to class certification.  See, e.g., Mazza, 666 F.3d
at 596; Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir.
1996); Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 947
(6th Cir. 2011).  In re Hyundai serves as a stark reminder that
counsel litigating nationwide putative class actions must account
for any differences in state laws and, depending on what side
they are on, explain why those differences do or do not preclude
class certification.  Any increased focus on these variations in
state law may also affect how classes are defined and whether
subclasses are used.

In Judge Nguyen's dissenting view, the In re Hyundai decision
"deals a major blow to multistate class actions" by making them
harder to certify and harder to settle.  Id. at 61.  Whether
Judge Nguyen is right remains to be seen.  But in the meantime,
the In re Hyundai decision serves as a reminder to counsel
litigating nationwide class actions of the importance of
differences in state law and that nothing should be taken for
granted at the settlement stage.

                           *    *    *

Michael McCauley is a partner in Jones Day's Los Angeles office.
He is a trial lawyer who has served as lead trial and arbitration
counsel for Fortune 500 companies and has led the defense of
numerous nationwide consumer class actions in the automotive,
securities, healthcare and other industries.

Alexandra Fries is an associate in Jones Day's Los Angeles
office. She focuses her practice on commercial litigation, with a
strong emphasis on class actions, securities, and corporate
governance issues.

The views and opinions set forth herein are the personal views or
opinions of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect views or
opinions of the law firm with which they are associated.


HY'S LIVERY: "Belgada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Mehdi Belgada, Hormoz Akhundzadeh, and Adaniel Dziekan,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. Hy's Livery Service, Inc., Robert Levine, Matthew
Levine, and Shelley Levine, Case No. 3:18-cv-00177 (D. Conn.,
January 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut
Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as chauffeurs for the Defendants in
Connecticut.

Defendants own and operate an airport limo service. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Tel: (860) 522-8888
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. still defends itself against the Worksite
Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 12, 2018,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the
Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible
worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on
behalf of Plan participants.

The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to
the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other
fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment choices.

The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification
that defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of
the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through
September 30, 2017."

In November 2017, the court approved the class certification
stipulation.

The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and
we intend to vigorously defend this litigation.  As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision
has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements."

Insperity, Inc., provides an array of human resources ("HR") and
business solutions designed to help improve business performance.


J.L.C. JEWELERS: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.L.C. Jewelers
LTD. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.L.C. Jewelers
LTD. doing business as: Cellini Jewelers, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01607 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

J.L.C. Jewelers LTD. is a Jewelry Stores.[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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rochester Drug Files Suit in Pa. Over Remicade
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen
Biotech, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00303-JCJ (E.D. Penn., January
24, 2018), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful multifaceted
scheme to block biosimilar competition to Remicade through a web
of exclusive dealing contracts.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company located
at 1 J&J Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08933. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.  
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and

      Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 559-9745
      E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      Neil Clark, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
      101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com
              nclark@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry Taus, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      Miles Greaves, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (646) 873-7654
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
              mgreaves@tcllaw.com


KINDER MORGAN: UPRR Easements and Related Lawsuits Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, 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 subsidiary SFPP, L.P.
continues to face legal actions related to Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UPRR).

The Company said, "SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR)
have engaged in litigation since 2004 to determine both the
extent, if any, to which rent payable by SFPP for the use of
pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be
adjusted, and the circumstances and conditions under which SFPP
must pay to relocate its pipeline within the UPRR rights-of-way.
In July 2017, UPRR and SFPP reached a confidential settlement of
both the rental and relocation litigation.  The amount paid by
SFPP to settle the rental litigation was within the right-of-way
liability previously recorded by SFPP, and the parties generally
agreed to share and allocate the cost of future potential
relocations.  Although the cost sharing mechanism in the
settlement is expected to reduce the cost of future relocations,
SFPP does not know UPRR's plans for projects or other activities
that would cause pipeline relocations such that it is difficult
to quantify the cost of future potential relocations.  Such costs
could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results
of operations, cash flows, and dividends to our shareholders.

"A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S.
District Court in California by private landowners who claim to
be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used
or occupied by UPRR or SFPP.  Substantially similar follow-on
lawsuits were filed in federal courts by landowners in Nevada,
Arizona and New Mexico.

These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on
behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and
underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is
located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR,
SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" alleging that
the defendants occupation and use of the subsurface real property
was improper.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were denied by the
federal courts in Arizona and California.  The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for interlocutory
review of the decisions on class certification.

The New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits have been stayed.  An
additional suit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Arizona by
private landowners seeking recovery for claims substantially the
same as those made in the purported class actions.

SFPP views the litigation involving private landowners as
primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiff landowners; as
such, we expect the lawsuits will be resolved on terms that are
not material to KMI's results of operations, cash flows or
dividends to shareholders."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Appeal from "Brinckerhoff" Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, 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 Peter Brinckerhoff's
appeal from the court order dismissing his purported class action
suit against the Company remains pending.

In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by Peter Brinckerhoff, a former EPB
unitholder on behalf of a class of former unaffiliated
unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the US$9.2 billion
merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI as part of a series of
transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI acquired all of the
outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR, and EPB that KMI and
its subsidiaries did not already own.

The suit alleges that the merger consideration did not
sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three
derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the
derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and
which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as
much as US$700 million.  The suit claims that the alleged failure
to obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down
lawsuits constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership
agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The suit also asserts claims against KMI and certain
individual defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with
and/or aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited
partnership agreement.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the Court
dismissed the suit in its entirety.  Brinckerhoff filed a notice
to appeal the dismissal.

In November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate
lawsuit against KMEP and KMI seeking to recover up to US$44
million in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred in connection with
the assertion of derivative claims that Brinckerhoff lost
standing to pursue.  Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit.

The Company said, "We continue to believe that both the merger
and the drop down transactions were appropriate and in the best
interests of EPB, and we intend to continue to defend these
lawsuits vigorously."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments. The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


MDL 2804: El Dorado Reverses Decision to Join Opioid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tia Lyons, writing for El Dorado News-Times, reports that as a
former law enforcement officer and director of the 13th Judicial
Drug Task Force, El Dorado Alderman Mike Rice remembers the
crestfallen look that overtook the faces of parents when he had
the unfortunate task of interviewing them after their child had
died of a drug overdose.

"I'll never forget that look," he said.

It was a look that befell his own face in May 2016 when, at 26
years old, his daughter Mary Lou succumbed to an opioid addiction
that had consumed her and her family since she was 14 years old.

"I was a career law enforcement officer working in narcotics and
my daughter had this issue," he said, his voice overcome with
emotion.

Mr. Rice first publicly shared the testimony about his loss
during an El Dorado City Council meeting on Jan. 18.

The council decided then not to participate in efforts by the
state to pursue legal action against pharmaceutical companies in
the fight against the opioid abuse crisis that is ravaging
Arkansas and the U.S.

Mr. Rice was one of six aldermen who voted against a request to
authorize Mayor Frank Hash to sign an engagement letter outlining
plans by a litigation team representing the Arkansas Municipal
League and municipalities around the state to investigate and
prosecute claims against companies and other parties that
manufacture and/or distribute opioid medications.

He, along with several other council members, has since reversed
his stance on the issue.

After hearing from a local family who is dealing with the
devastation of opioid abuse, Alderman Billy Blann, who voted 'no'
on Jan. 18, said he had experienced a change of heart and
consciousness and asked that the issue be placed on the agenda
for the council's regular meeting on Feb. 8.

Following a lengthy debate and words of support by audience
member Chuck Hays, the council took another vote to join with the
AML and other municipalities around the state.

The result was a 5 - 3 poll in favor of the measure. Aldermen
Vance Williamson, Judy Ward and Dianne Hammond voted 'no'.

'Very complex problem'

"I had not seen the ugly end of this.  It had not affected my
family," Mr. Blann said.

Following the Jan. 18 council meeting, Mr. Blann said he had
researched the matter further and had learned more about the
wide-reaching effects of the problem of opioid abuse in Arkansas
and across the nation.

"I was not aware of the full extent -- how many pills were being
prescribed, how they are affecting a lot of people . . .  and
there could be a monetary result on this and I'd hate to see El
Dorado miss out on that," Mr. Blann said.

He invited Mr. Hays to speak to the council and Mr. Hays said the
issue has personally touched his family.

Hays referred to the Jan. 18 council meeting, saying that some
city officials felt that opioid abuse is not an issue locally.

"We'll have to agree to disagree," he said.  "Will a lawsuit
change anything? I think it will.  I think we have to get the
attention of the opioid drug companies and shed a lot of light on
this issue in the national press."

He said he had also spoken with the AML about the matter and he
suggested that city officials speak with the 13th Judicial
Prosecuting Attorney's Office "to see what opioids do to our
court system."

Mr. Hays also referred to a relative who works with Agape House,
which serves children in Union County who can't live in their
homes due to abuse, neglect and other life issues, many of which
stem from drug abuse.

Mayor Frank Hash previously said that most mayors around the
state had signed the letter of engagement with the municipal
league.

"This lawsuit is going to happen with or without us.  It's just a
small part of the solution.  There's got to be a lot of changes
made on different levels," Mr. Hays said.  "Tell us, all of us in
this room, what we need to do to give you a positive vote."

Reiterating comments he made last month, Alderman Vance
Williamson said he did not favor pursuing legal action against
pharmaceutical companies and distributers.

"What I don't follow is that pharmaceutical manufacturers, at the
end of the day, are not responsible for dealing out excess
prescriptions," Mr. Williamson said.  "What I can't follow is how
you're trying to hold them responsible for what physicians are
doing.  It's well beyond their control."

Mr. Hays argued that drug companies are culpable because they
were not forthcoming with the public about the addictive
qualities of opioid-based medications.

"I sympathize with folks who are dealing with this, but I think
this suit is aimed at the wrong people," Mr. Williamson
responded.

In Arkansas, the drug prescription rate is 114 per 100 people and
in Union County, the rate is 131.5 per 100 people, which is more
than double the national average.

Hash pointed to comments Rice previously made, saying that many
people who are addicted to prescription medications often turn to
heroin, also an opioid, when they can't access prescription
medication.

Alderman Willie McGhee referred to the prescription rates that
have been reported in Union County and Arkansas, saying, "If your
signature saves one life, then it was worth it.  I understand
there's misuse, but a lot of people who started taking these
pills did so for pain.  They didn't start out as addicts."

Mr. McGhee said that he has recently had surgeries and he was
also prescribed opioid-based pain pills, adding that he opted for
over-the-counter medication.

He also acknowledged that the problem has many layers and the
council could "work it from the top down instead of the bottom
up" by joining the efforts of the Arkansas Municipal League.

'There is a cost'

For Mr. Rice, the issue is as emotional as it is complex.

As head of the 13th Judicial Drug Task Force, he saw firsthand
the amount of resources that went into tackling illegal drug
activity from a law-enforcement standpoint.

"I had a budget that included money for so many man-hours, so
much equipment, so much 'buy' money, things you had to do to
build a case.  There is a cost," he said.

In response to comments by Williamson, Mr. Rice said drug
companies ship "thousands" of pills to other countries.

"And they're shipped right back here through mail order and other
means," he said.  "You can load up truckloads of pills and bring
them back here.  The doctors don't make the pills."

Mr. Rice said the drug task force worked to bust operations in
which area drug dealers were rounding up addicts and arranging
visits to "unscrupulous doctors" in Texas.

"They would go in and say, 'My back hurts,' and get all these
prescriptions written and they were bringing back large
quantities of narcotics to sell here," he said.

Mr. Rice opened up about other front-line experience he has had
with drug addiction.

His daughter Mary Lou was living in New Orleans at the time of
her death.

Mr. Rice said he had watched her battle drug addiction for more
than a decade and had tried feverishly to help her beat it.

He had seen her through stints in rehabilitation programs and
sober living facilities.

"She would be clean for six, seven months to a year, but it
wouldn't last," he said.

When his phone rang nearly two years ago and he saw the familiar
"504" area code from New Orleans police, he immediately knew the
news wasn't good.

"I didn't answer it. I said a prayer and then I hit the recall
button," he said.

A Mardi Gras parade was held on Feb. 11 in Mary Lou's honor.  It
began at 2:23 p.m. (her birthday) and circled the Union County
Courthouse from Jefferson Avenue to Washington Avenue and back to
Rice's restaurant, Fayray's on Elm Street.

A Gumbo Cook-Off was held, recognizing Mary Lou's favorite food
and the event helped to benefit UCAPS.

"Mary Lou was big on rescuing dogs," Mr. Rice shared.

While Mr. Rice said there isn't a simple solution to the opioid
problem, he said education and awareness are needed, along with
other action, such as the AML effort.

He also said Union County Drug Court has had measurable success
with drug addiction.

"It does not fix everybody, but it's helped a lot of people,"
Mr. Rice said.

By speaking publicly about Mary Lou and voting in favor of a
Class Action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Rice
said he hopes he is taking the right steps toward helping others
and raising awareness about the devastation of drug addiction.

"It seems like when it happens, parents want to avoid it and say,
'It can't happen to me,'" he said.  "I hope we can figure out a
way to prevent the problem.  I'm a member of a very small club
that I don't want other people to become a member of and that's
losing a child." [GN]


METLIFE INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until April 6, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against MetLife Inc. (:MET), if
they purchased the Company's securities between February 27, 2013
and January 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

                        What You May Do

If you purchased securities of MetLife and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/-met/to learn more. If you wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition
the Court by April 6, 2018.

                        About the Lawsuit

MetLife and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On January 29, 2018, MetLife disclosed "a material weakness in
internal controls over financial reporting" that caused reserves
to be reduced incorrectly relating to outstanding payouts for
annuity and pension recipients and that its Q4 earnings release
was postponed, with reserves expected to increase by $525 million
to $575 million, Q4 earnings to decrease by $135 million to $165
million, and 2017 profits cut by $165 million to $195 million.
MetLife also revealed a SEC investigation into the outstanding
pension payments matter.

               About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


METLIFE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife") (NYSE:MET) between
February 27, 2013 and January 29, 2018. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/metlife-inc?wire=3

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) MetLife's practices and procedures
used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and pension
payments were inadequate; (2) MetLife had inadequate internal
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about MetLife's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in MetLife you have until April 6, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Financial-Services Reps File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Financial-services reps filed a class action against Metropolitan
Life Insurance, claiming it takes illegal deductions, fails to
reimburse business expenses, and violates other labor laws, in
Alameda County Court.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
        FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     Tel: 619.239.4599
     Fax: 619.234.4599

        -- and --

     Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq.
     Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
        FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Ave.
     10th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212.545.4762
     Fax: 212.545.4653

        -- and --

     John M. Kelson, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KELSON
     483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Tel: 510.465.1326
     Fax: 510.465.0871

        -- and --

     Jerry K. Cimmet, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
     San Mateo, CA 94402
     Tel: 650.866.4700


MIZUHOD BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Bitcoins Currency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Pearce, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mizuhod Bank, LTD. and Mark Karpeles, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00306-RK (E.D. Penn., January 24, 2018), is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to exercise
reasonable care in maintaining, protecting, accounting for, and
safeguarding the Plaintiff's and the Mt. Gox Class's bitcoins and
Fiat Currency within Mt. Cox's control and failure to implement
reasonable accounting procedures or to segregate user accounts
from the operational funds, as well as failure to correct
security bugs or other vulnerabilities on the Exchange.

Mizuhod Bank, LTD. is a Japanese financial institution with its
principal headquarters located at 1-3-3, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 100-8210. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 735-1130
      Facsimile: (215) 875-7733

         - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94109
      Telephone: (415) 212-9300
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
      E-mail: rbalabania@edelson.com


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: CFTC Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, 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 a
class action lawsuit against Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods
Group is still in discovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Putative Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended and restated complaint filed against Navient
Corporation remains pending, according to SLM Student Loan Trust
2010-1's Form 10-D filed on February 9, 2018, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the distribution period
from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.  These
three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.  The caption
of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et
al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.  The Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss on September 6, 2017 and dismissed
the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.  The plaintiffs
filed a further amended and restated complaint in December 2017.
The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations.


NAVIENT CORP: "Pope" and "Gross" Stockholder Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation still faces two putative class action
lawsuits filed on behalf of certain Navient stock investors,
according to SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1's Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
distribution period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

During the fourth quarter of 2017, Navient Corporation and
certain Navient officers were named in two putative class action
lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock
entitled Pope v. Navient Corporation, et al and Gross v. Navient
Corporation, et al. The Navient defendants intend to vigorously
defend against these allegations.


NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" and "Blyden" Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the cases, Tina M.
Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al. and Marlene Blyden v. Navient
Corporation, et al., are awaiting Court approval of a settlement.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed
prior to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned
Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. The plaintiff brought
the complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other
similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees
that were proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and
that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging
daily interest on private educational loans.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include usury
claims under California state law and to seek restitution of late
charges and interest paid by members of the putative class and
other relief. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties reached
a settlement in principle that would resolve the Ubaldi matter,
as well as the related lawsuit of Marlene Blyden v. Navient
Corporation, et al.

Navient said "While we cannot provide any assurances that we will
be able to finalize the proposed settlement on terms that are
acceptable to the Company or if the Court will ultimately approve
the proposed settlement, we do not believe that the financial
impact of the final settlement, if any, will be material." The
Company agreed to settle these matters to avoid the burden,
expense, risk, and uncertainty of continued litigation. A reserve
was established for this matter as of December 31, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed on September 25, 2017, an Amended Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement. This motion awaits action by
the Court.

Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and
business processing solutions for education, health care, and
government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The
company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve
financial success through services and support. Headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New
York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations.


NAVIENT CORP: Expects Amended Complaint in Lord Abbett Funds Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in early
2018 in the consolidated class action lawsuit led by Lord Abbett
Funds, Navient Corporation said a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three
cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption
of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et
al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their
amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit, and filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in November 2016. On
September 6, 2017 the Court granted the Navient defendants motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend
until November 5, Navient said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

Navient said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint with the court on November 17, 2017.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit and
anticipate filing their motion to dismiss prior to the applicable
deadline.

Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli
Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul
and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John
F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of
which allege violations of the federal securities laws under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"These cases have been consolidated and we anticipate a
consolidated amended complaint will be filed in early 2018. The
Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
itself," Navient said.

Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and
business processing solutions for education, health care, and
government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The
company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve
financial success through services and support. Headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New
York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations.


NAVIENT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Court has approved the settlement in
the case, Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and
federal consumer protection laws. One of these putative class
action suits is Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").
On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnson filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"). During the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement and, in December 2016, filed
a Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement with the Court.
The Court approved the settlement in July 2017.

NSI denied all claims asserted, but agreed to settle the case to
avoid the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continued
litigation.

Navient Corporation is a provider of asset management and
business processing solutions for education, health care, and
government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The
company helps its clients and millions of Americans achieve
financial success through services and support. Headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware, Navient employs team members in western New
York, northeastern Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and other locations.


NCAA: Judge Set to Hear Summary Judgment Motions
------------------------------------------------
John Thelin, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that now that
the football season is over, college sports fans have several
options.  They can argue about whether next year the University
of Alabama will defend its 2018 College Football Playoff National
Championship title.  Or they can turn to watching some of the
more than 50 National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball
games televised each week.

These obvious choices do not exhaust the possibilities for
excitement, because the real game is going to be played off the
court and in court.  That's because U.S. District Court judge
Claudia Wilken will be holding a hearing on motions for summary
judgment in the case of Jenkins v. NCAA, a class-action suit that
challenges the NCAA's compensation limits on athletes.  According
to a recent article in Time magazine by Sean Gregory, "This could
be the last college football championship game with unpaid
players."  Representatives for college players are confident
that, within the coming year, college athletes will be able to
receive payment beyond the current limits of a grant in aid plus
cost of living adjusted expenses.  And even though almost 69
percent of respondents surveyed by the NCAA last year expressed
opposition to paying college athletes, Gregory suggests that
today avid college sports fans may have little problem with such
an innovation.

Advocates for paying college players justify their cause and case
on the grounds that since the NCAA, major conferences, big-time
college sports programs and their high-profile coaches make
millions of dollars from college sports, the amateur athletes who
play the college games that attract spectators deserve to "share
in the bounty."

That may be good news for student athletes who think they are
financially exploited.  Less clear is how the other principle
participant -- the college athletics department -- will fare
under the new arrangements.  If college athletes are allowed to
be paid salaries, what will the impact be on intercollegiate
athletics programs' budgets and operations? How will college
athletic directors pay for "play for pay"?

Most likely, no college athletics director will relish the new
professionalization, because paying salaries to players will
increase program expenditures without necessarily increasing
revenues.  But if the court does approve player payment, a
handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition
for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay
salaries.  Others will mimic as they try to keep up but
eventually will fall short in trying to outbid Auburn University,
Florida State, the University of Southern California or the
University of Texas in the college player arms race.

Even before factoring in the added expenses that might come from
the anticipated court ruling, the important prequel is that now
only about 20 college athletics programs consistently operate in
the black, even though the traditional justification for big-time
football is that it serves as the golden goose to subsidize the
other "nonrevenue" sports.  More surprising is that many NCAA
Division I football programs lose money.  With the added expense
of paying some athletes salaries, most programs will go deeper in
debt. The harsh reality is that they will still fall behind as
the gap in the competition for star athletes will widen, with the
Bowl Championship Series conference members gaining a pronounced
edge.

This syndrome of the rich getting richer among big-time college
sports programs is not surprising. Less obvious is that with
player payroll expenses, even many of the high-profile,
commercially successful college sports programs will face
unexpected consequences that will strain their annual operating
budgets.

For example, when an athletics department pays a salary instead
of providing a grant in aid, it faces substantial new expenses
for no gain in services.  It must pay federal taxes for Medicare
and Social Security, matching the dollar amount paid by the
employee.  If, for example, a player received a salary of about
$140,000, the employer and employee each would pay about $9,100
per year for these two federal taxes.

Athletic departments pay another price if they shift from
scholarships to salaries.  When player compensation was in the
form of a grant in aid, an athletics department could rely on the
university financial aid to transfer a Pell Grant worth up to
about $5,000 per year to a player's package if the student
athlete had demonstrated financial need.  So if 100 grant-in-aid
recipients were receiving Pell Grants, that might save the
athletic department $500,000 per year in fulfilling their
obligations on funding financial aid packages.  Under the new
rules, that potential subsidy would evaporate.

A crucial question is whether any of the court's rulings that
allow a college to pay players will jeopardize a college sports
program's status as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.  Some
prominent tax law scholars such as John D. Colombo of the
University of Illinois have argued that it would be difficult and
unlikely for a college sports program to forfeit this legal
status.

Perhaps so. But the recent trends in the court cases suggest one
vulnerable point where paying salaries to student athletes could
jeopardize the customary federal tax-exempt status.  To qualify
for 501(c)3 status, an educational activity must also be a
charitable activity.  As long as athletic programs and their host
corporations such as the state university athletic association or
the state university athletic foundation use their revenues to
pay for scholarships, the charitable status of the overall
athletics program probably is safe.  Shifting, however, to paying
salaries to student athletes goes counter to an essential
condition because it would be hard to define a salary as a
charitable expense.

Why is this important? If a college sports program department or
athletics association forfeits its tax-exempt status, it may have
new, big expenses from which it was spared under the student aid
model.  Those could include state and local categories of taxes,
such as property taxes.  There are already cases whereby a local
government has pressed a major state university to explain why a
golf course or other real estate not used for educational
purposes that the institution owned should qualify as an
educational and charitable site.  With professional athletes on
the payroll, such local and state scrutiny of land used for
sports entertainment provided by hired professionals will
increase.

One possible strategy to reduce this potential tax exposure would
be for athletic directors to decide to pay salaries only to
student athletes for selected sports.  Most likely, that would
include football, men's basketball, women's basketball and a few
others such as hockey at a handful of universities.  All other
sports might be left in their current, familiar grant-in-aid
category.  The risk is that paying salaries to student athletes
in a few high-profile sports will open the door to Title IX
compliance problems, especially if comparable compensation is not
given regardless of gender.  This concern is not outlandish,
because a football squad with an allotment of 65 players is a
large number, as already shown in the problems athletic directors
have in gaining parity for women's sports in paying for grants in
aid.

Those added expenses will take place just as the new federal tax
reform bill passed in December 2017 takes effect, requiring
colleges and other nonprofits to pay an excise tax for employee
salaries surpassing $1 million per year . That measure will have
disproportionate consequences for athletics programs where coach
and athletic director salaries are high.  The obvious targets are
head coaches who can make as much as $7 million or more a year.
Yet in recent years, the potential impact has extended to a wider
group, as some assistant coaches make over $1 million per year.
The new tax legislation also places greater limits on tax
deductions for donors who give to athletics programs and earn the
right to purchase season tickets to games.

Furthermore, in some states, legislators are filing bills that
would require university governing boards to review big
sponsorship and endorsement deals with Adidas or other sports
merchandising companies, which can be as high as $165 million
over 10 years.

College sports programs will still enjoy great exemptions and
benefits but will face increasing scrutiny and constraints.
Expenses will continue to rise, but revenues will be subject to
more taxes.  Courts and Congress are increasingly, albeit
reluctantly, acknowledging the commercial character of the NCAA
and its sponsored sports.  On June 4, 2015 in the case of Javon
Marshall, et al., v. ESPN, et al., federal district Judge Kevin
H. Sharp wrote, "College basketball and football, particularly at
the Division I and FBS [Football Bowl Subdivision] levels, is a
big business.  Of that there can be little doubt." Nor is there
much doubt that the financing of big-time college sports is
entering a new, problematic period of adjustment due to the
pressures and precedents pointing toward increased student
athlete compensation, combined with some signs of congressional
concerns about commercialism and colleges.

If college players can be paid, how much will they be paid? Even
though advocates of paying student athletes invoke the rhetoric
of "fair market value," it's unlikely that new court rulings will
open the floodgate to allow uncapped salaries for college
athletes. A more probable scenario is that the courts will
designate the conference as the crucial collective unit that
works with its member universities to set ceilings and floors on
player salaries. Conferences such as the Ivy League will probably
not participate in the added commercialization of paying salaries
to athletes. The Power Five Conferences will be likely
participants.

Between those two extremes, for other Division I conferences,
athletic directors will pay a heavy price if they opt to pay
players. After the euphoria of achieving partial gains in
financial equity by allowing salaries for hardworking student
athletes passes, the sobering reality is that even big-time
college sports programs will be stretched in their budgets and
conflicted in reconciling payment of student athletes with their
educational mission. [GN]


NESTLE USA: Must Face Class Action Over Raisinets, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that echoing a similar ruling
from last summer involving Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales, a
federal judge in Missouri denied Nestle's request to throw out a
class action accusing it of selling nearly half empty boxes of
Raisinets.


NQ MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of NQ Mobile Inc. (NYSE:NQ) from March 30, 2017
through February 6, 2018, inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for NQ Mobile investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the NQ Mobile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1285.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) NQ Mobile failed to disclose related party
transactions involving the Transaction between NQ Mobile and
Tongfang; (2) due to the related parties involved in the
Transaction, NQ Mobile agreed to consideration in the form of a
note with a high likelihood of default; (3) Defendant Shi's
interest in the Transaction was not fully disclosed; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about NQ Mobile's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 11, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1285.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN]


OAKHURST DAIRY: To Pay Workers $5MM Because of Missing Comma
------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Cone, writing for UPI, reports that a dairy in Maine has
settled a class-action suit to pay 127 workers $5 million in owed
overtime pay because of a missing Oxford comma in state law.

Portland's Oakhurst Dairy and the workers reached a settlement
nearly a year after a federal appeals court decision.

On March 13, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled
3-0 that workers were entitled to up to $10 million in overtime
back pay.

The reason was a missing Oxford comma -- the final comma used
before a conjunction -- in state law. In this case, the
conjunction was the word "or."

Judge David Barron wrote at the beginning of his 29-page ruling:
"For want of a comma, we have this case."

No Oxford comma was used in a statute listing of conditions when
overtime pay does not apply: "...marketing, storing, packing for
shipment or distribution of" products. Without the comma, the
drivers argued that it reads as a single act, and since they
didn't actually do any packing, they shouldn't have been exempt
from overtime pay.

The 127 drivers filed a class-action suit in 2014.

In the settlement, Oakhurst did not admit to wrongdoing but
believed further litigation would be protracted and expensive.
The settlement was filed February 8 in federal court and must be
approved by a federal judge before it goes into effect.

The five drivers who led the suit, called the "named plaintiffs,"
will receive $50,000 each from the settlement fund. Other drivers
will have to file claims to get a share of the fund, and will be
paid a minimum of $100 or the amount of overtime pay they were
owed, based on their work records from May 2008 until August
2012.

In early 2014, the dairy was sold to a farmers cooperative by the
Maine family that had owned it for 93 years.

After the appeals court ruling edited this exemption, the Maine
Legislature replaced the punctuation with semicolons. [GN]


OHANA MILITARY: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City
Residential Management, Inc., filed an appeal from the District
Court's January 10, 2018 order denying their motion for a
preliminary injunction in the lawsuit styled Cara Barber, et al.
v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00217-HG-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants did not disclose that
pesticides had been confirmed in the soil at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii and required remediation, and that the Defendants did not
follow their own soil remediation plan and their construction
efforts exposed the Plaintiffs to visible dust at Marine Corps
Base Hawaii while they were tenants in the Defendants' housing.

The appellate case is captioned as Cara Barber, et al. v. Ohana
Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-15149, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening brief and excerpts of record were due by February
      22, 2018;

   -- Answering brief is due March 22, 2018, or 28 days after
      service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and

   -- Optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of
      the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA
STREETER, KATIE ECKROTH, BOB BARBER, TIM JONES and RYAN ECKROTH,
On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Bradford F.K. Bliss, Esq.
          LYONS, BRANDT, COOK & HIRAMATSU
          841 Bishop Street
          1818 Davies Pacific Center
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-7030
          E-mail: bbliss@lbchlaw.com

               - and -

          Terry Revere, Esq.
          REVERE AND ASSOCIATES, LLLC
          970 N. Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9550
          E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com

               - and -

          Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAW
          970 N. Kalaheo, Suite A301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9555
          E-mail: kyle@lhsshawaii.com

Defendants-Appellants OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, and FOREST
CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., are represented by:

          Lisa Woods Munger, Esq.
          Christine A. Terada, Esq.
          GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLP
          999 Bishop Street
          First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 547-5600
          E-mail: lmunger@goodsill.com
                  cterada@goodsill.com

               - and -

          Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
          COX FRICKE LLP
          800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 585-9440
          E-mail: rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "B.R." Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants County of Orange and Myeshia Hammond filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled B. R. v. County of
Orange, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
B.R., a minor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brings this civil rights class action against the
Defendants in connection with the County's alleged warrantless
removals of children from their parent's custody.  The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of
"[a]ll natural persons, who, as minors, were seized from their
parents or legal guardians' care and/or custody, without a
removal warrant, by the County of Orange from April 20, 1994
through December 31, 2013, and where the primary removal reason
in the CWS/CMS database is 'neglect.'"

The appellate case is captioned as B. R. v. County of Orange, et
al., Case No. 18-80012, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent B. R., a minor, and all others similarly
situated, by and through his Guardian ad litem, Jill Randall, is
represented by:

          Shawn Allen McMillan, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, A.P.C.
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646-0069
          Facsimile: (858) 746-5283
          E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net

Defendants-Petitioners COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity, and
MYESHIA HAMMOND, in her personal capacity, together with all
other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Zachary M. Schwartz, Esq.
          William L. Haluck, Esq.
          KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK LLP
          3 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 864-3400
          E-mail: zachary.schwartz@knchlaw.com
                  haluck@knchlaw.com


PARKWAY INC: "Price" and "Scarantino" Merger Suits Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
02441 (S.D. Tex.), was terminated Nov. 24, 2017.

The case, Price v. Parkway, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02367
(S.D. Tex.) was terminated on Dec. 13, 2017.

Parkway, Inc. said in a September Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing two
purported federal securities class action suits captioned as
Price v. Parkway, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-2367 and
Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-
02441.

Two purported federal securities class action lawsuits
(collectively, the "Lawsuits") have been filed against the
Company and each of the members of the Board of Directors of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The first case, Price v. Parkway, Inc., et
al., (Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-2367), was filed on August 2,
2017; and the second case, Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc., et. al.,
(Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-02441), was filed on August 9, 2017,
and also names the Company LP, CPPIB and the CPPIB Parties as
defendants. Each lawsuit, which purports to have been brought on
behalf of all holders of the Company's common stock, generally
alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company
with the SEC on July 27, 2017 failed to disclose allegedly
material information about the pending merger transactions. Each
complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the
stockholder vote on the proposed merger at the Special Meeting or
consummating the mergers contemplated by the Merger Agreement
unless and until the Company discloses the allegedly omitted
information. Each complaint also seeks damages allegedly suffered
by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omission, as well
as related attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Parkway Parties, CPPIB and the CPPIB Parties continue to
believe that all allegations in the complaints are without merit,
and further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required
under applicable laws. However, the Company wishes to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger
transaction solely for the purpose of mooting the allegations
contained in the Lawsuits and avoiding the expense and burden of
litigation. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable law of any of the supplemental disclosures.

In an October 12 Form 8-K filing, Parkway announced the
completion of the Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Parkway is an independent, publicly traded, self-managed real
estate investment trust that owns and operates office properties
located in submarkets in Houston, Texas.


PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the case
entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United
States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
316-JHP-TLW, is pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County lessees and
operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or
drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")
in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without
satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or
NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the
corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed
a Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on
various procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant
briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to
Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016,
Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion seeking its
attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending. On April
28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to Amend
or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied
all three of Plaintiffs' motions.  On December 6, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  That appeal is pending as of the effective date of this
response.

Petro River said "There is no specific timeline by which the
Court of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to
continue to vigorously defend its interest in this matter."

Petro River Oil Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas
assets with low discovery and development costs. The Company is
currently focused on moving forward with drilling wells on
several of its properties owned directly and indirectly through
its interest in Horizon Energy Partners, LLC ("Horizon Energy"),
as well as taking advantage of the relative depressed market in
oil prices to enter highly prospective plays with Horizon Energy
and other industry-leading partners.


PG&E CORP: Faces 6 Putative Class Action Lawsuits at Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E 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 the Company and its utility subsidiary
Pacific Gas and Electric Company are facing six potential class
actions as of January 31, 2018.

The Company said, "As of January 31, 2018, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility are aware of 111 lawsuits, six of which seek to be
certified as class actions, that have been filed against PG&E
Corporation and the Utility in the Sonoma, Napa and San Francisco
Counties Superior Courts.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, and private
nuisance.  They principally assert that PG&E Corporation's and
the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their
distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly
maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of
the fires.  The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful
death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs,
medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other
damages.

"In addition, insurance carriers who have made payments to their
insureds for property damage arising out of the fires have filed
three subrogation complaints in the San Francisco County Superior
Court.  These complaints allege, among other things, negligence,
inverse condemnation, trespass and nuisance.  The allegations are
similar to the ones made by individual plaintiffs.  On October
31, 2017, a group of plaintiffs submitted a petition for
coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council of California
and requested coordination of the litigation in the San Francisco
Superior Court.

"On November 9, 2017, PG&E Corporation and the Utility submitted
a petition for coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Council
of California, and requested separate coordination in the
counties in which the fires occurred.

"On January 4, 2018, the coordination motion judge of the San
Francisco Superior Court entered an order granting coordination
of the litigation in connection with the Northern California
wildfires and recommending that the coordinated proceeding take
place in the San Francisco Superior Court.

"On January 12, 2018, the Judicial Council of California accepted
the coordination motion judge's recommendation and assigned the
coordinated proceeding to San Francisco.  The first case
management conference is scheduled for February 27, 2018."


POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Norwood Files Class Suit v. Founder, Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Norwood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stan Lee, Gill Champion, and Bick Le, Case
No. 2018-0056 (Del. Ch. Ct., January 24, 2018), is brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of POW! Entertainment, Inc., to
enjoin the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by the
Company and First Creative International Limited, a Hong Kong
corporation, Camsing Entertainment International, Inc., pursuant
to which Camsing would acquire all outstanding shares of POW! for
$11.5 million less certain deductions, including payments made to
certain Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties, to which Camsing was a knowing
participant, to POW! Stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale
process, designed to extract benefits for both the Individual
Defendants and Camsing, including post-close employment, post-
close equity stakes, and the transfer of Merger related costs, to
the detriment of POW! Stockholders.

Stan Lee is the co-founder of POW! Entertainment, Inc.

Gill Champion President of POW! Entertainment, Inc. since 2004,
Chief Executive Officer since January 26, 2011 and is the only
other director of the Company.

Bick Le is responsible for corporate financial reporting of POW!
Entertainment, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PURDUE PHARMA: To Stop Marketing Opioids to U.S. Physicians
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Woo, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
pharmaceutical giant that misled physicians and patients about
the addictive properties of its top-selling drug OxyContin,
fuelling an overdose crisis that has devastated communities
across North America, will stop marketing opioids to U.S.
physicians.

However, the new policy does not extend into Canada.

Purdue Pharma L.P. announced the change in a statement.

"We have restructured and significantly reduced our commercial
operation and will no longer be promoting opioids to
prescribers," the Stamford, Conn.-based company said.  It added
that the roughly 200 sales representatives remaining -- about
half of its sales force -- will focus on marketing non-opioid
products.

The company has sent notices to U.S. health-care providers saying
its sales representatives will "no longer be visiting your office
to engage you in discussions about our opioid products" effective
Feb. 12.

The change does not extend into Canada, where Purdue Pharma
(Canada) operates independently.  Representatives for Purdue both
in Canada and the U.S. did not respond to interview requests on
Feb. 11.

Keith Ahamad, an addictions physician and a clinician researcher
with the BC Centre on Substance Use, said it's too late for the
new directive to have any meaningful impact.

"There's no question that the marketing of these drugs to
physicians in the past has played a role in where we are today,
but this move is not going to move the needle on overdose
deaths," Dr. Ahamad said.

"We're so far down the line that it's too little, too late.
There are so many other pharmaceutical companies in the game now.
Physicians need to be getting their prescribing and treatment
education from evidence-based guidelines rather than from
pharmaceutical companies."

Numerous lawsuits and top health officials in both Canada and the
U.S. link Purdue's OxyContin drug to the fentanyl-driven overdose
crisis that is decimating communities today.

Health Canada approved OxyContin in 1996 for the treatment of
moderate to severe pain.  A marketing campaign ensued, in both
Canada and the U.S., with Purdue sales representatives promising
long-lasting relief for a wide array of ailments, from back pain
to fibromyalgia, while downplaying its risk of addiction.

The drug became the top-selling, long-acting opioid in Canada for
more than a decade.  At the same time, reports of addiction and
overdoses due to the drug climbed -- both among those who had
been prescribed it, and those who used diverted pills illicitly,
often by crushing and snorting them.

In 2007, Purdue and three top executives pleaded guilty to
charges that they misled the U.S. public about the drug, paying
more than US$634.5-million to settle criminal and civil charges.

By 2012, Purdue pulled the drug from the Canadian market and
replaced it with a tamper-resistant version called OxyNEO.  The
move drove some who had become addicted to OxyContin to street
alternatives such as heroin, which at the same time became
increasingly cut with an illicit version of the powerful
synthetic opioid fentanyl due to its low cost and high potency.

In 2016, then-U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy took the
unprecedented move of sending letters to every physician in the
country in an effort to turn the tide on the opioid crisis.

"Nearly two decades ago, we were encouraged to be more aggressive
about treating pain, often without enough training and support to
do so safely," Dr. Murthy wrote.  "This coincided with heavy
marketing of opioids to doctors.  Many of us were even taught --
incorrectly -- that opioids are not addictive when prescribed for
legitimate pain."

Dr. Ahamad also cautioned against physicians cutting patients off
of opioid medications if they are stable -- one factor that drove
people to illicit drugs.

"People who have an opioid addiction need to have access to
evidence-based addiction treatment including medication that we
know has proven mortality benefits," he said.

"For those that are stable and have no harms associated with
their opioid use, we have to make sure they're not cut off from
their prescribed medication."

At least 14 states have sued Purdue Pharma alleging its deceptive
marketing practices contributed to the overdose crisis.  In
Canada, a $20-million national class-action lawsuit remains on
hold after a Saskatchewan judge declined to sign off on the deal.

In the Canadian suit, Purdue agreed to the settlement but made no
admission of guilt.

Canada is the world's second-largest per capita consumer of
opioids, behind the U.S. While final figures are not yet in, it's
believed that more than 4,000 Canadians died from opioid-related
deaths in 2017 -- at least a 40-per-cent increase from 2,861 in
2016.  In British Columbia, at least 1,422 people died of all
illicit drug overdose deaths in 2017, with fentanyl being
detected in 81 per cent of those deaths.

In the U.S., opioids were a factor in more than 42,000 deaths in
2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. [GN]


RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Certification Bid Due March 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Barahona has a new deadline of March 9, 2018, to file her
motion for class certification, Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in a
regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc.
("Radiant"), DBA and two third-party staffing companies
(collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and
DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms.
Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks
damages and penalties under California law, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies,
alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of
unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage
and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.

Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the
staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms.
Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that we are liable
to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are
vigorously defending against these allegations based upon our
preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.
If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims we,
as well as our co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured
damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated
against either our assets or current and expected level of annual
earnings, could be material when judged against our earnings in
the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at
all.

However, based upon our preliminary evaluation of the matter, we
do not believe we are likely to incur material damages, if at
all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages
remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii)
we do not believe as a matter of law we should be characterized
as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant Accountabilities
admitted to being the employer of record; (iii) wage and hour
class actions of this nature typically settle for amounts
significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the
uncertainly with litigation and the difficulty in taking these
types of cases to trial; and (iv) Ms. Barahona has indicated her
desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement. Ms.
Barahona admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to
prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she
needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities
("Debtors"), and the case has been stayed as to them pending
resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which was
continued multiple times so that the parties could attempt to
obtain the necessary documents. DBA and the Company informally
obtained all records within co-defendants' bankruptcy estate
through their trustee's counsel; however, those records were
incomplete and did not contain the requisite time, payroll and
personnel records. Based on its belief that the debtors have
additional records and in an effort to lift the bankruptcy
"stay", Ms. Barahona obtained the dismissal of the debtors
without prejudice from the state court action.

Radiant Logistics said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2017, that the court set a deadline of
November 30, 2017, for Ms. Barahona to file her motion for class
certification, and set a further status conference for December
14, 2017, to set a briefing schedule for the motion for class
certification. The court has also ordered the parties to
participate in mediation by August 31, 2017.

Radiant Logistics said, "We have been awaiting further action
from Ms. Barahona with respect to the foregoing. The mediation
has not taken place and we are unsure whether the court will
issue another order requiring the parties to mediate this matter
in the future. At this time, we are unable to express an opinion
as to the likely outcome of the matter."

Radiant Logistics said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2017, that after extensions, the court
set a new deadline of March 9, 2018, for Ms. Barahona to file her
motion for class certification, and set a further status
conference for April 17, 2018, to set a briefing schedule for the
motion for class certification. The parties have also scheduled a
mediation for April 26, 2018. At this time, the Company is unable
to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics
company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics
services primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
services a large and diversified account base consisting of
consumer goods, food and beverage, manufacturing and retail
customers which we support from an extensive network of over 100
operating locations across North America as well as an integrated
international service partner network located in other key
markets around the globe. The company is based in Bellevue,
Washington.


REALPAGE INC: Screening Co. Settles FCRA Case for $1MM
------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that a
background screening company has agreed to pay more than $1
million to settle a class action alleging it provided erroneous
and expunged background information to people's prospective
landlords.

U.S. District Judge John Padova of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania recently approved the accord in Stokes v. RealPage,
which focused on claims that the defendant company violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. The settlement resolves more than
4,500 cases.

According to attorneys involved in the case, the litigation
settled for nearly $1.08 million, and covered claims stemming
from the release of expunged information, the failure to tell
people about the federal agencies tasked with enforcing the FCRA,
and the company's failure to identify the source of the
erroneous, or expunged records. The court also approved nearly
$360,000 in attorney fees for class counsel.

Litigation director for Community Legal Services, Sharon
Dietrich, who was part of the team representing the plaintiffs,
said the most important aspect of the resolution is that the
company agreed to change it practices.

"Our clients are really most interested in knowing their
expungement cases aren't going to be coming up in the future,"
Dietrich said.

CLS partnered with Philadelphia firm Francis & Mailman to pursue
the litigation. James Francis, Esq. of Francis & Mailman, who was
the lead attorney on the case, said he was pleased with the
settlement, and noted that the fundamental purpose of the FCRA is
to be remedial.

"We consider the result here to be a 100 percent success," he
said.

RealPage was represented by Ronald Raether, Esq. --
ron.raether@troutman.com -- of Troutman Sanders. Raether did not
return a call for comment February 9.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Helen Stokes, had been a CLS
client. She was in her 60s when she sued RealPage after she was
turned down on housing applications in 2014.

Stokes, according to court records, had been arrested in
connection with a domestic dispute in 2008, but the charges were
later dismissed. She was arrested again in 2010 on theft offenses
after taking her husband's ATM card from their joint bank
account, but those charges were also dismissed, according to
court papers.

By March 2014, both arrests were expunged, and in October, Stokes
applied for a residential lease at a senior facility. RealPage,
according to court papers, prepared and sold a consumer report to
the senior facility that included Stokes' expunged information.

After Stokes suspected that RealPage improperly reported her
expunged information, the company failed to provide her with a
copy of the improper report and did not tell her about the source
of the expunged information.

Another leading plaintiff in the case, James Jenkins, also
brought claims after RealPage sold a report to a prospective
landlord that said he had criminal convictions for passing a bad
check and sexual assault, court papers said. Jenkins, however,
had never been convicted of a crime and the records did not
pertain to him.

RealPage challenged whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring
their claims, contending that, under the U.S. Supreme Court's
2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins, they only suffered a technical
violation of the FCRA and did not suffer any real harm.

Padova rejected those arguments in 2016, and said the claims were
sufficient to establish a concrete harm.

According to Dietrich, that ruling was a major factor in bringing
about the settlement. [GN]


REDFIN CORP: Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit involving Redfin Corporation
are awaiting final court approval of a settlement agreement,
Redfin said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Third-party licensed sales associates filed three lawsuits
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California in
2013 and 2014. Two of the actions, which are pled as "class
actions," were removed to, and are now pending in, the Northern
District of California. One of these cases also includes
representative claims under California's Private Attorney General
Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq, or PAGA. The third action is
pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and asserts
representative claims under PAGA. All three complaints allege
that the plaintiffs and other licensed sales associates in
California should be classified as employees instead of
independent contractors. The claims vary from case to case, but
generally seek compensation for unpaid wages, overtime, failure
to provide meal and rest periods as well as reimbursement of
business expenses. Each of these cases has been ordered to
arbitration.

In June 2017, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
these cases for an aggregate payment of $1.8 million. The
settlement class contemplated by the agreement includes all
current and former third-party licensed sales associates engaged
by Redfin in California from January 16, 2009 through April 29,
2017.

As part of the settlement process, on August 18, 2017, the
Company filed a Second Amended Complaint in Los Angeles County
Superior Court to consolidate all of the cases, and all other
lawsuits and arbitrations regarding these claims have been stayed
pending the outcome of the Company's efforts to obtain final
settlement approval, Redfin said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The settlement agreement has received preliminary court approval,
but remains subject to final court approval, Redfin said in its
Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real
estate brokerage. The company represents people buying and
selling homes in over 80 markets throughout the United States.


REGAL ENERTAINMENT: Shareholders File Class Action Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Regal Entertainment Group too cheaply
through an unfair process to Cineworld, for $23 a share or $5.9
billion, a class of shareholders claims in Knox County Court.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
     Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
     BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
     40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
     P.O. Box 150734
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Tel: 615.248.2828
     Fax: 866.816.4116
     Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
            Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

Of Counsel:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Tel: 610.667.6200
     Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
            mackerman@brodskysmith.com


REGAL ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Pact to Dismiss "Baldassano" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Entertainment Group disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2018
that it has reached a memorandum of understanding wherein
plaintiff in the "Baldassano" purported class action will dismiss
claims asserted on behalf of the putative class without
prejudice, in return for the Company's agreement to make
supplemental disclosures.

On December 5, 2017, Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cineworld Group plc, a
public limited company incorporated in England and Wales (the
"Parent"), Crown Intermediate Holdco, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent
("US Holdco"), and Crown Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of US Holdco (the "Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which it is proposed that the Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger
as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

On January 29, 2018 a purported class action complaint relating
to the Merger, captioned Baldassano v. Regal Entertainment Group
et al., Case No. 195178-3, was filed on behalf of the
stockholders against members of the board of directors of the
Company, the Company, Parent, US Holdco and Merger Sub in the
Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee in the Sixth Judicial
District at Knoxville (the "Action").

The Action alleges that the board of directors of the Company
breached its fiduciary duties to the stockholders by means of (A)
agreeing to an allegedly unfair price in the proposed merger and
(B) allegedly engineering a transaction to benefit themselves
and/or Parent without regard to the Company's stockholders.

The complaint also generally asserts that the Company, Parent, US
Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the board of directors'
breach of its fiduciary duties.  The Action seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, rescission of
the merger agreement (to the extent the merger has already been
consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 12, 2018, the Company and the plaintiff entered into
a memorandum of understanding in which the plaintiff agreed to
dismiss his claims with prejudice, and to dismiss claims asserted
on behalf of the putative class without prejudice, in return for
the Company's agreement to make supplemental disclosures.

The Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is required
under applicable laws and that the definitive information
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on February 2, 2018 (the "Information Statement")
disclosed all material information required to be disclosed
therein.

However, to avoid the risk of the Action delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending
such action, it has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/A86VGM

The Company said, "The memorandum of understanding will not
affect the amount of the merger consideration that the Company's
stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger."

Regal Entertainment Group, together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a motion picture exhibitor in the United States.  The
company develops, acquires, and operates multi-screen theatres
primarily in mid-sized metropolitan markets and suburban growth
areas of larger metropolitan markets.  Regal Entertainment Group
was founded in 2002 and is based in Knoxville, Tennessee.


RHODE ISLAND: EOHHS Sued Over Non-Payment of Medicare Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on January 2, 2018, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ALCU) of Rhode Island filed a class-action
lawsuit against the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and
Human Services (EOHHS) because the state had not provided proper
notice before it stopped paying Medicare premiums for low-income
Medicare beneficiaries.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Scherwitz
v. Beane, had been enrolled in the Medicare Payment Program
(MPP).  After the state went live with a new benefits eligibility
determination system in September 2016, benefits were terminated
without notice for many MPP participants. [GN]


RIGHT SOLUTIONS: "Brock" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nena Brock, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Right Solutions, LLP, Case No. 4:18-cv-00300
(S.D. Tex., February 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages and all other remedies available under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Nena Brock is an individual residing in Harris County,
Texas. She is currently employed by Defendant as an hourly paid
Registered Nurse and has worked for Defendant from on or about
July 2002 to the present.

Defendant is in the business of staffing medical facilities
throughout Texas with nurses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 621-2277
      Fax: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roche-Bobois USA,
Ltd.  The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Roche-Bobois USA, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01589 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Roche-Bobois U.S.A, Ltd. was founded in 1974. The company's line
of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and
copyrights which they in turn license others to use.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SAN DIEGO, CA: "Arellano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Arellano, Maico Alejo, and Gary Ollison, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated v. City of
San Diego, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:18-cv-00229 (S.D.
Calif., January 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are current or former non-exempt employees of the
City of San Diego.

Defendant City of San Diego is a charter city and a political
subdivision of the State of California and at all relevant time
is, or was, each plaintiff's employer. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq.
      Hannah Weinstein, Esq.
      ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE
      510 South Marengo Avenue
      Pasadena, CA 91101-3115
      Tel: (626) 796-7555
      Fax: (626) 577-0124
      E-mail: enaduris-weissman@rsglabor.com
              hweinstein@rsglabor.com


SEARS CANADA: Pensioners Want Ex-Judge Named Litigation Trustee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Strauss, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
pensioners of Sears Canada Inc. were set to ask a court on
Feb. 15 to approve the appointment of a retired judge to co-
ordinate efforts to claw back dividends paid over several years -
- much of it to entities controlled by American hedge-fund
manager Edward Lampert.

The pensioners argue that Sears Canada put its operations in
jeopardy by paying billions in dividends to shareholders over a
period of nearly a decade.  Mr. Lampert's hedge fund, which was
effectively the controlling shareholder of the now-failed
retailer, was a key beneficiary of the special payments.

Sears Canada collapsed in court protection last June and has now
shut all its stores.  Its retirees are owed about $270-million as
a result of their underfunded pension and an estimated $400-
million in unpaid health and life-insurance benefits, according
to court documents to be filed on Feb. 12.

The pensioners are asking the court to name Frank Newbould, a
retired Ontario Superior Court judge, as a "litigation trustee"
to co-ordinate various actions and investigations.

The request comes as some creditors look for recoveries in the
Sears Canada insolvency case and fear there will be little money
left after the big payouts to lenders that were secured
creditors.

In documents sent on Feb. 9 to lawyers involved in the Sears
insolvency, pensioners say the retailer's board of directors
approved paying almost $3-billion in dividends in the eight years
after Mr. Lampert's ESL Investments Inc. took control of Sears in
2005.  Mr. Lampert is chairman and chief executive officer of
U.S.-based Sears Holdings Corp., which was a major shareholder of
Sears Canada.

"In the years prior to applying for [court] protection in June,
2017, Sears Canada sold off significant assets, declared
substantial dividends paid to shareholders -- in particular ESL
and Mr. Lampert -- and drastically reduced its investment and
commitment to the retail business of the company," William
Turner, a former Sears Canada executive who heads its retiree
group, says in a statement to be sworn on Feb. 12.

"The actions taken or not taken by various parties in the years
prior to the insolvency and commencement of these insolvency
proceedings warrant a detailed review by a litigation trustee to
determine if such actions or inactions caused, contributed to or
precipitated the insolvency and the losses suffered by
creditors."

Sears Holdings spokesman Chris Brathwaite said in an e-mailed
statement on Feb. 11 that the dividends it received were
"authorized by Sears Canada's board of directors during a time
when Sears Canada was clearly solvent, with minimal debt and
$514-million in cash on its balance sheet after giving effect to
the final dividend payment in 2013.  We believe any attempt to
reclaim those dividends would be unfounded."

It said the board, in declaring the dividends, was at all times
acting consistently with its duties to Sears Canada.

In a blog posted on Feb. 11, Mr. Lampert says he never served as
a director or officer of Sears Canada, "so I don't have firsthand
knowledge of their internal deliberations and the alternatives
considered."

Mr. Lampert says the dividends paid in 2012 and 2013 following
the sale of prime store leases represented about 50 per cent of
the more than $1-billion of proceeds Sears Canada received; the
retailer retained more than $500-million and had almost no long-
term "funded" debt, he said.

"This substantial amount of cash was available to be used in the
company's operations going forward," Mr. Lampert says.

"While this knowledge cannot change the impact that the failure
of Sears Canada has had on many people, particularly its
employees, I believe these facts should be at least be properly
understood," he says.

He says the pension plan's $270-million deficit figure is
misleading because it also includes the health, dental and life
insurance benefits which have been unfunded since 2008.  He says
the retirement plan alone recorded a $110-million deficit as of
2016.  And that was calculated on outdated, low interest rates.

"Assuming a reasonable rate of return on its $1-billion in assets
and accounting for the increase in interest rates, Sears Canada
should be able to meet its pension obligations," he says.

"I too very much regret the failure of Sears Canada," he says.
"Like other stakeholders, ESL has suffered significant losses
from the bankruptcy of this storied company -- shareholders
collectively lost over $1-billion since 2012, even taking into
account the dividends received.

"It is only by ignoring the entirety of the facts that one can
conclude that the failure of the company was precipitated by a
lack of financial resources rather than an unsuccessful attempt
to turn the company around in the face of a rapidly changing
retail environment."

Andrew Hatnay -- ahatnay@kmlaw.ca -- lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP
who represents the retirees and former employees, planned to file
the documents in Ontario Superior Court on Feb. 12 but declined
to comment.

The retirees and former employees are using a similar argument as
the one made by Sears Canada's former Hometown operators in their
class-action lawsuit against the company.  The legal action was
started several years ago and received court sanction in 2014 to
proceed, although it was suspended during the Sears Canada
insolvency proceedings.

The Hometown dealers challenged the Sears board of directors for
declaring an extraordinary $509-million dividend in 2013 after
the struggling retailer sold lucrative assets, such as its
Toronto Eaton Centre store lease, alleging the move would
eventually lead to a formal insolvency of Sears to the detriment
of creditors.

Last month, FTI Consulting -- the monitor overseeing Sears's
insolvency -- said it is reviewing the $509-million dividend paid
along with a $102-million dividend a year earlier.

But the monitor's investigations do not look at all potential
Sears Canada claims, the pensioners' documents say. [GN]


SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Lena Bylov, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sentry Credit, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01125 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Sentry Credit, Inc., a debt collector, provides primary and
secondary contingency collections services.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


SEVCON INC: Scarantino and Wilkinson Drop Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Jack Wilkinson and Louis Scarantino have agreed to drop their
respective class action lawsuits against Sevcon, Inc.

In a notice dated January 9, 2018, Mr. Wilkinson advised the
Court that he won't pursue the case.

In a notice dated January 11, 2018, Mr. Scarantino advised the
Court that he was voluntarily dismissing the case.

Sevcon, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on September 12, 2017, that
plaintiffs in the Scarantino Action, on behalf of plaintiffs in
both the Scarantino Action and the Wilkinson Action, sent a
letter demanding certain disclosures related to the filed
complaints.

On August 22, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Louis Scarantino v. Sevcon, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11580,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by Louis Scarantino, a purported stockholder of
Sevcon, Inc. (the "Company"), against the Company, its directors,
BorgWarner Inc. ("BorgWarner") and Slade Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), challenging the proposed merger ("Scarantino Action"). The
complaint asserts a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") Rule 14a-9
against the Company and its directors, and a claim for violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's
directors and BorgWarner for allegedly disseminating a materially
misleading proxy statement, in connection with the proposed
merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the consummation of the proposed merger,
rescissory damages, and costs, including attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On August 28, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit
captioned Jack Wilkinson v. Sevcon, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:17-
cv-11618, was also filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts by Jack Wilkinson, a purported
stockholder of the Company, against the Company and its
directors, challenging the proposed merger ("Wilkinson Action").
The Wilkinson Action contains allegations similar to those in the
Scarantino Action. On August 30, 2017, plaintiffs in the
Scarantino Action, on behalf of plaintiffs in both the Scarantino
Action and the Wilkinson Action, sent a letter demanding certain
disclosures related to the filed complaints (the "Letter").

The Company believes that both lawsuits are without merit.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/gxybKD.

Sevcon is an electrical engineering company based in Gateshead,
UK, that manufactures controls for electric vehicles.


SHORETEL INC: Lawsuits Over Mitel Merger Terminated
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have dropped their challenge to Mitel's acquisition of
ShoreTel.

In September, the District Court for the Northern District of
California signed off on separate stipulations that provide for
the voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits.

ShoreTel said in its Form 10-K Report for the year ended June 30,
2017, that:

     -- on August 21, 2017, Louis Scarantino, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class
action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern
District of California against the Company, the individual
members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel,
captioned Scarantino v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
04857-YGR ("Scarantino Complaint").

     -- on August 31, 2017, Gianfranca De Angelis, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class
action complaint in the United States District Court in the
Northern District of California against the Company and the
individual members of the ShoreTel Board, captioned De Angelis v.
ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05091.

     -- on August 28, 2017, Armando Herrera, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class
action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern
District of California against the Company, the individual
members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel,
captioned Herrera v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
04988-WHO ("Herrera Complaint").

     -- on August 23, 2017, Joseph Mozee, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class action
complaint in the United States District Court in the Northern
District of California against the Company, the individual
members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and Mitel,
captioned Mozee v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
04888-HSG ("Mozee Complaint").

     -- on August 22, 2017, Noradura Frydman, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class
action complaint in United States District Court in the Northern
District of California against the Company and the individual
members of the ShoreTel Board, captioned Frydman v. ShoreTel,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-4865-BLF ("Frydman Complaint").

     -- on August 24, 2017, David H. Simonson, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder class
action complaint in the United States District Court in the
Northern District of California against the Company, the
individual members of the ShoreTel Board, the Offeror, Parent and
Mitel, captioned Simonson v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-04931-WHA ("Simonson Complaint").

Each of the complaints asserts that defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making untrue
statements of material fact and omitting certain material facts
related to the Merger Agreement and related transactions
("Transactions") in the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The complaint
seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from
consummating the Transactions, money damages and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees.

Shoretel said "The Company believes that the lawsuits are without
merit and, if the lawsuits are pursued, the Company will
vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, at the current
time.

Judge William H. Orrick signed the Stipulations in the De
Angelis, Herrera, Mozee and Frydman cases.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the Stipulation in the
Scarantino case.

In an Order dated October 3, 2017, Judge William Alsup granted a
Stipulation dismissing the Simonson case as moot.

According to the Stipulation of Dismissal, ShoreTel on September
8, 2017, filed an amendment to the Solicitation Statement that
included certain additional information relating to the
Transaction that addressed and mooted claims regarding the
sufficiency of the disclosures in the Solicitation Statement as
alleged in the Actions.

Plaintiff's counsel believes they may assert a claim for a fee in
connection with the prosecution of the Action and the issuance of
the Supplemental Disclosures, and have informed Defendants of
their intention to petition the Court for such a fee if their
claim cannot be resolved through negotiations between counsel for
Plaintiffs in the Actions and Defendants.

For the sake of judicial economy and the convenience of all
parties, counsel for plaintiffs in all of the Actions have
coordinated their efforts and intend to file any Fee Application
jointly in the Scarantino Action, which was the first-filed of
the Actions.

On Sept. 25, 2017, Mitel(R) (Nasdaq:MITL) (TSX:MNW), announced
that it has completed its acquisition of ShoreTel.

Shoretel, Inc. is a provider of brilliantly simple business
communication solutions. The company focuses on the small and
medium sized businesses seeking a Unified Communications ("UC")
solution allowing them to communicate anytime, anyplace and
through any device that they chose.


SIGNATURE BANK: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature Bank. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signature Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01598 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Signature Bank is an American, full-service commercial bank,
based in New York City. The bank serves clients throughout the
New York metropolitan area, Westchester, Long Island and
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


SIU MEDICINE: Three Female Doctors Join Wage-Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Olsen, writing for The State Journal-Regsiter, reports that
three current and former faculty members at Southern Illinois
University School of Medicine have joined a fellow female doctor
in a federal lawsuit that alleges systemic wage discrimination
based on gender at the school.

But attorneys representing the medical school and its not-for-
profit multi-specialty group, SIU Medicine, signaled in court
documents that they will ask a judge soon to strike down a part
of the lawsuit because so few female doctors have opted to go
public with their criticism of the Springfield-based school.

Dr. Jan Rakinic, an SIU colorectal surgeon, joined the 2015
lawsuit in October, along with past faculty members Dr. Christina
Vassileva, a heart surgeon who joined later that month, and
family physician Dr. Erica Rotondo, who joined in January.

SIU's lawyers noted in a filing Jan. 18 in Springfield's U.S.
District that attorneys for former SIU surgeon Dr. Sajida Ahad
received the court's approval in September to mail about 128
female doctors and inform the current and previous SIU faculty
members how they could join the "collective action."

But J. Bryan Wood, one of Ahad's attorneys, said, "None of this
is surprising or a major development for us."

Wood said many of the female doctors are busy and haven't looked
into the option of joining the case, which alleges that female
physicians at SIU were being paid more than $12,200 per year less
than male doctors for similar work.

Other female doctors may be worried about how entering the case
and going public now may affect their relationship with their
employer, whether it's SIU or some other group, he said.

Female doctors still can join the case, and depending on how
federal Judge Sue Myerscough rules in the future, physicians may
be able to receive the benefits of any monetary award through a
judgment or settlement after the fact, Wood said.

SIU officials, who have denied Ahad's allegations in the past,
declined comment February 9.

Even if SIU is successful in reversing the conditional approval
that Myerscough granted the collective action last year, the
lawsuit could proceed on other fronts tied to a variety of
federal and state laws, Wood said.

For example, he said the judge could grant the lawsuit "class-
action" status at any time.

If granted that status, the lawsuit could put SIU at risk of
paying millions of dollars in damages to up to 165 current and
previous SIU female doctors based on alleged inequitable salaries
retroactive to 2010 or earlier, according to Wood.

A potential jury trial is at least months away, he said.

Ahad, 43, a bariatric surgeon, was employed by SIU and treated
patients through SIU Medicine, which was formerly known as SIU
Physicians & Surgeons and SIU HealthCare, from 2008 through 2014.

She received a base salary of $125,000 from the medical school
and $110,903 from SIU Medicine in fiscal 2013, according to court
documents. She currently is a faculty member at the University of
Iowa.

SIU recently lost an administrative appeal of a U.S. Department
of Labor ruling in which an administrative law judge last year
ordered SIU to pay Ahad $223,884, plus interest, for underpaying
her in comparison with her mostly male peers at SIU.

The administrative judge ruled in April 2016, and an
administrative review board affirmed, that SIU erred in applying
federal wage requirements covering workers from other countries
for part of the time she was at SIU.

Ahad, a Pakistani national, has permanent resident status in the
United States.

Ahad first filed her wage discrimination charge with the federal
labor department in mid-2014.

SIU has the option to appeal the labor department's
administrative review board decision to a federal court, Wood
said.

In a related lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court, Allied World
Specialty Insurance Co. says SIU Medicine isn't entitled to
coverage for legal costs or damages associated with Ahad's
Department of Labor case or the federal wage-discrimination
lawsuit.

Allied, formerly known as Darwin National Assurance Co., covered
SIU Medicine from November 2013 through November 2017, Allied's
lawsuit says.

Allied contends that SIU Medicine notified first Allied about
Ahad's wage cases in April 2017 -- too late to qualify for
coverage.

Wood said Southern Illinois University has liability coverage
that is separate from Allied's previous coverage of SIU Medicine.

Wood said it is his understanding that the university's liability
insurance policy will cover legal costs and any judgments or
settlements associated with the federal wage-discrimination suit.
[GN]


SPARTON CORP: Paid $200,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel
--------------------------------------------------
Sparton Corporation and plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have
agreed on the amount of attorneys' fees, and $200,000 was paid to
plaintiffs' counsel, Sparton said in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and the members of its board of directors were named
as defendants in four federal securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of the Company's
common stock challenging the pending merger transaction with
Ultra. The lawsuits generally sought, among other things, to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote
on the merger at the special meeting or consummating the merger
transaction unless and until the Company disclosed the allegedly
omitted information. The complaints also sought damages allegedly
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions,
as well as related attorneys' fees and expenses.

After discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs, the Company
included certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement
soliciting shareholder approval of the Merger. The Company
believes the demands and complaints are without merit, there were
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted,
and the proxy statement disclosed all material information prior
to the inclusion of the additional disclosures. The Company made
the additional disclosures to avoid the expense and burden of
litigation.

"On September 1, 2017, the court dismissed the lawsuits with
prejudice with respect to lead plaintiffs in the lawsuits and
without prejudice as to all other shareholders. The Company and
plaintiffs must still attempt to resolve the appropriate amount
of attorneys' fees, if any, to be awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel," Sparton said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended July 2, 2017.

"During the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, the Company and
plaintiffs agreed on the amount of attorneys' fees, and $200,000
was paid to plaintiffs' counsel," Sparton said in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Sparton Corporation is a provider of design, development and
manufacturing services for electromechanical devices, as well as
engineered products.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Indemnification Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. continues to face an
indemnification lawsuit filed by The Boeing Co. related to the
UAW arbitration and the "Harkness Class Action," 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 December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint in Delaware
Superior Court, Complex Commercial Litigation Division, entitled
The Boeing Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. N14C-12-055 (EMD)
(the "Complaint").  Boeing seeks indemnification from Spirit for
(a) damages assessed against Boeing in International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America
v. Boeing Co., AAA Case No. 54 300 00795 07 ("UAW Arbitration"),
which was brought on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in
Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, and (b) claims that Boeing settled
in Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v.
Boeing Co., Nos. 05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) ("Harkness
Class Action").  The Company, Spirit, and certain Spirit
retirement plan entities were parties to the Harkness Class
Action, but all claims against the Spirit entities were
subsequently dismissed.

Boeing's Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against
Boeing in the UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in
the Harkness Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed
under an Asset Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit,
dated February 22, 2005 (the "APA").  Boeing asserts claims for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding its
indemnification rights under the APA.  Boeing's Complaint alleges
that the UAW Arbitration decision had a net present value of
US$39.0 million.  In regard to the Harkness Class Action, the
district court approved a settlement in an amount of US$90.0
million.  In addition to the amounts related to the UAW
Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, Boeing seeks
indemnification for more than US$10.0 million in attorneys' fees
it alleges it expended to defend the UAW Arbitration and Harkness
Class Action, as well as for the reasonable fees, costs and
expenses Boeing expends litigating the case against Spirit.

Following a motion to dismiss (which was denied by Court Order
dated August 14, 2015), Spirit answered Boeing's Complaint and
asserted a Counterclaim against Boeing, on the ground that the
liabilities at issue were Boeing's responsibility under the APA.
Spirit's Counterclaim alleges breach of contract and seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding Spirit's right to indemnification
from Boeing under the APA.  Spirit's Counterclaim seeks to
recover the amounts that Spirit spent litigating the Harkness
Class Action, responding to Boeing's indemnification demands
concerning the Harkness Class Action and UAW Arbitration, and
also litigating the current lawsuit against Boeing.  On December
20, 2016, Boeing and Spirit moved for summary judgment.  Summary
judgment briefing was completed on February 9, 2017 and oral
argument was held on the parties' motions for summary judgment on
March 22, 2017.

On June 27, 2017, the Delaware Superior Court issued an order
denying Boeing's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting
Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the
liabilities at issue were excluded liabilities under the APA and
holding that Spirit is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses from Boeing.  On July 10, 2017,
Boeing filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment so that Boeing could
pursue an appeal of the Court's June 27, 2017 Order prior to the
determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and other expenses to which Spirit is entitled.  On July 17,
2017, Spirit filed its response opposing Boeing's Motion for
Entry of Judgment and oral argument occurred on July 24, 2017.
On July 28, 2017, the Court denied Boeing's Motion for Entry of
Judgment finding that there was just reason to delay an appeal to
allow the Court to rule on Spirit's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, Expenses, and Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest.  The Court
granted Spirit's motion as to fees, costs, and expenses incurred
as a result of the litigation and underlying matters and denied
the motion as to pre- and post-trial interest.

On January 3, 2018, Boeing filed a Notice of Appeal and on that
same date the Court issued a briefing schedule establishing that
Boeing's opening brief is due on or before February 19, 2018.
Spirit will timely file its answering brief and intends to defend
vigorously against the appeal.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is an independent non-OEM aircraft
parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures; and
an independent supplier of aerostructures to both Boeing and
Airbus.


STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bylov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Lena Bylov, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stephen
Einstein & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01123
(E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Stephen Einstein & Associates is a debt collection firm located
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SUPER MICRO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Super
Micro Computer, Inc. (Nasdaq:SMCI) ("Super Micro" or the
"Company") securities during the period between January 27, 2017
and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until April 9, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Super Micro securities during the Class Period.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff
and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Super Micro's
financial statements contained accounting errors, including
errors with respect to one of the Company's sales transactions,
the Company's internal controls were not effective, and Super
Micro lacked the capability to timely review and assess the
impact of the foregoing issues.

According to the complaint, following an August 29, 2017 Notice
of Late Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
reporting that the Company is not in a position to file its Form
10-K in a timely manner because additional time was needed for
the Company to compile and analyze certain information and
documentation and complete preparation of its financial
statements, an October 26, 2017 re-affirmance of its delay in
filing the 10-K, and a January 30, 2018 announcement that the
Company's Audit Committee has completed the previously disclosed
investigation and that additional time was required to analyze
the impact, if any, of the results of the investigation on the
Company's historical financial statements, as well as to conduct
additional reviews before the Company will be able to finalize
Form 10-K, the value of Super Micro shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Super Micro securities purchased on or after January 27, 2017
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn
more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact
Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by
telephone at (410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


SYNDICATED OFFICE: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
James Pickelsimer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syndicated Office Systems, LLC d/b/a Central
Financial Control, Case No. 1:18-cv-00363-CAP-JKL (N.D. Ga.,
January 24, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Syndicated Office Systems, LLC is an entity who at all relevant
times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the
business of attempting to collect a "debt". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marques J. Carter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER, LLC
      3400 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 100
      Douglasville, GA 30135
      Telephone: (888) 332-7252
      Facsimile: (866) 842-3303
      E-mail: mcarter@consumerlawinfo.com


TEZOS: SEC Denies Release of Project Documents Amid Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PYMTS.com reports that the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has denied a public information request for
documents related to blockchain startup Tezos' cryptocurrency
project, saying relinquishing such documents could impact either
an investigation or enforcement actions.

According to Reuters reports, the SEC declined to provide the
materials, requested by lawyer David Silver, through a letter.
Mr. Silver represents a group of plaintiffs who are claiming
Tezos defrauded them during its fundraising activities back when
the firm raised $232 million in July 2017.

The SEC cited an exemption enabling it to not release documents
if it believes said information could interfere with enforcement
actions.  The organization also noted the move should not be
interpreted to mean any illegal actions took place, and did not
state Tezos was under investigation.

Mr. Silver supplied that letter to Reuters.

The project has been locked in a battle for control between its
founders, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman and Zug-based Tezos
Foundation president Johann Gevers.  The Breitmans own the Tezos
source code through the Delaware-based company they control, but
the Tezos Foundation controls all fundraisers' proceeds.  Former
foundation board member Guido Schmitz-Krummacher resigned because
he was frustrated by the internal fighting.

Mr. Gevers is able to nominate Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher's
replacement under the foundation's bylaws.  If the third board
member votes against the candidate, Mr. Gevers can cast an
overriding vote.

The standoff has delayed the Tezos project's launch, which
resulted in a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 25 in the San
Francisco branch of the California Superior Court.  The suit
argues that Tezos violated U.S. securities laws and defrauded
investors in its initial coin offering (ICO) because it hasn't
yet issued any digital coins.  In November, Bitcoin Suisse, the
Swiss cryptocurrency broker that helped the blockchain startup
raise the $232 million, said it was not aware that any of the
invested funds had been mismanaged, lost or put at risk by Tezos'
founders. [GN]


TRUCKPRO LLC: "Broaden" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Broaden, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated v.  TruckPro, LLC dba TruckPro - Orlando, Case No. 6:18-
cv-00160 (M.D. Fla., January 31, 2018), seeks damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Eric Broaden is a resident of Orange County, Florida.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on April 7, 2014, and worked as
delivery/warehouse personnel for Defendant through his
termination on June 23, 2016.

Defendant has conducted substantial, continuous, and systematic
commercial activities in Orange County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
      David V. Barszcz, Esq.
      Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
      LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
      543 N. Wymore Road, Ste 103
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Tel: (407) 622-6544
      Fax: (407) 622-6545
      E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
              dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
              rsutton@lblaw.attorney


TRUNK CLUB: Judge Dismisses Noncompete Agreement Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that citing an undisclosed
settlement, a Cook County judge dismissed a class action
challenging personal styling service Trunk Club's requirement
that entry-level employees sign a noncompete agreement.


ULTA BEAUTY: Lawsuit Alleges Resale of Used Cosmetics as New
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Herald and Review, reports that a
California woman is suing Ulta Beauty, the suburban Chicago-based
cosmetics retailer, for allegedly reselling used makeup as new to
unsuspecting consumers.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Chicago, seeks class-
action status for what it claims is Ulta's "widespread and
surreptitious practice" of repackaging returned cosmetics and
mixing them back on the shelf to sell at full price with
unblemished products.

"Every customer who has purchased cosmetics at Ulta since this
practice began was put at risk of unwittingly purchasing used,
unsanitary cosmetics and this risk reduces the desirability and
value of all cosmetics sold by Ulta," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit was brought by Kimberley Laura Smith-Brown, a Los
Angeles woman who purchased dozens of cosmetic items, including
eye liner, mascara and, most recently, lip balm, at an Ulta store
over the past six months -- before reports of the alleged
practice of reselling used makeup surfaced on social media.

"We are aware of the lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend
against the allegations," Ulta Beauty spokeswoman Karen Twigg May
said February 9 in an email. "Our policies, training and
procedures are aimed at selling only the highest-quality new
products in our stores and online. The health and safety of Ulta
Beauty guests is a top priority, and we strive to consistently
deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us."

Neither Smith-Brown nor her Chicago attorneys responded February
9 to requests for comment.

Launched in 1990, Bolingbrook-based Ulta bills itself as the
largest beauty retailer in the U.S., selling cosmetic, fragrance,
skin care, hair care and other products through 1,058 retail
stores and its website. The company had a net income of about
$410 million on sales of nearly $4.9 billion in 2016, according
to its most recent annual report.

The alleged practice of reselling returned cosmetics came to
light on Jan. 9, when Twitter user @fatinamxo, who claimed to be
a former Ulta employee, posted several messages about her
experiences with reselling used products.

Her Twitter feed lit up with posts from others who claimed to be
Ulta employees, with some supporting her contention and others
rejecting it. Meanwhile, customers mostly expressed shock and
displeasure over the alleged practice, coloring their comments
with expressive GIFs and emojis.

Efforts to reach @fatinamxo February 9 through Twitter were
unsuccessful.

Smith-Brown and her attorneys are seeking to form a class that
would extend to everyone who purchased cosmetics from Ulta Beauty
retail locations since every sale is "tainted with the
possibility that the customer is purchasing used, dirty
cosmetics," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit raises but is not based on the possible health
concerns of reusing makeup. Instead, it is suing Ulta for "unjust
enrichment" by reselling used products as new to unaware
consumers.

In addition to seeking certification as a class action, the
lawsuit asks for undisclosed damages and other relief. [GN]


UNION NU DONUTS: Faces "Bakul" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Nu Donuts
Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts. The case is styled as Shirin Bakul,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Union Nu Donuts Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts,
ABC Corp d/b/a Dunkin Donuts and Neerja Jain, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01118 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

Union Nu Donuts Inc. is in the Donut shops business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Face Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation continues to face antitrust lawsuit
filed by rail shippers against certain Class I railroads in the
U.S., 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.

Twenty rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same
law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the Company and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, the Company's
subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR" or "Railroad")
and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the
lawsuit.  The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims
in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007.  The
number of complaints reached a total of 30.  These suits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified
a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives.
The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2008.

On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting
that the court review the class certification ruling.  On August
9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification
decision and remanded the case to the district court to
reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent
Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the
expert report of the plaintiffs.

After reviewing an intervening case, supplemental expert
materials and related briefing from the parties, Judge Friedman
scheduled and completed a new class certification hearing during
the week of September 26, 2016.

On October 10, 2017, the parties received a ruling from Judge
Friedman denying class certification.  Plaintiffs have sought
appellate review of that ruling and on December 20, 2017, were
granted the right of an interlocutory appeal by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Union Pacific Corporation operates through its principal
operating subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR) links 23 states in the western two-thirds
of the country by rail. UPRR's business mix includes Agricultural
Products, Automotive, Chemicals, Coal, Industrial Products and
Intermodal. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Stay CSR Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Keith, writing for Health Affairs, reports that on
February 7, 2018, Judge Margaret Sweeney on the Court of Federal
Claims granted the federal government's motion to stay litigation
over cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments brought by Maine
Community Health Options (MCHO).  MCHO sued the federal
government for about $5.6 million in outstanding CSR payments
from the final three months of 2017.  Judge Sweeney stayed these
proceedings until the Federal Circuit issues an appellate
decision in one or both of its two pending risk corridors cases,
Land of Lincoln v. United States and/or Moda Health Plan v.
United States.  Land of Lincoln (trial court ruled against the
insurer) and Moda Health (trial court ruled partly in favor of
the insurer) were argued before the Federal Circuit on January
10, 2018.

In deciding to wait on a decision from the Federal Circuit, Judge
Sweeney cited a belief that the analysis in the risk corridors
decisions "may provide guidance" that will benefit the resolution
of ACA cases currently before the Court of Federal Claims.  Once
a decision is issued in one or both of these cases, the federal
government will have 60 days to respond to MCHO's complaint and
motion for summary judgment.

MCHO had filed a motion for expedited briefing and argument on
February 6, 2018, with the hope of quickly resolving the
litigation.  MCHO argued that an expedited schedule is necessary
because it faces financial strain as a result of unpaid CSRs.  As
a CO-OP, its dominant lines of business are through the
individual and small group marketplaces and it does not have
sufficient revenue from the large group market to offset 2017 CSR
losses (as most traditional insurers do).

MCHO also noted opposition to the government's motion for a stay,
challenging the idea that the risk corridors and CSR litigation
are related.  MCHO argued that its lawsuit is about the
government's obligation to make CSR payments under Section 1402
of the ACA, whereas the risk corridors litigation addresses
whether subsequent appropriations by Congress retroactively
negate an HHS obligation under Section 1342 of the ACA.  MCHO
argues that there are no subsequent appropriations at issue in
the CSR dispute and that the comparison to the risk corridors
litigation is unfounded.

The federal government, however, asserts that the arguments made
in MCHO's summary judgment motion mirror the arguments that
insurers have made to the Federal Circuit in the pending risk
corridors appeals.  In brief, these arguments are that 1)
insurers are entitled to specified payments under the ACA
regardless of whether Congress appropriated funds for those
payments and 2) the government violated an implied-in-fact
contract with insurers that offered marketplace coverage.
Because these two legal issues are before the Federal Circuit
under Land of Lincoln and Moda Health, the federal government
believes that a decision from the Federal Circuit will address
the central legal issues raised by MCHO.  They also note that
proceeding without a decision from the Federal Circuit will
ultimately delay the lawsuit because new briefing will be
required after the Federal Circuit issues an opinion in the risk
corridors cases.

The federal government also points to the court's decision to
issue a stay in Common Ground v. United States, which is a class
action lawsuit on risk corridors payments that was later amended
to include the government's failure to make CSR payments. In
August 2017, Judge Sweeney issued a stay in Common Ground pending
a decision from the Federal Circuit in Land of Lincoln and/or
Moda Health; the stay was continued even after Common Ground
amended its complaint to include CSR payments.  Because of this,
the federal government argues that Common Ground was the first
CSR challenge to be filed and, now that it has been stayed by
Judge Sweeney, it would be unfair to allow MCHO to "jump in
front" of a stayed case "simply because it wishes an expedited
ruling."

MCHO is not alone.  So far, there are four lawsuits against HHS
for failure to make CSR payments, one of which is the class
action brought in Common Ground.  Billions of dollars are already
at stake in the risk corridors litigation.  Judge Sweeney's stay
in the MCHO litigation provides a new reason to keep a close eye
on the Federal Circuit's risk corridors decision, which will now
likely impact the viability of litigation over unpaid CSRs.

Massachusetts CO-OP Fails In Challenge to HHS Risk Adjustment
Formula

On January 30, 2018, Judge Dennis Saylor of the U.S. District
Court of Massachusetts held that HHS acted within the scope of
its authority in adopting regulations to implement the ACA's risk
adjustment program.  This challenge to HHS authority had been
brought by Minuteman Health, the CO-OP in Massachusetts that
offered marketplace coverage in Massachusetts in 2014 and in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 2015 to 2017.  Minuteman has
since gone into receivership after being required to pay 71
percent of its 2014 premium revenue and 40 percent of its New
Hampshire revenue and 39 percent of its Massachusetts revenue to
the ACA's risk adjustment program.

The goal of the risk adjustment program is to spread the costs of
covering higher-risk enrollees across insurers, thereby reducing
incentives for insurers to engage in cherry picking or other ways
of avoiding adverse selection.  The program results in payment
transfers from insurers that attract individuals with a lower
risk to insurers that attract individuals with a higher risk.
The ACA directed HHS to develop standards for the risk adjustment
program; although states could administer their own risk
adjustment programs, Massachusetts was the only state to do so
and has since ceded its program to HHS.

In essence, Minuteman asserts that the risk adjustment formula--
which is set out by HHS in annual regulations that go through the
notice-and-comment rulemaking process--is arbitrary, capricious,
and unlawful, and that HHS improperly injected unauthorized
factors into the risk adjustment methodology.  Minuteman raises a
number of flaws in the HHS risk adjustment methodology, arguing,
for instance, that HHS' formula underestimates the costs of
insuring members who are not diagnosed with particular medical
conditions defined in the methodology.  HHS states that it
considered Minuteman's concerns throughout the notice-and-comment
rulemaking process (as well as feedback on white papers and
similar materials) but did not ultimately adopt the insurer's
recommendations or proposed changes.  Although Judge Saylor
identified instances where HHS' responses were "somewhat
troublesome" -- noting, for instance, that it "might have been
prudent" for HHS to address certain comments directly -- he did
not find that the agency acted unreasonably or irrationally.

In granting the government's motion for summary judgment, Judge
Saylor held that the challenged regulations were not arbitrary
and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and did not
contravene Section 1343 of the ACA.  As he put it, "HHS acted
within the bounds of its authority, even when the consequences of
its choices may not always have been optimal."

Alaska And Oregon Receive Notification Of 2018 Pass-Through
Funding From HHS

On February 6, 2018, HHS issued two separate letters to notify
officials in Alaska and Oregon that their states would be
receiving pass-through funding of about $58.5 million and $54.5
million, respectively, for the 2018 calendar year.  The pass-
through funding is pursuant to each state's approved reinsurance
waiver under Section 1332 of the ACA.  Although the details of
their reinsurance programs are slightly different, both states
asked to waive the ACA's single risk pool requirement.

All states with approved Section 1332 waivers have now received a
notification of their federal pass-through funding for 2018.
Minnesota, which also established a reinsurance program, received
its notification letter in late January 2018 while Hawaii
received its letter in September 2017.  HHS will calculate the
amount of pass-through funding for each state on an annual basis.
[GN]


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2nd Amended Federal Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation is facing a second amended
complaint related to federal securities laws litigation,
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 January 2, 2018, a purported shareowner filed a second amended
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the federal securities laws against
the Company and certain of its current and former executives
(Frankfurt-Trust Investment Luxemburg AG v. United Technologies
Corporation et al.), which further amends a complaint that was
filed on May 10, 2017.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff purports to
represent a class of shareowners who purchased the Company's
stock between December 11, 2014 and July 20, 2015.  The second
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, related to alleged false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact made in connection with the
Company's 2015 earnings expectations.

The Company said, "This action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could result from this action."

United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and
services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in
Farmington, Connecticut.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on Nixed TCPA Claims Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A United Technologies Corporation unit continues to face
consolidated complaints related to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 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.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) was named
as a defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed
on behalf of purported classes of persons who alleged that third-
party entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers
listed on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in
contravention of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In each putative class action suit, plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief and monetary damages.  Each violation under the TCPA
provides for US$500 in statutory damages or up to US$1,500 for
any willful violation.

In August 2016, UTCFS moved for summary judgment in the Northern
District of West Virginia, the court in which all of the pending
TCPA cases has been consolidated, arguing that the third parties
who placed the calls in alleged violation of the TCPA were not
acting as UTCFS' agents and, therefore, UTCFS could not be
vicariously liable for those calls under the TCPA.

On December 22, 2016, the district court granted UTCFS' summary
judgment motion and dismissed the claims against UTCFS.  The
plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 14, 2017.

Oral arguments on the appeal were presented before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 24,
2018.

United Technologies Corporation provides technology products and
services to building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in
Farmington, Connecticut.


UTAH: No Hearing Date Yet in I/DD Class Action v. Health Dep't.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on January 8, 2018, Staci Christensen,
John R. Weakly, Disability Law Center filed a class action
lawsuit against the state of Utah, including the Utah Department
of Health, the Division of Services for People with Disabilities,
and Governor Gary Herbert on behalf of consumers with
intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD).  The
plaintiffs allege that the individuals with I/DD living in
private ICFs are not given access to integrated community-based
services and are denied the choice to make meaningful and
informed choices about segregation as decided under the Olmstead
decision.  No hearing or trial date has been set. [GN]


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Israel,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2017.

The Company said: "On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint
was filed against us in Israel alleging similar claims as the
dismissed Israeli class action and alleging that Israeli
shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class
action settlement proceedings. We are opposing the new class
action and plaintiff's class certification motion on
substantially the same grounds on which the previous case was
dismissed. The court held a pretrial hearing on that motion on
May 19, 2016 at which it requested additional information
including expert reports, a position paper from the Israel
Securities Authority ("ISA") and further briefing. In July 2016,
the ISA submitted a position paper supporting our position
regarding applicable law. Other requested information has also
now been submitted, but the court has not yet ruled."

VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global leader in payments and
commerce solutions.  The Company provides expertise and solutions
that add value at the retail point-of-sale and enable innovative
forms of commerce.  For 35 years, the Company has been a leader
in designing, manufacturing, marketing and supplying a broad
range of innovative payment solutions, including customer
payments acceptance, connectivity between merchants and financial
institutions, as well as security and comprehensive payment and
commerce services.


WASHINGTONFIRST BANKSHARES: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned as Paul Parshall v.
WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc.., et al., Case 1:17-cv-00877-
TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.) has filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with
prejudice.

The notice was filed Sept. 11, 2017.

WashingtonFirst Bankshares said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed in September that
the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with
prejudice.

As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated
September 8, 2017, related to the Merger, on August 1, 2017, Paul
Parshall, a purported stockholder of WashingtonFirst, filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Paul Parshall v.
WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc.., et al., Case 1:17-cv-00877-
TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.) (the "Lawsuit"). The relief sought in the
Lawsuit included preliminary and permanent injunction against the
consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if
the Merger was completed, costs and attorney's fees.

On September 11, 2017, the plaintiff in the Lawsuit filed a
voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice.

WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc. is the parent company of the
WashingtonFirst Bank, a $2 billion dollar bank headquartered in
Reston, Virginia. It provides financial and mortgage banking
services to local businesses and consumers.


WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Faces "Shadwick" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Shadwick, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Waupaca Foundry, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-00026-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 24, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Waupaca Foundry, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation that specializes
in supplying numerous industries with cast metal products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEINSTEIN CO: New York AG Sues Amid Pending Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Faughnder, writing for Governing, reports that a $500
million deal to sell Harvey Weinstein's troubled old studio to
former Obama administration official Maria Contreras-Sweet hit a
major roadblock after the New York attorney general's office
expressed serious concerns about the sale.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Feb. 11 sued
Weinstein Co. and its co-founders, Harvey Weinstein and Bob
Weinstein, for "egregious violations of New York's civil rights,
human rights and business laws," the attorney general's office
said in a statement.

"The Weinstein Co. repeatedly broke New York law by failing to
protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment,
intimidation and discrimination," Mr. Schneiderman said in a
statement.  "Any sale of The Weinstein Co. must ensure that
victims will be compensated, employees will be protected going
forward, and that neither perpetrators nor enablers will be
unjustly enriched. Every New Yorker has a right to a workplace
free of sexual harassment, intimidation and fear."

The lawsuit, filed in New York County Supreme Court, jeopardizes
the planned sale to Contreras-Sweet, which was backed by
billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Cos.  The buyer has been in
negotiations with the Weinstein Co. for weeks.  The Contreras-
Sweet deal would give her control over the studio's assets.  Her
group has promised to set up a majority-female board and
establish a fund to help women who have alleged abuse by Harvey
Weinstein.  Contreras-Sweet ran the U.S. Small Business
Administration under President Barack Obama from 2014 to 2017.

A deal was expected to be signed on Feb. 11, ending a protracted
search for a buyer four months after sexual harassment and
assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein sent the New York
company into a tailspin.  Authorities in Los Angeles, New York
and London have launched criminal investigations into the
allegations against Weinstein.  He has denied claims that he
engaged in nonconsensual sex with women.

The company is facing multiple other lawsuits, including a class-
action case filed in November that accused the studio of enabling
Weinstein's alleged predatory behavior.

Mr. Schneiderman's office launched its civil rights investigation
into Weinstein Co. in October, shortly after allegations of
sexual misconduct were detailed in The New York Times and the New
Yorker.  Mr. Schneiderman issued a subpoena for company documents
as part of an investigation into whether officials at the film
and television company violated state civil rights and New York
City human rights laws.

The New York Daily News on Feb. 10 first reported that
Mr. Schneiderman's office was preparing to sue Weinstein Co.

The 38-page complaint alleges that the Weinstein Co. board of
directors and executives failed to protect employees or curb
Harvey Weinstein's misconduct, despite widespread knowledge of
his behavior and numerous complaints to the company's human
resources department.  Groups of predominantly female employees,
described in the complaint as members of Harvey Weinstein's
"roster" or his "wing women," were made to facilitate Weinstein's
sexual conquests, the suit says.

Representatives for Weinstein Co., Yucaipa and Contreras-Sweet
declined to comment.

Mr. Schneiderman's office also expressed deep concerns about
whether the new company that results from the planned sale will
make good on its promise to compensate victims beyond what would
normally be paid through insurance.  It also raised worries about
the future leadership of the studio.

The attorney general's office said in its statement that it has
"substantive basis" to believe the sale would "leave victims
without adequate redress, including a lack of a sufficient
victims compensation fund."

The office "also believes that the proposed terms of the sale
would allow the perpetrators or enablers of the misconduct to see
a windfall, and allow top officials at TWC who share
responsibility for the misconduct to serve in executive positions
of the new entity," according to the statement.

Mr. Schneiderman's office has questioned the possible appointment
of Weinstein Co. President and Chief Operating Officer
David Glasser as chief executive because he served as Harvey
Weinstein's right-hand man for years and essentially ran the
business, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A representative for Mr. Glasser declined to comment.

According to a document reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the
attorney general's office has been seeking assurances that the
company will establish a fund that will adequately compensate
accusers.  The office has also demanded that the company put into
escrow any proceeds from the sale that would go to Harvey
Weinstein or his brother, Bob, who co-founded the studio in 2005.

Mr. Schneiderman's office has also demanded oversight over the
company as part of the purchase agreement to ensure that the new
company takes adequate steps to protect employees.  Contreras-
Sweet balked at the demand for government oversight, said two
people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to
comment.

"We expressed to them how important it is that any deal
adequately compensate victims, protect employees, and not reward
those who enabled or perpetuated this egregious sexual
misconduct," said Amy Spitalnick, press secretary for the office
of the New York attorney general, in an emailed statement.  "We
were surprised to learn they were not serious about discussing
any of those issues or even sharing the most basic information
about how they planned to address them."

If a deal is not reached, Weinstein Co. may be forced into
bankruptcy.  The financial burden and mounting legal threats
against the company led many industry veterans to say the studio
would have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection or shut
down.  Weinstein Co. tried and failed to secure financial
lifelines from investors such as Thomas Barrack's Colony Capital
and private equity firm Fortress.

Santa Monica, Calif.-based studio Lionsgate, known for "La La
Land" and "The Hunger Games," was interested in buying certain
assets of the company.  Killer Content, the New York production
company behind "Carol" and "Still Alice," had offered to buy the
assets and remake them into an entity to support women.  Other
bidders included Miramax (owned by BeIN Media) and private equity
firms Shamrock Capital Advisors and Vine Alternative Investments.

Contreras-Sweet's offer would not require a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
process.  Under the terms of the proposal, her group would assume
$225 million in debt and establish a fund worth $50 million to
$60 million for Weinstein's accusers, according to people close
to the deal. [GN]


WILLIAM BARTHMAN JEWELER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Barthman
Jeweler Ltd. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William
Barthman Jeweler Ltd. doing business as: William Barthman,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01598 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018).

William Barthman Jeweler, Ltd. was founded in 1983. 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 Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Intermodal Drayage
Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed
claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they
should be classified as employees, rather than independent
contractors.  These claims seek reimbursement for the owner
operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance
and tractor lease payments.

After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven
of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the decision to
California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was
held on the merits of those claims.

On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of US$2.9
million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the
claimants.

The Company has exhausted its appeals in this matter and the
Superior Court entered final judgment against the Company in
January 2018.

Separate decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing
officer in claims involving five additional plaintiffs, resulting
in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of
approximately US$0.9 million, following which the Company
appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On May 16, 2017, the Court issued judgment finding that the five
claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and
awarding an aggregate of approximately US$1.0 million plus post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.  The
Company has appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance
that such appeal will be successful.

In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a
DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional
plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an
aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, which the
Company has appealed to the California Superior Court, Long
Beach.

The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to California
Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately
200 claimants, including the approximately 150 claimants.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to the claims.  The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that
it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other
reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Certain of the Company's last mile logistics
subsidiaries are party to several putative class action
litigations brought by independent contract carriers who
contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers
assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than
independent contractors.  The particular claims asserted vary
from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and
seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses.

"Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending, or have recently been settled, in California (Fernando
Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, in the
Federal District Court, Southern District of California - the
Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation, the
court has granted final approval, and the Company has accrued the
full amount of the settlement; and four related cases all pending
in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California:
Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill
McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March
2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in
July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September
2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in May
2017); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics,
Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the Federal
District Court, New Jersey and settled in November 2017); and
Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in
November 2015 in the Federal District Court, Connecticut and
settled in August 2017).

"The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable.  The Company
is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability
that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other
reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these
lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be
impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved,
including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK on TCPA Suit Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement agreement to resolve a putative class action suit
related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 12, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company is a party to putative class action litigation (Leung
v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District
Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer call
system used by a last mile logistics business that the Company
acquired.  The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the
Leung case and awaits final court approval of the settlement.
The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed
settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


* UK Cos. May Face More Data-Protection Related Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Croft, writing for The Financial Times, reports that the
number of legal cases involving FTSE 100 companies in
London's High Court has dropped by almost a quarter as litigation
relating to the financial crisis has tailed off.

According to data compiled by Thomson Reuters, cases involving
listed corporates fell to 206 in the 12 months ending in June
2017, down from 279 in the 12 months to June 2016.  Financial
services companies accounted for the majority of cases, with
dozens of loan disputes and allegations of mis-selling of
interest rate swaps going through the London courts.

The number of High Court cases involving FTSE 100 financial
services companies fell to 146 in the 12 months ending June 2017,
down from 194 in the previous 12-month period.

The report also identified a growing trend for group lawsuits.
These are increasingly financed by third-party litigation funders
such as Harbour Litigation and Burford Capital, which fund legal
costs in return for a share of any compensation won.

Third-party funders have been financing high-profile legal
actions in the past year, including the 6,000 Lloyds shareholders
who are suing the bank and five former directors in a GBP600m
lawsuit over its disastrous acquisition of HBOS in 2008.  The
case, which began in September last year, is due to finish in
March and is being financed by Therium.

Other group actions include a lawsuit brought by almost 60,000
car owners against Volkswagen after the company admitted to
fitting millions of cars with special software that allowed them
to cheat emissions tests.

Therium is also funding collective action against Google brought
by a former Which? executive director, over claims the company
illegally gathered the personal data of millions of iPhone users
in the UK.

A report published on Feb. 12 by law firm RPC says that as more
money is invested in litigation funders, they will step up their
search for cases to back, which could include new areas such as
asset tracing and arbitration.

Raichel Hopkinson, head of practical law dispute resolution
at Thomson Reuters, said businesses could face more class action
lawsuits financed by litigation funders in areas such as data
protection when the EU's General Data Protection Regulation comes
into force in May.

"Major corporates, especially banks, finally have a pause to draw
breath after a decade fighting off credit crunch-era lawsuits,"
she said.

"However, this could be shortlived respite. Big businesses may
now have to brace themselves for the possibility of a rise in
class actions financed by the growing pot of third-party
litigation funding." [GN]


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *