CAR_Public/180329.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 64



                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: "St. John" Class Lawsuit in Alabama Still Pending
3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Alabama Residents' Federal Court Suit Underway
3M COMPANY: Still Defends 12 Suits over Aqueous Film Forming Foam

3M COMPANY: Faces Class Action over Wolverine's Use of Scotchgard
3M COMPANY: Still Faces 4,270 Bair Hugger Claims
3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Class Suit in Canada Underway
3M COMPANY: Class Suit over Dental Product Still Pending
ABBVIE INC: 2 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending

ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual Lawsuit v. TRTs Makers Still Pending
ABBVIE INC: Has 635 Product Liability Claims on Depakote Risks
ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Putative Class Suit by Rubinstein, et al
ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Sidney Hillman Suit
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

ALKERMES PLC: Putative Shareholder Class Action in N.Y. Underway
ALLEGIANT AIR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal from Indirect Buyers' Class Status Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Accord in Botox(R) Lawsuit
ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Loestrin(R) 24 Suit

ALLERGAN PLC: JPML Moves Restasis(R) Class Lawsuits to E.D.N.Y.
ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Settlement in Zymar Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Mass. Lexapro Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Wash. Lexapro Case
ALLERGAN PLC: Securities & ERISA Suit over Generic Drug Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit over TCPA Violations
ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Suits
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Status Bid in TRT Class Suit Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Dismissed in January 2018
ALLERGAN PLC: May 2018 Fairness Hearing on Sales Agents' Pact

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit over Anti-Steering Rules Still Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Marcus Corp. Antitrust Class Suit Still Stayed
AMERICAN INT'L: Supreme Court Won't Hear Starr Appeal
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Fregoso Says
AMMADIS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Arvizu Says

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining Farmers' Suit
ARGOS USA: "Soileau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
AVEO PHARMA: Inks Settlement Accord for Securities Class Suit
"B" ING THE BEST: Maldonado Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA
BEAUTY BASICS: Fails to Pay Aveda Institute Students for Work

BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Schirripa Says
BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Wiliamson Says
BILL ME LATER: Lewis Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing System
BUCKHEAD PARKING: "Stewart" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
CAMPBELL SOUP: Defending Against Suits over Snyder's-Lance Buyout

CAMBREX CORP: Appeal from $67,260 Damages Award Still Pending
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Quebec Derailment Case Trial Set for Sept. 2019
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Ongoing on Nixed Maine Derailment Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 10 Opioid Class Action Suits at Feb. 2
CARDINAL HEALTH: Has 112 Cordis IVC Filter Lawsuits at Feb. 2

CASSANO'S INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Lee" Suit Says
CBOE EXCHANGE: Violates Commodity Exchange Act, Tomasulo Says
CEMEX S.A.B.: Schiro Sues over Unit's Alleged Bribery Payments
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Less Than $1.0MM Paid for Medical Monitoring
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Suits v. DuPont over IN Superfund Site

CHEMOURS COMPANY: GenX Discharge Related Suits Pending
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Credit Unions' Class Action Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Combined "Gordon" and "Lawson" Lawsuit Pending
CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: Inks Wage & Hour Class Settlement Accord
CLIENT SERVICES: O'Brien Sues over Debt Collection Practices

CONSOL ENERGY: Court Consolidates Casey and Fitzwater Lawsuits
COST PLUS: Rayford Sues over Improper Bag Tax
CUBESMART: Receives Preliminary Court OK on Class Action Accord
DELTA AIRLINES: Pimental Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
DOMIX WINE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA

EDS SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Silva Claims
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Late 2018 Trial on 2nd "Brinckerhoff" Complaint
ENSIGN GROUP: To Distribute $11-Mil. to Class Members in 1Q 2018
FACEBOOK INC: Price Sues over Cambridge Analytica's Data Access
FACEBOOK INC: Yuan Sues over Advertisers' Data Access

FACTOR75 LLC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues over Automatic Renewal
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Underway
FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends "Agrawal" Class Suit
FREDERIC FEKKAI: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pitre" Suit in E.D. Louisiana

GENERAL MOTORS: "Howard" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
GENERAL MOTORS: "Minarik" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Briefing Schedule Filed in Securities Suit
GOPRO INC: Accord in Calif. Securities Suit Awaits Documentation
GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. Underway

GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits Underway
GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Camia Investments Suit
HOLOGIC INC: Accrues $9.2MM for Settlement of "ARcare" Lawsuit
HOT POT RESTAURANT: "Xie" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Seeks to Drop "Fergus" and "Becker" Complaint

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Continues to Defend "Desanctis" Suit
IMPERIAL MARBLE: Schubbe Seeks Unpaid Wages under WARN Act
INDIANA: "McQuay" Suit vs IDOC Moved to S.D. Indiana
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Purported Shareholder Class Lawsuit Ongoing
INVUITY INC: April 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Paciga" Suit

J & M INC: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Statements, Suit Says
JEC NY: "Wanghok" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits Continue
JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Class Suit Underway
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss "Gumm" Class Suit Underway

KANGAROO FLEET: Withholds Wages over Citations, Kirklands Say
KELLCO MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Still Defends Bahamas Surgery Class Lawsuit
KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit
LANNETT CO: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Shareholder Suit

LIONS GATE: Still Faces Consolidated Starz Merger Class Lawsuit
LIONS GATE: "Gross" Class Suit in Colorado Remains Stayed
LIONS GATE: Settlement in "Levy" Suit Finally Approved
LOGON COMPUTER: "Santos" Suit Seeks wages & Overtime under FLSA
MALECON RESTAURANT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Thorne Says
MAXIMUS INC: Still Defends Putative Shareholder Class Lawsuit
MAXLINEAR INC: Vladimir Gusinsky and "Marshall" Suit Concluded
MDL 2545: 210 TRT Claims vs. AbbVie Still Pending
MDL 2804: "Rees" Suit vs. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio

METLIFE INC: "Pugh" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Spano" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania
MONAT GLOBAL: Products Cause Hair Loss, Merritt Claims
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pfleigier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Terry Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MYEONG HYUN: "Lee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MYEXPERIAN INC: "Vinsant" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
NAPLES HOTEL: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Williams Says
NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Tronson" Suit Moved to Dist. of Minnesota
NEW YORK: Upland Asks Court to Quash Subpoena in "Powell" Suit

NEWLINK GENETICS: Abramson Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
NILES GRAND: Flores Sues over Use of Biometric Information
NIPPON LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says
NOBLE FOOD: "Kirkwood" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hustig" and "Cook" Class Action Suits

OJUS AUTOMOTIVE: "Wilzek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits
PAUL SMITH: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Has US$1.4MM Liability for Vinyl Clad Accord
PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in New York Settled for $26MM

PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Hueso" and "Xiong" Cases Resolved for $1M
PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Morgan" Suit Settled for $900,000
PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Action Suit in N.Y.
POST HOLDINGS: Antitrust Lawsuit on Egg Products Still Ongoing
PNC BANK: Pfendler Sues over Home Mortgage Loan Servicing

PREMIUM HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Jocson Says
REPUBLIC NAIL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Jimenez Says
SAINT LUCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Moreno Says
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: 2nd Cir. Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal

SECURITAS SECURITY: "Boursiquot" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
SENIOR OPERATIONS: Faces "Hartline" Wage-and-Hour Suit
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
SIGMA DESIGNS: Speiser Balks at Silicon Labs Merger Deal
SIMONTON BUILDING: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Still Pending

SLACK INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims
SOLVAY PHARMA: Still Faces Class Suits on Patent Case Settlement
SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
ST LUKES ROOSEVELT: "Edmond" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
STRAIGHT PATH: Gets Initial Court OK on "Zacharia" Settlement

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Thompson Sues over Defective Engine Parts
SUN LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims
SUNOCO PIPELINE: Marches Sue over Damage to Home & Property
TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Suits

TRAFFIC CONTROL: "Ruffin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Orlowski Sues over U.S.-Made Claims
TURTABLE LLC: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TYSON FOODS: Satisfaction of Judgment Filed in "Bouaphakeo" Suit
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Against Maplevale Farms Lawsuit

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Amend "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Appeal in Philippine Labor Case Underway
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Gets Final Court OK on Shareholder Class Pact
UNITED AMERICAN: Parshall Balks at Heritage Merger Deal

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Ashes Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Crosses Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lieberman Sues over Insurance
UTILQUEST LLC: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with AIG
WARNER MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification Bid
WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Suits on Silver Spring Incident
WOLF APPLIANCE: Sharp Sues over Defective Ovens
ZACKY & SONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Lawsuit over CoolSculpting Ads Still Pending


                            *********


3M COMPANY: "St. John" Class Lawsuit in Alabama Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017 that the St. John class action litigation is
still pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.  The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named
plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis that such
claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's
Workers Compensation Act.  The plaintiffs' counsel filed an
amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property
damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and
property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the
City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal
Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a
Decatur Utilities.

In 2005, the judge -- in a second purported class action lawsuit
filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds
(the "Chandler case") -- granted the Company's motion to abate
the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the
resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.  No further action in the case is expected unless and
until the stay is lifted.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The "Stover" purported class action case filed in 2009 in Alabama
remains stayed, according to 3M Company's Form 10-K Report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover case") seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals.  The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County.  In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John
case, which is a purported class action lawsuit filed in 2002 in
the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017 that the class action filed in the state court
in Lawrence County, Alabama, is still stayed.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a class
action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the
City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama.
Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties
who are or have been customers of the Water Authority.  They
contend defendants have released PFCs that contaminate the
Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing
damage to their health and properties.

In January 2017, the court in the St. John case stayed this
litigation pending resolution of the St. John case, which is a
purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of
Morgan County, Alabama.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Alabama Residents' Federal Court Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is facing a purported class suit filed by residents of
Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama, related to contaminated
water supplied by the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority, according to 3M Company's Form 10-K Report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

In November 2017, a purported class action was filed against 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the West Morgan-East
Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  The
plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority.  They assert
various common law claims, including negligence, nuisance,
wantonness, and fraudulent concealment, and they seek injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive damages for
their alleged personal injuries.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate
manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have
released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals
into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting
in discharge into the Tennessee River.  The plaintiffs also
contend that the defendants have discharged into the Decatur
Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which, in turn,
discharges wastewater containing these chemicals into the
Tennessee River.  The plaintiffs contend that, as a result the
alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to
the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and
related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Still Defends 12 Suits over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is defending against 12 purported class actions as of
December 31, 2017 related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF),
according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000.  As of December 31, 2017, twelve
purported class actions have been filed against 3M and other
defendants in various state and federal courts in Pennsylvania,
Colorado, and New York alleging that certain PFCs used in AFFF
contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used at
current or former airports and air force military bases located
in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York.  An individual complaint
also has been filed in federal court Pennsylvania.  The
plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that contaminated
groundwater has caused various injuries, including loss of use
and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values,
investigation costs, and remediation costs.  Some cases seek
funds for medical monitoring.  Several companies have been sued
along with 3M, including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.),
Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National
Foam, Inc., United Technologies Corp.

In March 2017, plaintiff residents of Suffolk County, Long Island
filed a class action complaint in state court in Suffolk County
New York, naming the County and 3M and other alleged
manufacturers of AFFF products.  The action was removed to the
Eastern District of New York.

In August 2017, three class action complaints were filed in state
court in New York against 3M and other defendants including the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  Plaintiffs allege PFC
contamination of the local water supply linked to AFFF at Stewart
Air National Guard Base and Stewart International Airport.  The
Port Authority is the leaseholder of the airport.  All three
cases have classes for diminution of property and medical
monitoring.  In September 2017, co-defendant Tyco removed all
three cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

In October 2017, a class action complaint was filed in Suffolk
County, New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly
released at the Suffolk County Firematics Training Facility.  In
November 2017, co-defendant National Foam removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2017, a complaint was filed by a group of 26
plaintiffs in Suffolk County, New York against 3M and others
regarding PFCs allegedly released at Gabreski Airport.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Faces Class Action over Wolverine's Use of Scotchgard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is defending itself against a 12-count class action
related to 3M Scotchgard used in Wolverine World Wide and Waste
Management's operations, according to 3M's Form 10-K Report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On December 1, 2017, eight plaintiffs filed a 12-count class
action against 3M, Wolverine World Wide and Waste Management,
Inc., alleging negligence, trespass, intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, battery, products liability,
public and private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment.  Each count was filed against each defendant.  The
action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing
operations.  Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in
its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product
have contaminated the environment after being disposed of near
drinking water sources.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Still Faces 4,270 Bair Hugger Claims
------------------------------------------------
3M Company is defending itself against about 4,270 plaintiffs as
of December 31, 2017 related to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM)
patient warming system, according to the Company's Form 10-K
Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company is a named defendant in
lawsuits involving approximately 4,270 plaintiffs (compared to
approximately 1,260 plaintiffs at December 31, 2016), most of
which are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in
which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint
arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later
developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system.  The complaints seek damages
and other relief based on theories of strict liability,
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to
warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or
negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and
violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful
trade practices and/or false advertising acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action.  The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending
in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the
pre-trial phase of the litigation.  The federal court has set a
trial-ready date in May 2018 in one of the two federal court
bellwether cases.

At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the
Minnesota State court, on the parties' motion to exclude each
other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary judgment with
respect to general causation, the federal court did not exclude
the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation.

In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Class Suit in Canada Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company still defends itself against a putative class action
in Canada related to the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system,
according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system.  The representative plaintiff seeks relief
(including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories
similar to those asserted in the MDL in the U.S.  The Bair Hugger
product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010 acquisition
of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient warming
solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain normal
body temperature in surgical settings.  No liability has been
recorded for this matter because the Company believes that any
such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


3M COMPANY: Class Suit over Dental Product Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company still defends a potential class suit in Minnesota
related to the Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM dental restorative material,
according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017

In September 2011, 3M Oral Care launched Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM
dental restorative material.  The product was originally
indicated for inlay, onlay, veneer, and crown applications.

In June 2015, 3M Oral Care voluntarily removed crown applications
from the product's instructions for use, following reports from
dentists of patients' crowns debonding, requiring additional
treatment.  The product remains on the market for other
applications.  3M communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, as well as regulators outside the United States.
3M also informed customers and distributors of its action,
offered to accept return of unused materials and provide refunds.

As of December 31, 2017, there is one lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota that names 29
plaintiffs and seeks certification of a class of dentists in the
United States and its territories, and alternatively seeks
subclasses in 13 states.

The complaint alleges 3M marketed and sold defective Lava
Ultimate material used for dental crowns to dentists and, under
various theories, seek monetary damages (replacement costs and
business reputation loss), punitive damages, disgorgement of
profits, injunction from marketing and selling Lava Ultimate for
use in dental crowns, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services.


ABBVIE INC: 2 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to face lawsuits, including two
consolidated purported class actions, related to a 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving Niaspan, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company
acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie)
and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws
and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust
enrichment laws.  Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages
and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The lawsuits
consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two
consolidated purported class actions: one brought by three named
direct purchasers of Niaspan and the other brought by ten named
end-payer purchasers of Niaspan.  The cases are consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re:
Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.  In October 2016, the
State of California filed a lawsuit regarding the Niaspan patent
litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting
a claim under the unfair competition provision of the California
Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief,
restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual Lawsuit v. TRTs Makers Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. still defends itself against a putative class action
suit filed by Medical Mutual of Ohio against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance
companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payers
who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel.  The claims asserted
include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer
fraud and deceptive trade practices laws.  The complaint seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

                           *     *     *

AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a similar lawsuit, Allied Services
Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al., filed in the same
court in October 2015 on behalf of the same putative class
members and a putative class of consumers, was voluntarily
dismissed in September 2017.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Has 635 Product Liability Claims on Depakote Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Over ninety percent of the approximately 635 Depakote claims are
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other
federal and state courts, according AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

Plaintiffs in the product liability cases generally allege that
AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries,
primarily various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote.
Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and punitive damages.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Putative Class Suit by Rubinstein, et al
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. still defends itself against a putative class action
suit captioned Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., on behalf of
purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities
between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its
chief executive officer in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants
made and/or are responsible for material misstatements in
violation of federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie's
proposed transaction with Shire.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

                           *     *     *

AbbVie said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017, that in June 2016, a lawsuit, Elliott Associates, L.P., et
al. v. AbbVie Inc., was filed by five investment funds against
AbbVie in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court alleging that
AbbVie made misrepresentations and omissions in connection with
its proposed transaction with Shire. Similar lawsuits were filed
between July and September 2017 against AbbVie and in some
instances its chief executive officer in the same court by twelve
additional investment funds. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Sidney Hillman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive
business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with
reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and
attorneys' fees. In February 2017, the court dismissed this
lawsuit with prejudice and in October 2017, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott). The company is based in North Chicago, Illinois.


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that its motion to dismiss a class
action suit related to misrepresentations and omissions about
Soliris is "now fully briefed and pending before the court."

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris.
On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On July 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative
class action complaint against the Company and seven current or
former employees.  The complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged
misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes,
and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26,
2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the
purported disclosure of the misrepresentations.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
12, 2017.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion
to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply
brief in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending
before the court.

The Company said, "Given the early stages of this litigation,
management does not currently believe that a loss related to this
matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss
or range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical
company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare
diseases through the innovation, development and
commercialization of life-changing therapies. The company is
based in New Haven, Connecticut.


ALKERMES PLC: Putative Shareholder Class Action in N.Y. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes Public Limited Company is facing a putative class action
filed in New York by a purported stockholder, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No.  1:17-cv-09178.  The complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the
period of February 24, 2015 to November 3, 2017, and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's marketing
practices related to VIVITROL.  The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, unspecified damages for alleged inflation in the price of
securities, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet
medical needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the
United States, Ireland, and internationally.  It was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLEGIANT AIR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAYLA BASILIALI, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698316 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 15, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff and
the Employees in the Class to work off the clock and failed to
record accurate time worked by these Employees, including by not
paying them for all hours worked, failed to pay them at the
appropriate overtime rates for all hours worked, failed to
reimburse business expenses, and provided Plaintiff and the Class
members with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff
and the Class from learning of these unlawful pay practices. The
Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with
lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not provided with
the opportunity to take uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods
and meal breaks as required by the Labor Code.

Allegiant Air is an American low-cost airline that operates
scheduled and charter flights. The 9th largest commercial airline
in the US, it is wholly owned by Allegiant Travel Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlavv.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652 2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal from Indirect Buyers' Class Status Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a district court's order granting class
certification to indirect purchasers remains pending in the
Asacol(R) Litigation, according to Allergan plc and Warner
Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and
three more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in
Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect
purchasers.  In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid
higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for
Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees.  Defendants moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
complaint.  A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May
11, 2016.

On July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion
in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims
based on purported reverse payments and dismissing several of
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws.

On August 15, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  The Company filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.  Complaints were
also filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26, 2016, and on
June 29, 2016, in each case making similar allegations to the
complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.  Those
matters have been consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases
in the federal court in Massachusetts.

On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' consolidated complaint and oral argument on
the motion was held on December 16, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss.  The Company
has reached a tentative agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs to settle their claims.  The Company has filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' claims.

On November 9, 2017, the court issued a decision denying the
Company's summary judgment motion and granting plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  Trial was set to being on January 22,
2018.  However, on January 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit issued an order granting the Company's motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) to appeal the district court's decision to
certify the proposed class.  The appellate court thereafter
issued a decision staying the trial in the district court.  The
appeal will be fully briefed by the end of March 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Accord in Botox(R) Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in its Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a tentative
settlement of the Botox(R) Litigation in California has been
reached.

A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California
on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful
market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation
of 15 U.S.C. Section 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance
of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of
California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus.
and Prof. Code, and violations of California's unfair competition
law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code.

In the complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages.

On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Oral
argument on the class certification motion was heard on January
13, 2017.

On June 13, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

In September 2017, the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment, which were heard by the court on October 27, 2017.

On November 30, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Loestrin(R) 24 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited continues to defend itself against the
Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation, according to Allergan plc and Warner
Chilcott's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain
affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit
settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to
Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were unlawful.

The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of
end-payors, generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly
delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange
for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The
complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages.

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors.  In
addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of a class of direct payors and by direct purchasers in
their individual capacities.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order transferring all
related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the
District of Rhode Island.

On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral
argument was held on December 7, 2015.

On February 22, 2016, the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.

On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor
class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs.
Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on January 13,
2017.

On July 24, 2017, the court issued its decision denying the
motion to dismiss.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: JPML Moves Restasis(R) Class Lawsuits to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that after a hearing on
January 25, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) transferred all related Restasis(R) class action cases to
the federal court for the Eastern District of New York.

Between November 7, 2017, and January 17, 2018, fourteen putative
class actions were filed in federal district courts against
Allergan alleging that the company unlawfully harmed competition
by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic
versions of Restasis(R).  Nine of the complaints were filed on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, and five were filed on
behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers.  One direct
purchaser subsequently voluntarily dismissed its suit.

The complaints challenge Allergan's conduct in prosecuting and
obtaining patents covering Restasis(R), listing those patents in
the FDA's Orange Book, asserting those patents against potential
generic competitors in patent-infringement litigation, filing
citizens petitions with the FDA concerning generic companies'
drug applications for generic Restasis(R), and transferring
patents to the sovereign Native American Saint Regis Mohawk
Tribe.  Both the end-payors and the direct purchasers allege that
these actions violated federal antitrust laws, and the end-payors
further allege violations of state antitrust and consumer-
protection laws and unjust enrichment.  All plaintiffs seek
damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

After a hearing on January 25, 2018, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred all related
Restasis(R) cases to the federal court for the Eastern District
of New York.  After the JPML issued the transfer order, another
plaintiff asserting the same allegations filed suit on behalf of
a putative class of end-payors.  Allergan has not yet answered
the complaints or filed motions to dismiss.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Settlement in Zymar Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in its Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a tentative
settlement has been reached for the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R)
Litigation.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. alleging monopolization in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to
monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for
gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan,
Inc.'s ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and
ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages and disgorgement of profits.  Following the court's
denial of Allergan Inc.'s motions to dismiss, Allergan Inc. filed
an answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.  On March 27,
2017, the Company and Apotex settled this matter.  On April 26,
2017, this matter was dismissed.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case.  The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-
defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  On
August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss.

On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Third
Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016.  On September 7,
2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's granting of Allergan, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.  The
Third Circuit denied the Company's petition for a rehearing on
October 4, 2016.

On October 18, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Mass. Lexapro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on January 30,
2018, the court has granted in full Forest's motion for summary
judgment in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action in the federal
district court in Massachusetts.

Forest and certain of its affiliates have been named as
defendants in multiple federal court actions relating to the
promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which have been
consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the
federal district court in Massachusetts.

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota which sought to certify a nationwide class of third-
party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use.  The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and
paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 12, 2014, and
the court thereafter issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's
claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but
denying the remaining portions of the motion.  A motion for class
certification was filed in February 2016, and denied on June 2,
2016.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition requesting leave to
appeal the denial of class certification which the First Circuit
denied on December 7, 2016.  On January 19, 2017, plaintiff filed
a motion for summary judgment on the Company's statute of
limitation affirmative defense and the Company filed a cross
motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2017.  In addition,
plaintiff in the action filed a second motion for class
certification on February 28, 2017.

Forest filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the
complaint which was granted in full on January 30, 2018.

Allergan plc said, "Plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether
they will appeal the court's decision."

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Wash. Lexapro Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on January 30,
2018, the court has granted in full Forest's motion for summary
judgment in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action filed in the
federal district court in Washington.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts
consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric
use.  The complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO
statute, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing
scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce
prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 19, 2014.  On
June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.  Plaintiffs
thereafter filed an amended complaint.  Forest moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On June 9, 2016, the court denied
Forest's motion.

On March 3, 2017, plaintiffs in this action filed a motion for
class certification, which motion was denied by the court.  On
September 15, 2017, Forest filed a motion for summary judgment on
all counts of the complaint which was granted in full on January
30, 2018.

Allergan plc said, "Plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether
they will appeal the court's decision."

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Securities & ERISA Suit over Generic Drug Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc continues to defend itself in the Generic Drug
Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation, according to Allergan
and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On November 4, 2016, a class action was filed by a putative class
of Allergan shareholders in federal court in California against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers made materially false and misleading statements.  The
complaint alleges generally that between February 2014 and
November 2016, Allergan and certain of its officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's internal controls over its financial reporting and
failed to disclose that its Actavis generics unit had engaged in
illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry
peers.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On February 2, 2017, the actions were consolidated in the federal
district court in New Jersey.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on May 1, 2017.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint on July 17, 2107.  Plaintiffs filed their
opposition on September 15 and the Company filed its reply on
October 6, 2017.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint on November 28, 2017.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on January 22, 2018.

A complaint was filed in California state court, premised on the
same alleged underlying allegations, by an individual opt-out
plaintiff on February 2, 2018.  The Company has not yet responded
to the California state court complaint.

On February 14, 2017, a separate complaint was filed in the
federal district court in California that is premised on the same
alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities
litigation but that asserts claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA).  A similar lawsuit was
filed in the federal district court in New Jersey on March 7,
2017.

The ERISA complaints assert claims on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who participated in the Company's retirement plans
and seek an unspecified amount of damages and other injunctive
relief.

On June 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion to stay or transfer
venue in the California ERISA matter to the District of New
Jersey, after which time plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to the
transfer.  The Company's motion to consolidate the matters was
granted on August 21, 2017, and a consent discovery order
entered.

On October 23, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint which the Company moved to dismiss on February 2, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Forest continues to
face legal actions related to alleged breaches of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

In October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named
as defendants in a putative class action in federal court in
Missouri.  This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and
was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons
who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the
commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice
compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC.  On
July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay
the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the
pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed.

On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in
Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott
Corporation and Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance LLC,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the
Missouri Consumer Fraud and Protection Act and conversion on
behalf of a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs to who
defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements.  Defendants removed this action to the federal
district court for the Western District of Missouri on December
10, 2015 and responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016.  On
February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants
Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation.  In the
wake of the Court of Appeals decision on the Petition, the
parties reached an agreement to settle the action against Warner
Chilcott.

In a related matter, on June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find
that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or
substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not
violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly
promulgated under the TCPA.  Warner Chilcott filed a similar
petition with the FCC.  On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a
Public Notice seeking comment on Forest's and several other
similar petitions.  On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final
order on the FCC Petition granting Forest and several other
petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice
requirement for all faxes sent with express consent.  The
litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014
Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.  Forest and other
petitioners intervened in the appeal seeking review of that
portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for
the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation.  Oral
argument before the appellate court took place on November 8,
2016.  On March 31, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a decision
which held that the FCC regulation at issue was not properly
promulgated under the TCPA.  Plaintiffs have filed a petition for
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that lawsuits, including
putative class actions, related to prescription opioid drug
remain ongoing.

The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 290
matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid
pain relievers and additional suits may be filed.

On May 31, 2017, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers.  The Ohio
action parallels the allegations in a complaint filed by the City
of Chicago in Illinois state court on June 2, 2014, and seeks
monetary and equitable relief.

Since the filing of the complaint by the State of Ohio,
additional cases have been filed, including cases filed by the
States of Oklahoma and New Mexico, but mainly by political
subdivisions of states (i.e., counties and municipalities) in
state and federal courts across the country.

In addition, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on
behalf of Arkansas residents who were prescribed an opioid
product or were prescribed an opioid product and were treated for
an overdose or addiction against several pharmaceutical
manufacturers.  The claims in the additional cases largely
parallel the claims in the California, Chicago, Mississippi and
Ohio matters.

The Company is aware that other states and political subdivisions
are considering filing comparable actions against, among others,
manufacturers and parties that promoted prescription opioid pain
relievers.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Status Bid in TRT Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action, the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending,
according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative
class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party
payers in federal court in Illinois.  The suit alleges that the
Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated
various laws including the federal RICO statute and state
consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and
marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy
pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's
Androderm(R) product.  This matter was filed in the TRT Products
Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability
matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies.
Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including
injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or
disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an
unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.  Defendants jointly filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in
part and denied in part on February 3, 2016.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims against
the Company for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with
particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to
replead.  The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law
statutory claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust
enrichment.  The Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) and its claims for
negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on April 7, 2016.
Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint on May 5, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, the court dismissed
all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company
except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim.

On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for
Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Motion to Certify for
Interlocutory Appeal, which the court denied on September 8,
2016.  Discovery is in the early stages.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 6,
2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Dismissed in January 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
After the parties reached a settlement on the TNS Products
Litigation on January 12, 2018, the case was dismissed on January
16, 2018, according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On March 19, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
federal district court in California on behalf of a putative
class of consumers.  The complaint alleges violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and the False Advertising Law, and deceit.

On June 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.  On
June 23, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

On September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-
part Allergan's motion to dismiss.  On September 8, 2014, the
court set trial for September 1, 2015.

On November 4, 2014, Allergan and SkinMedica filed a motion to
dismiss.  On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica's motion to
dismiss was denied.

On February 19, 2015 plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
On May 27, 2015, the case was stayed pending the decision of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving
similar legal issues.

On January 12, 2018, the parties reached a settlement.  On
January 16, 2018, the matter was dismissed.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: May 2018 Fairness Hearing on Sales Agents' Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that in a lawsuit by
certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales
representatives in the federal district court in New York, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February
1, 2018. A fairness hearing has been set for May 4, 2018.

In July 2012, Forest was named as defendants in an action brought
by certain former Company sales representatives and specialty
sales representatives in the federal district court in New York.
The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges
class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with
respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the
basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal
Pay Act.  The proposed Title VII gender class includes all
current and former female sales representatives employed by the
Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment,
and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all
current and former female sales representatives who have been,
are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company
throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment.  The
proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current,
former, and future female sales representatives who were not
compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during
the applicable liability period.  The second amended complaint
also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named
Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII,
and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification
of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed.

On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to
conditionally certify a collective action.  On April 3, 2017, the
parties agreed to settle this matter.

On February 1, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and set a fairness hearing for May 4, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit over Anti-Steering Rules Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules
Antitrust Litigation (II) remain stayed pending resolution of an
appeal in Ohio v. American Express Co., according to American
Express Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018 for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Individual merchant cases and a putative class
action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively
captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York
against us alleging that our anti-steering provisions in merchant
card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws.  The
individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and
injunctive relief.

"Further proceedings are anticipated."

American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in
Three World Financial Center in New York City. The company is a
bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company and known for
its credit card, charge card, and traveler's cheque businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Marcus Corp. Antitrust Class Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v.
American Express Co., et al., is still stayed pending resolution
of an appeal in Ohio v. American Express Co., according to
American Express Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in
another putative class action filed in the Southern District of
New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of
New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express
Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust
tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit
cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The
plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

"Further proceedings are anticipated."

American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in
Three World Financial Center in New York City. The company is a
bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company and known for
its credit card, charge card, and traveler's cheque businesses.


AMERICAN INT'L: Supreme Court Won't Hear Starr Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2018, denied the petition for
certiorari in the case, Starr International Company Inc. v.
United States, Docket No. 17-540 (U.S.).

The issue raised by Starr: "Whether a private party with Article
III standing may be barred from asserting constitutional claims
for money damages against the federal government because of the
equitable doctrine of 'third-party prudential standing.'"

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
intact.

American International Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Starr International
Company, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court on October 6, 2017.

The Company said, "On November 21, 2011, Starr International
Company, Inc.  (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States
in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of
Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf
of the classes defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG
(the SICO Treasury Action).  The complaint challenges the
government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered
into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility)
and the United States received an approximately 80 percent
ownership in AIG.  The complaint alleges that the interest rate
imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent
of AIG's equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and
inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government
to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal
Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.

"In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a
party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of
AIG.  On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on
our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow
SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf.  On January 9, 2013, our
Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on
January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel
for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and
refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination.

"On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused.  On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of
SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss
SICO's direct, non-derivative claims.

"On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2)
persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June
30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30,
2009 annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split
Shareholder Class).  SICO has provided notice of class
certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant
to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in
consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either
class.  286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class
periods have opted into the classes.

"On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion
and order in the SICO Treasury Action.  The Court found that the
United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the
FRBNY Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no
damages as a result.  SICO argued during trial that the two
classes are entitled to a total of approximately US$40 billion in
damages, plus interest.  The Court also found that the United
States was not liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in
connection with the reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009
annual meeting of shareholders.

"On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment
stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall
prevail on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction,
but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split
Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages."
SICO filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of
SICO's unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013
dismissal of SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015
opinion and order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The
United States filed a notice of cross appeal of the Court's July
2, 2012 opinion and order denying in part its motion to dismiss,
the Court's June 26, 2013 opinion and order denying its motion to
dismiss SICO's direct claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion
and order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

"On May 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
(i) vacated the Court of Federal Claims judgment on the Credit
Agreement Shareholder Class and remanded with instructions for
dismissal of that class, and (ii) affirmed the finding of no
liability with respect to the Reverse Stock Split Class.

"On October 6, 2017, SICO filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court.

"In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged,
as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to
indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the
FRBNY's principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action.

"AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise
only if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives
an award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an
action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United
States is successful in such an action through any appellate
process.  If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States
seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses
thereto.

"A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's June 17, 2015
decision and judgment and a final determination that the United
States is liable for damages, together with a final determination
that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such
damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business,
consolidated financial condition and results of operations."

Counsel for Petitioner:

     Paul D. Clement, Esq.
     George W. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
     Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     655 Fifteenth Street NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 879-5000

          - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
       Counsel of Record
      BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8200
      E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

           - and -

     Michael J. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
     Aaron E. Nathan, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     1401 New York Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 237-2727

          - and -

     Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     575 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 446-2300

          - and -

     Clifford M. Sloan, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     1440 New York Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 371-7000

          - and -

     John L. Gardiner, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     4 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (212) 735-3000

The United States government is represented by:

     NOEL J. FRANCISCO
     Solicitor General
     Counsel of Record

     CHAD A. READLER
     Acting Assistant Attorney General

     MARK B. STERN
     KAREN SCHOEN
     Attorneys
     Department of Justice
     Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
     SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
     Telephone: (202) 514-2217

American International Group, Inc. provides insurance products
for commercial, institutional, and individual customers primarily
in the United States, Europe, and Japan.  American International
Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.

                           *     *     *

Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's
Starr International Co., refusing to revive its bid to sue the
federal government over the $85 billion bailout of American
International Group Inc. a decade ago.

The justices, without comment, left intact a federal appeals
court ruling that said Starr, one of AIG's largest shareholders,
doesn't have the legal right to sue the government.

The 2008 bailout saved what was then the country's biggest
insurer from imminent collapse in the midst of a national housing
crisis.

The lawsuit sought compensation for what Greenberg's lawyers said
were onerous bailout terms that gave the government 80 percent of
AIG's equity. The government later sold its stock for almost $18
billion.

"If the decision below is allowed to stand, one of the largest
government seizures of private property in history will
effectively escape judicial review," the appeal said.

Starr's lawyer, David Boies, said he was disappointed the court
wouldn't hear the case, faulting the government for
"disproportionate and unfair treatment of AIG's shareholders."

The appeals court said Starr was trying to press claims that
"belong exclusively to AIG," which declined to participate in the
case.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the
appeal without a hearing.

"The court of appeals correctly held that the asserted claims
challenging the terms of the government's rescue of AIG belong to
AIG as a whole, not to shareholders individually," U.S. Solicitor
General Noel Francisco argued.

The government said it stepped in only after private banks
determined it was too risky to lend money to AIG, whose credit
had been downgraded by the three major rating agencies. The terms
included a 12% interest rate.


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Fregoso Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HESSE FREGOSO JR;, as an individual and behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC697973 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2018),
seeks to recover all overtime wages and minimum wage under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a "Driver" at the Indio,
California location beginning in approximately January 16, 2017
until approximately October 17, 2017. While working for
Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of eight hours
per workday, in excess of 12 hours per workday and/or more than
40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation
equal to one and one-half times and/or equal to two times his
regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically,
Plaintiff received "On-Call" pay, "Safety Bonus," and/or other
forms of pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating
an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of
Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to include all
forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiffs regular rate
of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all of his
required overtime wages.

Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one and a half times (or two
times in the case of double-time hours) his base hourly rate,
which was not equal to his regular rate, as Defendants failed to
include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned during
corresponding time periods that were required to be included in
the regular rate. In addition to miscalculating Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay, which resulted in the underpayment of
Plaintiffs overtime wages, Defendants regularly, systematically,
and impermissibly failed to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt
employees for all hours worked for all hours worked, including,
but not limited to, all hours worked when he was "On-Call".
Further, Defendant's maintained uniform practices of instructing
Plaintiff and other non-exempt drivers to only record the hours
for which they were scheduled to work, not actual hours worked.
For example, Plaintiff was scheduled to work 6:30 a.m. to 6:30
p.m., and would often work until 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., but
Defendants specifically instructed him to record that he stopped
working at 6:30 p.m. As a result of Defendants' policy and/or
practice that fail to compensate for all hours worked, Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees were deprived of all required
minimum wages and overtime wages earned.

Amerigas Propane markets retail propane to residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and motor fuel propane
customers in the United States. It offers propane for various
uses, including home heating, space heating, water heating, pool
and spa heating, drying, cooking, grilling, and motor fuel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LID MAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmemlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com


AMMADIS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Arvizu Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMMADIS, INC., a California
corporation dba Gaucho Grill; ADRIAN E. AMOSA, an individual;
LUCIANA MIORIN AMOSA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698605 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid
overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from November 1, 2016 through April 6, 2017. The Plaintiff and
the Class were paid on an hourly basis.

The Complaint alleges these labor violations:

     -- When Class Members clock out for the end of their shift,
        and then when more customers arrive, Defendants require
        that Class Members stay and continue working off the
        clock;

     -- When an employee on the next shift is late or calls-in
        sick, Defendants require Class Members to continue
        working off the clock;

     -- Defendants direct Class Members to work while they are
        punched for their meal periods;

     -- When an employee is about to work more than eight hours
        in a day, or 40 hours in the week, Defendants instruct
        Class Members to punch out, and then punch back in and
        continue working under another employee's timecard/name.
        Defendants then pay the employee who did not work, and
        direct him/her to pay the Class Member from the wages
        that Defendants paid him/her;

     -- Defendants did not provide the Class with lawful meal
        periods. Defendants only allowed Class Members to take a
        meal period if they worked more than six hours per day.
        Class Members did not waive their meal periods;

     -- Defendants maintained control over the Class Members
        during their meal periods; meal periods were taken
        on-site. If Class Members were not actively involved in
        eating, Defendants would interrupt them and ask them to
        work.  Meal periods were unlawful since they were less
        than 30 minutes. The Defendants do not have a policy or
        practice of paying the Class a premium for missed meal;

     -- Defendants do not have a policy or practice of providing
        the Class lawful, ten-minute rest periods.  They do not
        have a policy or practice of paying the Class a premium
        for missed rest periods;

     -- Defendants have a policy of not paying Class Members all
        wages earned upon the termination of employment.  They do
        not provide final paychecks to Class Members unless they
        sign a general release of claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Boyajian, Esq.
          Amaras Zargarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 744 8441
          Facsimile: (866) 396 2777


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining Farmers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that with regards to lawsuits
related to Syngenta Corporation, the Company remains a defendant
only in certain state court actions by farmers and other parties
pending in Illinois state court, which the Company has moved to
dismiss as well.

The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various
U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta
Corporation's (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of
genetically modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure
Duracade, in the U.S.

First, the Company brought a state court action in Louisiana
against Syngenta in 2014, alleging Syngenta was negligent in
commercializing its products before the products were approved in
China.  In December 2017, the Company and Syngenta reached a
confidential settlement of this action.

Second, the Company is a party in a number of purported class
actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and other parties
against Syngenta in federal and state courts, again alleging that
Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products.  The
federal actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in federal court in
Kansas City, Kansas, and some state actions were consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in MDL in Minnesota state court.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims
against the Company and other grain companies in these MDLs
seeking contribution in the event Syngenta is held liable in
these lawsuits.  In September 2017, Syngenta filed similar third-
party claims against the Company in Iowa state court.  In
September 2017, Syngenta and the farmer plaintiffs reached a
tentative settlement, subject to court approval, of all claims by
those plaintiffs, and as noted above, in December 2017, the
Company and Syngenta reached a confidential settlement of all
claims.

Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as
defendants in numerous individual and purported class action
suits filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal
courts beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging the
Company and other grain companies were negligent in failing to
screen for genetically modified corn.

On September 6, 2016, the court in the Minnesota state MDL
dismissed all claims against the Company, and on January 4, 2017,
a federal court in the Southern District of Illinois similarly
dismissed all of the pending complaints against the Company in
Southern Illinois.  Some parties are expected to appeal some or
all of these dismissals.

Currently, the Company remains a defendant only in certain state
court actions by farmers and other parties pending in Illinois
state court, which the Company has moved to dismiss as well.

The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it
has been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is
vigorously defending itself in these cases.  All of these actions
are in pretrial proceedings.  At this time, the Company is unable
to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable
degree of certainty, but believes the outcome will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products,
and ingredients.  The Company was founded in 1898 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


ARGOS USA: "Soileau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SOILEAU, JR., Individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARGOS USA, LLC
d/b/a ARGOS CEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00848
(S.D. Tex., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, back pay, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and taxable
costs of court under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's hours of operation
exceeded 40 hours a week. Since Plant Supervisors were involved
in opening and closing the plant, Defendant required that they
work over 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff would often arrive at
work before sunrise. The Plaintiff and the other Plant
Supervisors main job function consist of mixing cement. The
Plaintiff and the Class Members performed the same jobs and did
not engage in any contract negotiations.

The Plaintiff would receive orders for a batch of concrete. The
Plaintiff would enter the ticket order information into the
computer system: project information, ticket information,
customer number, delivery address, instructions from the sales
department, and the designated mix designed. The computer system
would access the company's database and provide the exact mixture
for the type and amount of concrete ordered by the customer. The
Plaintiff would then press start and the machine would assemble
the concrete mixture and insert them into the cement truck for
mixture and delivery. The Plaintiff would monitor the mixing
process to make sure that the process is completed.

Argos USA operates as a cement and ready-mixed concrete company
in the United States. The company manufactures, packs, and
distributes Portland, blended, specialty, masonry, and mortar
bagged cement products; and sustainable products, value-
added/specialty products, associated/extra concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 South Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
                  service@tranlawllp.com


AVEO PHARMA: Inks Settlement Accord for Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has entered into a definitive
stipulation of settlement on January 29, 2018 related to a
securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 26, 2017, the Company entered into a binding
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with class
representatives Robert Levine and William Windham (the
"Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of a securities class
action lawsuit (the "Class Action"), purportedly brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock,
US$0.001 par value per share (the "Common Stock"), between May
16, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the "Class"), filed in 2013 and pending
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Court") against the Company and certain of
its former officers (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David Johnston, and William
Slichenmyer, together, the "Individual Defendants" and,
collectively with the Company and the Plaintiffs, the "Parties"),
In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al.,
No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2018, in accordance with the
MOU, the Parties entered into a definitive stipulation of
settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement") that reflects terms
consistent with those set forth in the MOU.  Pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement, we are required to (i) use our best
efforts to cause certain of our and the Individual Defendants'
insurance carriers to, within fifteen business days following
preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the
Court provided certain conditions are met, provide the Class with
a cash payment of US$15,000,000 (the "Settlement Cash"),
including the cash amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation
expenses that the Court may award Plaintiffs' counsel and costs
Plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of the
proposed settlement and (ii) issue and deliver to the Class
warrants for the purchase of 2,000,000 shares of our Common Stock
(the "Settlement Warrants" and, collectively with the Settlement
Cash, the "Settlement Payment"), within ten business days after
the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court provided certain
conditions are met (the "Proposed Issuance Date").  The
Settlement Warrants are required to be exercisable from the date
of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date
of issue at an exercise price of US$3.00, which was the closing
price for our Common Stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market on
December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the
MOU.  In consideration of the Settlement Payment, the plaintiffs
have agreed, on the Effective Date, to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice and to release all claims against the Company and
the Individual Defendants by the Class.

"The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to the satisfaction of
conditions including the filing of the Stipulation of Settlement
with the Court, the provision of notice to the Class, and the
final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the Court.
The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the settlement will
be effective on the first date on which all of the following
conditions have been met (the "Effective Date"): (i) the Court
has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
directing notice of the settlement to the Class; (ii) we and
certain of our and the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers
have timely delivered the Settlement Payment; (iii) the Court has
approved the Stipulation of Settlement and has entered a final
order and judgment approving the settlement, and such judgment is
no longer subject to further appeal or other review (the "Final
Judgment"); and (iv) our right to terminate the Stipulation of
Settlement has expired.

"We have agreed to use our best efforts to issue and deliver the
warrants by the Proposed Issuance Date.  We plan to issue the
warrants pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement under the
exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provided by
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act.

"The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of
wrongdoing.  AVEO and the Individual Defendants have always
maintained and continue to believe that they did not engage in
any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of federal or
state securities laws or other laws.  However, given the
potential cost and burden of continued litigation, we believe the
settlement is in our best interests and the best interests of our
stockholders."

                           *     *     *

Aveo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017, that two class action lawsuits have been filed against the
company and certain of its former officers and directors, (Tuan
Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald
DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on
May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on
May 31, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended
complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint
purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1,
2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without
prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a
second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which
no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant.

The company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of
briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in company's favor
and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on
November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the
district court's judgment, which the company has opposed. On
January 3, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the dismissal and judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017.

On February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock
between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to
those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the company
and certain of its former officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial
design and results for our TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to
lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval
from the FDA.

On March 2, 2017, the company filed an answer to the third
amended complaint, and the parties initiated discovery. On June
29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and on July 27, 2017, the company filed its response. On July 18,
2017, the Court entered an order referring the case to
alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated on September
12 and 13, 2017.

On October 5, 2017, the parties jointly moved for a 45 day stay
in discovery as they continue to explore the possibility of
settlement. The Court granted the stay on October 11, 2017. The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
targeted therapies for cancer and related diseases.  The Company
was formerly known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed
its name to AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005.  AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 2001 and is based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


"B" ING THE BEST: Maldonado Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. "B" ING THE BEST, INC., a Florida corporation,
WADES WINNERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and CARLTON A.R.
WADE, a/k/a Ricky Wade, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-80358-RLR (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks monetary
damages to redress the deprivation of rights secured to
Plaintiff, under the maximum hour provision of Section 7 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, prior to his hire by Defendants,
Plaintiff lived in Las Vegas, Nevada.  In or about July or August
of 2017, Defendant Wade, acting as an agent for the corporate
Defendants, offered Plaintiff with the position as maintenance
and repairman for the Defendants' restaurants in Palm Beach and
Martin County. Plaintiff advised that he would only accept the
job if the Defendants agreed to not only pay for his moving
expenses, but also compensate Plaintiff at a rate equal to or
greater than the rate of pay he was receiving in Nevada, which at
the time was approximately $880 per week.

The Defendants agreed to these terms and hired Plaintiff to work
at their Florida locations to begin on or about August 21, 2017.
However, despite Defendants' representations, when Plaintiff
arrived in Florida after having relocated from Nevada, the
Defendants changed the terms of the deal and now required
Plaintiff, as a condition of employment, to execute an agreement
that he needed to remain with the company for two years or he
would have to repay the $2,185.00 in moving expenses that the
Defendants paid in relocating the Plaintiff to Florida. As
Plaintiff was not caught between the quintessential rock and a
hard place, he signed the agreement again with the understanding
that he would be receiving a weekly compensation commensurate
with the $880.00 he was earning in Nevada. Instead, Plaintiff was
paid $807.69 per week based on a 45-hour week and as part of his
job, he was now required to use his own vehicle to make the runs
between the Defendants' restaurants when Defendants had
originally represented to him that he would be provided a company
vehicle. So not only was Plaintiff paid less than what he was
promised, he also incurred wear and tear on his vehicle and had
to pay for additional gasoline expenses for the benefit of the
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
          9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
          Telephone: (954) 862 2217
          Facsimile: (954) 862 2287


BEAUTY BASICS: Fails to Pay Aveda Institute Students for Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELINA GOODE TUCKER, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEAUTY BASICS
INC., a Louisiana Corporation; NEILL CORPORATION, a Louisiana
Corporation; and THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00642 (D.C., March
20, 2018), Plaintiff seeks to represent former and current
students at the Aveda Institutes. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants systemically and uniformly utilize and exploit the
labor of Plaintiff and members of the classes to perform services
for and sell retail products to members of the general public,
rather than providing the training and education hours necessary
to pass State Board licensing tests. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants failed to provide the educational benefits
advertised, represented, warrantied and contracted.  The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District
of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, and the District of Columbia Wage
Payment Law.

Defendant Beauty Basics Inc., a Louisiana Corporation is a school
management company that owns and operates eight cosmetology
schools in the Southern United States under the name "Aveda
Institute" and/or "Aveda Institute South".  The schools operate
in partnership with Defendants Neill Corporation and The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc. The institutes serve as a significant
retail platform for Neill and Aveda.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
          PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 810
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 1999
          Facsimile: (202) 223 6824
          E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com

               - and -

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Rd., Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Schirripa Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARIE SCHIRRIPA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC.
and THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02345 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), alleges that the Kibbles 'n
Bits dog food contains pentobarbital, a barbiturate drug used as
a sedative and anesthetic for animals. Pentobarbital is now most
commonly used to euthanizing dogs and cats. Pentobarbital is a
Class II controlled substance and there is no safe or set level
for pentobarbital in pet food. If it is present, the food is
adulterated.  The ingestion of pentobarbital by a pet can lead to
numerous adverse health issues.

Pentobarbital residue from euthanized animals will continue to be
present in pet food, even if it is rendered or canned at high
temperature or pressure. Pentobarbital is routinely used to
euthanize animals, and the most likely way it could get into dog
food would be in rendered animal products. Rendered products come
from a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients,
including tissues from animals that have been euthanized,
decomposed or were diseased. Pentobarbital from euthanized
animals survives the rendering process and could be present in
the rendered feed ingredients used in pet food. The FDA's testing
of dry dog food confirmed some samples contained pentobarbital.
The FDA concluded that pentobarbital was entering pet foods from
euthanized, rendered cattle or horses because of the lack of dog
and cat DNA.

Defendants knew the real risk that pentobarbital may appear in
the Contaminated Dog Food if the manufacturing and sourcing were
not properly monitored. Indeed, this is not the first time that
the Kibbles 'n Bits line of food has been determined to include
pentobarbital: "Back in 2001 analyses by the FDA found residue of
the sedative in popular brands like Nutro, Gravy Train and
Kibbles 'n Bits." Consumers have increasingly become more aware
and cautious about the products they purchase.

Additionally, Defendants knew that a consumer would be feeding
the Contaminated Dog Food multiple times each day to his or her
dog. This leads to repeated exposure of the barbiturate to the
dog. Defendants wrongfully advertised and sold the Contaminated
Dog Food without any label or warning indicating to consumers
that these products contained any level of Pentobarbital or that
Defendants utilized animals that have been euthanized as a
protein or meat by-product source. Instead, the advertising and
labels intentionally omit any reference to the food being
Adulterated. Defendants' claim that the Contaminated Dog Food is
"100 percent complete and balanced nutrition" without any mention
that the Contaminated Dog Food is in fact adulterated with
Pentobarbital.

Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of
branded pet products for the U.S. retail market. They are based
in San Francisco, CA. Big Heart Pet Brands was previously the pet
food division of Del Monte Foods prior to their 2014 sale to Del
Monte Pacific Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843 7603
          E-mail: pmaslo@napolilaw.com
                  sbadala@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Anne Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS & THORNTON
          4701 Von Karman Ave, Suite 300
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 748 1000
          Facsimile: (949) 315 3540
          E-mail: aa@andrewsthornton.com


BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Wiliamson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WILIAMSON, MARK JOHNSON, and NORMAN TODD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01663 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2018),
alleges that the Kibbles 'n Bits dog food contains pentobarbital,
a barbiturate drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals.
Pentobarbital is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and
cats. Pentobarbital is a Class II controlled substance and there
is no safe or set level for pentobarbital in pet food. If it is
present, the food is adulterated.3 The ingestion of pentobarbital
by a pet can lead to numerous adverse health issues.

Pentobarbital residue from euthanized animals will continue to be
present in pet food, even if it is rendered or canned at high
temperature or pressure. Pentobarbital is routinely used to
euthanize animals, and the most likely way it could get into dog
food would be in rendered animal products. Rendered products come
from a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients,
including tissues from animals that have been euthanized,
decomposed or were diseased. Pentobarbital from euthanized
animals survives the rendering process and could be present in
the rendered feed ingredients used in pet food. The FDA's testing
of dry dog food confirmed some samples contained pentobarbital.
The FDA concluded that pentobarbital was entering pet foods from
euthanized, rendered cattle or horses because of the lack of dog
and cat DNA.

Defendants knew the real risk that pentobarbital may appear in
the Contaminated Dog Food if the manufacturing and sourcing were
not properly monitored. Indeed, this is not the first time that
the Kibbles 'n Bits line of food has been determined to include
pentobarbital: "Back in 2001 analyses by the FDA found residue of
the sedative in popular brands like Nutro, Gravy Train and
Kibbles 'n Bits." Consumers have increasingly become more aware
and cautious about the products they purchase.

Additionally, Defendants knew that a consumer would be feeding
the Contaminated Dog Food multiple times each day to his or her
dog. This leads to repeated exposure of the barbiturate to the
dog. Defendants wrongfully advertised and sold the Contaminated
Dog Food without any label or warning indicating to consumers
that these products contained any level of Pentobarbital or that
Defendants utilized animals that have been euthanized as a
protein or meat by-product source. Instead, the advertising and
labels intentionally omit any reference to the food being
Adulterated. Defendants' claim that the Contaminated Dog Food is
"100 percent complete and balanced nutrition" without any mention
that the Contaminated Dog Food is in fact adulterated with
Pentobarbital.

Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of
branded pet products for the U.S. retail market. They are based
in San Francisco, CA. Big Heart Pet Brands was previously the pet
food division of Del Monte Foods prior to their 2014 sale to Del
Monte Pacific Limited.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
          scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


BILL ME LATER: Lewis Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BILL ME LATER, INC. DBA PAYPAL
CREDIT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00578 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, on March 15, 2017, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in -8820, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to
place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.

The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (866) 528-3733 confirmed to be Defendant's
number. Defendant's call constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
The Defendant's call was placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).
During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in -8820 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on
or about July 26, 2003.

Defendant placed a call soliciting its business to Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone ending in -8820 on or around March 15,
2017. Such a call constitutes solicitation calls pursuant to 47
C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or
sell Defendant's services. Defendant continued to call Plaintiff
in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the
National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.

Bill Me Later, Inc. provides PayPal Credit, a line of credit from
Comenity Capital Bank that allows users to buy now and pay
later.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  wheeler@toddflaw.com


BUCKHEAD PARKING: "Stewart" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Stewart, Individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Buckhead Parking Enforcement, LLC, McDonald's
Corporation, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, Suso 3
Newnan LP, and Slate Properties, LLC, Case No. 18SC-0099-B, was
removed from the Superior Court of Forsyth County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville)
on Mar. 16, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-00035-RWS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Richard W. Story.

McDonald's is an American fast food company, founded in 1940 as a
restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice McDonald, in San
Bernardino, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          Robert Neil Friedman, Esq.
          WERNER WETHERINGTON, P.C. - GA.
          2860 Piedmont Rd., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 564 4329
          E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com
                  Robert@wernerlaw.com

Attorneys for McDonald's Corporation:

          Lennon Haas, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP-ATL
          999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (678) 420 9558
          Facsimile: (678) 420 9301
          E-mail: haasl@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Todd David Wozniak, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP - ATL
          Terminus 200, Suite 2500
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553 7326
          Facsimile: (678) 553 7327
          E-mail: wozniakt@gtlaw.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Defending Against Suits over Snyder's-Lance Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 28, 2018, that the company is facing four class action
suits related to the acquisition of Snyder's-Lance, Inc.

Four securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the Actions)
related to the pending acquisition of Snyder's-Lance have been
filed by purported shareholders of Snyder's-Lance. The Actions,
captioned Shaev v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-
00039 (the Shaev Action), Sciabacucchi v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:18-cv-00049-RJC-DCK (the Sciabacucchi Action),
Kendall v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00051 (the
Kendall Action), and Daniel v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-00058 (the Daniel Action), were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
on January 25, 2018, January 29, 2018, January 30, 2018, and
January 31, 2018, respectively.

The Actions name as defendants Snyder's-Lance and the members of
the Snyder's-Lance board of directors, and allege that the
defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule
14A in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule
14a-9.

Additionally, the Sciabacucchi Action names Campbell Soup Company
as a defendant, and alleges that Campbell Soup Company violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Kendall Action seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
pending acquisition, and the Shaev, Sciabacucchi, and Daniel
Actions seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the pending acquisition or, in the event the
acquisition is consummated, request that the Court issue an order
rescinding the acquisition and/or awarding rescissory damages.

Additionally, the Shaev and Kendall Actions seek that the Court
direct defendants to account for alleged damages, and all the
Actions seek attorneys' and expert fees and expenses. The time
for the defendants to move or answer has not yet expired in any
of the Actions.

Campbell Soup said "We believe the Actions are without merit."

                           *     *     *

Campbell Soup on March 26, 2018, said it has completed its
acquisition of Snyder's-Lance for $50 per share in an all-cash
transaction.  The deal is valued at about $6.1 billion.

Campbell Soup Company is a manufacturer and marketer of high-
quality, branded food and beverage products. The company manages
its businesses in three divisions focused mainly on product
categories. The divisions, which represent its operating and
reportable segments, are as follows: Americas Simple Meals and
Beverages; Global Biscuits and Snacks; and Campbell Fresh. The
company is based on Camden, New Jersey.


CAMBREX CORP: Appeal from $67,260 Damages Award Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the damages award of US$67,260 against Cambrex
Corporation, among other defendants, in a case related to
Lorazepam and Clorazepate is currently pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Suits were also
commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four
health care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court
entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and
Cambrex.  The judgment was appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "D.C. Circuit")
in 2011, resulting in a remand to the District Court.

On remand, the District Court dismissed certain self-funded
customer plaintiffs due to their failure to satisfy the
requirements of federal jurisdiction.  Subsequently, the District
Court entered an order remitting certain damages.  Without fees,
costs, or post-judgment interest, the current judgment against
Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex is US$67,260.  Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex
have once again appealed to the D.C. Circuit and the appeal is
currently pending.

In 2003, Cambrex paid US$12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter.  In the event of a final settlement or final
judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to
be made by Mylan under the indemnity.

Cambrex Corporation, a life sciences company, provides various
products and services for the development and commercialization
of new and generic therapeutics worldwide.  It was founded in
1981 and is headquartered in East Rutherford, New Jersey.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Quebec Derailment Case Trial Set for Sept. 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial to determine liability issues in the consolidated train
derailment case in the Quebec Superior Court will commence in
mid-September 2019, according to Canadian Pacific Railway
Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 16, 2018, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.  The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group.  The previous day, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP)
had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the
interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.

In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in
Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States.
Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the
U.S. (the "Plans").  These Plans provide for the distribution of
a fund of approximately US$440 million amongst those claiming
derailment damages.

A number of legal proceedings were commenced after the derailment
in Canada against CP and others, including a class action in the
Quebec Superior Court on behalf of persons and entities residing
in, owning or leasing property in, operating a business in or
physically present in Lac-Megantic at the time of the derailment
(the "Class Action").

The class action was certified against CP, MMAC and the train
conductor, Mr. Thomas Harding.  The Class Action seeks
unquantified damages, including for wrongful death, personal
injury, and property damage arising from the derailment.  All
known wrongful death claimants in the Class Action have opted out
and, by court order, cannot re-join the Class Action.

The Class Action has been consolidated with the legal actions
commenced by Quebec's Attorney General and by eight subrogated
insurers, and will proceed together through the litigation
process in the Quebec Superior Court.  While each Action will
remain a separate legal proceeding, there will be a trial to
determine liability issues commencing mid-September 2019, and
subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages issues.

The Company said, "At this stage of the proceedings, any
potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses
cannot be determined.  Nevertheless, CP denies liability and is
vigorously defending the above noted proceedings."

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada
and the United States.  The Company offers rail and intermodal
transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400
miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal,
Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States
Northeast and Midwest regions.  In addition, the Company offers
transload, leasing, and logistics services.  Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in
Calgary, Canada.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Ongoing on Nixed Maine Derailment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that plaintiffs in the class action
in Maine related to the train derailment incident in Quebec has
filed an appeal from the Court's decision to dismiss the case on
several grounds. No further updates were provided in the
Company's SEC report.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.  The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group.  The previous day, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP)
had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the
interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.

In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in
Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States.
Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the
U.S. (the "Plans").  These Plans provide for the distribution of
a fund of approximately US$440 million amongst those claiming
derailment damages.

A number of legal proceedings were commenced after the derailment
in the U.S. against CP and others, including a class action and
mass tort action on behalf of Lac-Megantic residents and wrongful
death representatives commencing in Texas and wrongful death and
personal injury actions commencing in Illinois and Maine against
CP.  These were all removed to and consolidated in Maine (the
"Maine Actions").

The Maine Actions allege that CP negligently misclassified and
mis-packaged the petroleum crude oil being shipped.  On CP's
motion, the Maine Actions were dismissed by the Court on several
grounds.  The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal decision.

The Company said, "At this stage of the proceedings, any
potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses
cannot be determined.  Nevertheless, CP denies liability and is
vigorously defending the above noted proceedings."

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada
and the United States.  The Company offers rail and intermodal
transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400
miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal,
Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States
Northeast and Midwest regions.  In addition, the Company offers
transload, leasing, and logistics services.  Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in
Calgary, Canada.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 10 Opioid Class Action Suits at Feb. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. continues to defend itself against 10
purported class actions relating to the distribution of
prescription opioid pain medications as of February 2, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017.

Cardinal Health said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 30, 2017, 98
counties and municipalities, one state attorney general and one
tribal entity have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical
wholesale distributors (including the company) relating to the
distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Many of the
lawsuits also include pharmaceutical manufacturers and retail
chains. The company is also a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of unions and other health and
welfare funds that paid for certain opioid prescriptions on
behalf of their members.

In the latest SEC disclosure, the Company said, "As of February
2, 2018, we are named as a defendant in 343 lawsuits in 36
jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits include 317
counties, municipalities and other entities; two state attorneys
general; and 23 union and other health and welfare funds and
hospital systems and other health care providers. Of these
lawsuits, ten are purported class actions. In December 2017, all
federal lawsuits (298 as of February 2, 2018) were ordered to be
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-
District Litigation proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. We are vigorously
defending ourselves in these lawsuits. Since these lawsuits are
in early stages, we are unable to predict their outcome or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses."

Cardinal Health, Inc. is an Ohio corporation formed in 1979 and
is a globally integrated healthcare services and products company
providing customized solutions for hospital systems, pharmacies,
ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories and physicians'
offices.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Has 112 Cordis IVC Filter Lawsuits at Feb. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. still defends itself against 112 product
liability lawsuits in California as of February 2, 2018, related
to the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava
(IVC) filter products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "As of February 2, 2018, we are named as a
defendant in 112 product liability lawsuits filed in Alameda
County Superior Court in California involving claims by
approximately 1,362 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries
associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior
vena cava (IVC) filter products.  Another 17 lawsuits involving
similar claims by approximately 28 plaintiffs are pending in
other jurisdictions.  These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies,
including unspecified monetary damages.  We are vigorously
defending ourselves in these lawsuits."

"At December 31, 2017, we had a total of US$184 million, net of
expected insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal
defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits.  While
we have recorded accruals based on our assessment of these
matters, because these lawsuits are in early stages, we are
unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in
excess of this accrued amount."

Cardinal Health said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 30, 2017, it
was named as a defendant in 90 product liability lawsuits filed
in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims
by approximately 1,030 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries
associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior
vena cava (IVC) filter products. Another 15 similar lawsuits
involving claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs are pending in
other jurisdictions.

At September 30, 2017, the Company had a total of $129 million,
net of expected insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and
legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits.

Cardinal Health, Inc. is an Ohio corporation formed in 1979 and
is a globally integrated healthcare services and products company
providing customized solutions for hospital systems, pharmacies,
ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories and physicians'
offices.


CASSANO'S INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Lee" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachery Lee, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Cassano's Inc. and Christopher Cassano, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 20, 2018),
seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate approximately 34 pizza restaurants in the
Dayton, Ohio area. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a pizza
delivery driver at their North Main Street location, and also
covered shifts at Defendants' Clayton location.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Ohio Constitution, and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. The Defendants
maintain a policy and practice of underpaying their delivery
drivers in violation of the FLSA, Section 34a. All delivery
drivers at the Cassano's stores, including Plaintiff, have been
subject to the same employment policies and practices, including
policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement
for out-of-pocket expenses.

All delivery drivers at the Cassano's stores, including
Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated
current and former delivery drivers who elect to opt in pursuant
to FLSA, to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour
provisions by Defendants. The Plaintiff also brings this action
on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former
delivery drivers in Ohio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, to remedy violations of Section 34a, the Prompt Pay
Act, and O.R.C. section 2307.60.

Cassano's Inc. is doing business as Cassano's Pizza and Subs.
Cassano's Inc. owns and operates restaurants which provide
pizzas, famous subs, Cassini sandwiches, fresh salads.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          www.msdlegal.com
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


CBOE EXCHANGE: Violates Commodity Exchange Act, Tomasulo Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY TOMASULO, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC., CBOE GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, and JOHN DOES, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02025 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2018),
seeks damages caused by Defendants' manipulation and Defendants'
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, including treble
damages and injunctive relief.

The Volatility Index, known under its ticker symbol "VIX," is a
benchmark index created by Defendant CBOE Exchange, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets, Inc.
Introduced in 1993, the VIX purports to measure the implied
volatility of large cap U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future.
Often dubbed the stock market's "fear index" or "fear gauge," the
VIX is calculated based on real-time prices of certain put and
call options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index and is designed
to reflect investors' consensus view of near-term future expected
stock market volatility. The VIX estimates expected volatility in
the S&P 500 by averaging the weighted prices of SPX Options over
a wide range of strike prices. Because prices of SPX Options are
correlated with volatility -- as investors' expectation of
volatility in the near future rises/falls, the price of SPX
Options correspondingly rises/falls to reflect the respective
increased/decreased risk of those options due to wider/narrower
expected fluctuations in the S&P 500 -- expected volatility is
calculated by the VIX in reference to SPX Options prices.

Although the VIX is a benchmark that cannot be traded, pursuant
to authority granted to it under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1 et seq., the Chicago Board Options Exchange
eventually created tradeable instruments linked to the VIX. On
March 26, 2004, CBOE launched VIX Futures to be traded
exclusively on the CBOE Futures Exchange ("CFE"), and on February
24, 2006 launched VIX Options to be traded exclusively on
CBOE.

During the timeframe of this Complaint, trading activity in VIX
Futures and Options ballooned. The average daily contract volume
for VIX futures rose from 1,731 contracts per day in 2006 to
300,568 contracts per day in 2017 (through August 24, 2017), a
17,263% increase. Meanwhile, the average daily volume of VIX
Options in 2006 was 23,491, and rose to 687,181 in 2017, a
23,491% increase. Since their inception in 2009, there has also
been a proliferation of trading in VIX-linked Exchange Traded
Products ("VIX ETPs") -- an umbrella category that includes
products such as exchange-traded funds and exchange -- traded
notes -- which are instruments that track VIX futures but are
traded on a public exchange.

There are presently at least 18 active VIX ETPs, which have a
combined current market cap of about $3.4 billion. The exercise-
settlement values of these VIX Futures and VIX Options are not
calculated directly from the benchmark VIX, but rather are
determined using a Special Opening Quotation ("SOQ") -- a special
VIX value designed by CBOE and calculated on the settlement date
of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading. On the VIX
Futures' and VIX Options' settlement date, auction clearing
prices of SPX Options are used to determine this SOQ.
Manipulation of this SOQ value would correspond to manipulation
in the values of VIX Futures and VIX Options, as well as the VIX
ETPs that track them.

This CBOE-designed SOQ is highly susceptible to manipulation for
a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact
that it occurs during a fixed, short window during non-trading
hours. Over the past year, evidence has become publicly available
that strongly suggests, if not establishes, manipulation of the
VIX SOQ to influence the pricing of VIX Options, VIX Futures, and
VIX ETPs. Indeed, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt has been quoted
as saying that "it's quite clear that [VIX] options can be
manipulated. And when there were complaints about possible
manipulation, CBOE, as the marketplace, should have sprung into
action." The VIX manipulation described herein is undertaken by a
select group of financial institutions and trading firms with
sophisticated, expensive technology and/or the exclusively CBOE-
authorized ability to make markets on SPX Options. These CBOE-
granted advantages allow the John Doe Defendants to deploy
capital to post offers and bids or enter into contracts on SPX
Options collusively during the limited time.

According to the complaint, Defendants' conspiratorial conduct
violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and has caused injury to
investors in VIX Instruments. Defendants' conduct also caused
actual damages to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. Davies, Esq.
          Chad E. Bell, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641 9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641 9751

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241 3525

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233 0508

               - and -

          Graeme W. Bush, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778 1801
          Facsimile: (202) 822 8106

               - and -

          Louis F. Burke
          LOUIS F. BURKE PC
          460 Park Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 682 1700


CEMEX S.A.B.: Schiro Sues over Unit's Alleged Bribery Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SCHIRO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V.,
FERNANDO A. GONZALEZ OLIVIERI and JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ FLORES,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02352 (S.D.N.Y., March 16,
2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Cemex between August 14, 2014
and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. is a global building materials company that
produces, distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, and related building materials. Cemex operates
throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and
Asia. Founded in 1906, the Company is headquartered in San Pedro
Garza, Mexico, and its American depositary receipt trades on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CX."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Cemex executives had engaged in an unlawful bribery
scheme in connection with the Company's business dealings in
Colombia; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would likely
subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and
potential criminal sanctions; (iii) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result,
Cemex's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On September 23, 2016, post-market, Cemex disclosed the Company's
dismissal of two senior executives after an internal probe found
that payments worth $20 million relating to a land deal in
Colombia had breached company protocols. On this news, Cemex's
American depositary receipt price fell $0.17, or 2.28%, to close
at $7.26 on September 26, 2016. On December 9, 2016, Cemex
disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the SEC seeking information
about irregular payments made at the Company's Colombia unit.
Then, on March 14, 2018, Cemex disclosed that the U.S. Department
of Justice is investigating the Company over payments made by the
Company related to a cement plant it is building in Colombia to
determine whether any violations of federal bribery laws
occurred. On this news, Cemex's ADR price fell $0.12, or 1.64%,
to close at $7.21 on March 14, 2018. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Less Than $1.0MM Paid for Medical Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that less than US$1 million has been disbursed
from the escrow account as of December 31, 2017, for medical
monitoring related to the Washington Works facility.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic
acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt (PFOA) in
drinking water.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and attorneys for
the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000
residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70
million, which class counsel designated to fund a community
health project.  DuPont funded a series of health studies which
were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of
experts (C8 Science Panel).  The studies were conducted in
communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific
evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer,
testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors
released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic
testing of eligible class members.  In September 2014, the
medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic
testing three years after initial testing, based on individual
results.  The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated
schedule for completion of its protocol.  DuPont is obligated to
fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for
eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost
associated with the program, including class counsel fees.  In
January 2012, DuPont put US$1 million in an escrow account to
fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.
The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing.  Diagnostic screening and testing is ongoing and
associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from
the escrow account.

As of December 31, 2017, less than US$1 million has been
disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.
While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to
the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably
estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of
participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well
users.  When the Chemours separated from DuPont on July 1, 2015,
this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is included in
the accrual amounts recorded as of December 31, 2017.

Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal
injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for
which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists.
Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-
district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court.

In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL
plaintiffs' counsel providing for a global settlement of all
cases and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled
personal injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs'
counsel's claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried
to a jury verdict (MDL Settlement).  The total settlement amount
is US$670.7 million in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half
paid by DuPont.  DuPont's payment was not subject to
indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours
accrued US$335 million associated with this matter at December
31, 2016.  In exchange for payment of the total settlement
amount, DuPont and Chemours received a complete release of all
claims by the settling plaintiffs.  The MDL Settlement was
entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is
not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or
Chemours.  As of September 30, 2017, Chemours had paid the full
US$335 million accrued under the MDL Settlement.

DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential
future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the
separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of
five years.  During that five-year period, Chemours will annually
pay future PFOA costs up to US$25 million and, if such amount is
exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next US$25
million (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by
Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess
costs under the terms of the separation agreement.  After the
five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and
Chemours' indemnification obligations under the separation
agreement will continue unchanged.  Chemours has also agreed that
it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont
under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of
ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification
provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses
relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys'
fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs.
Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to
whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the
indemnification provisions of the separation agreement.

There are a few plaintiffs who declined to participate in the MDL
Settlement.  The Company expects that these matters will be
dismissed.

The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal-injury claims
of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or
personal-injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after
February 11, 2017.  Since the resolution of the MDL, personal-
injury cases have been filed in West Virginia, Ohio, and New York
courts.  The New York matters, which are not part of the Leach
class, are brought by three individual plaintiffs alleging
negligence and other claims in the release of perfluorinated
compounds, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages against current and former
owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick
Falls, New York.

Chemours also said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that as of September 30, less
than $1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account
related to medical monitoring.

The Company said, "Management believes that the probability of
loss is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time due to
various reasons including, among others, that the proceedings are
in early stages and there are significant factual issues to be
resolved."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The
Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Suits v. DuPont over IN Superfund Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company is defending itself against lawsuits,
including a putative class action, related to a Superfund site in
Indiana, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending
against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) by area
residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-
party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.  Five of the
lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont
environmental liabilities.

The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages,
property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
often referred to as Superfund).

The Company began operating as an independent company on July 1,
2015 after separating from DuPont.  At Separation, DuPont
assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south
of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its
responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund
site.

DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it, and
Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation of rights.

The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably
possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons
including, among others, that such matters are in early stages
and have significant factual issues to be resolved."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The
Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: GenX Discharge Related Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company continues to face class
action suits related to the discharge of the polymerization
processing aid HFPO Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or
C3 Dimer) and perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from
the Company's facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the
Cape Fear River, groundwater and air.

A number of additional actions have been filed against the
Company and DuPont in North Carolina federal court relating to
discharges from the Fayetteville site, including an action
brought by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and one brought
by Brunswick County, both seeking damages and injunctive relief,
and multiple purported class actions seeking medical monitoring
and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief
on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and
residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape
Fear River. It is also possible that additional litigation may be
filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the
discharges.

Chemours said "The Company believes it has valid defenses to such
litigation including that the discharges did not impact the
safety of drinking water or cause any damages or injury."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The
Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Credit Unions' Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action suit filed by two credit unions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company
negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the
payment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and those
of other similarly situated credit unions, banks and other
financial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class,
causing those institutions to suffer financial losses.  The
complaint also claims the Company was negligent per se based on
alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act and similar state laws.  The plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as
the Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same
relief.  The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated
and will proceed as a single action.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a
smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Combined "Gordon" and "Lawson" Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is still defending itself against
the complaints of Greg Lawson and Judy Conard, and Todd Gordon,
related to the alleged failure to provide adequate security
protection for payment card owners, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging that the Company negligently failed to provide adequate
security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff
and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the
putative class, causing some customers to suffer alleged injuries
and others to be at risk of possible future injuries.  The
complaint also claims the Company was negligent per se based on
alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act and similar state laws, and also alleges breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act.

Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard
filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado making allegations
substantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, and
stating substantially similar claims as well as claims under the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The Gordon and Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and
will proceed as a single action.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a
smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: Inks Wage & Hour Class Settlement Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
Civitas Solutions, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017 that a class action
related to employment practices "was settled and approved by the
court on January 31, 2018."

The Company also said, "For our employment practices liability,
we are fully self insured.  We currently have three pending
complaints in California state court that allege certain wage and
hour violations of California labor laws and seek to be
designated as class-actions.  One additional wage and hour class
action has been settled and preliminarily approved by the court.
These actions have increased our expenses as we are self-insured
for employment-practices liability related claims.  For the three
months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we incurred employment
practices liability expenses of US$0.9 million and US$0.3
million, respectively."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Civitas Solutions, Inc. provides home- and community-based health
and human services to must-serve individuals with intellectual,
developmental, behavioral, and/or medically complex disabilities
and challenges in the United States.  It operates through
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD), Post-Acute
Specialty Rehabilitation Services (SRS), and At-Risk Youth (ARY)
segments.  It was formerly known as NMH Holdings, Inc. The
company was founded in 1980 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts. Civitas Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of Vestar
Capital Partners.


CLIENT SERVICES: O'Brien Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Marlena O'Brien, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01666 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the lawsuit, Defendant failed to clearly state the
name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The least
sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to the name of
the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The least sophisticated
consumer would likely be uncertain as to the name of the creditor
to whom the debt is owed. Because the Letter can reasonably be
read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two or more
meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it is
deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. Because
the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by
the least sophisticated consumer, as described, it is deceptive
within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. The least
sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the Letter.
The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a
material way by the Letter. Defendant violated section 1692e by
using a false, deceptive and misleading representation in its
attempt to collect a debt.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Tel: (516) 203 7600
          Fax: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


CONSOL ENERGY: Court Consolidates Casey and Fitzwater Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Casey Litigation
has been consolidated with the Fitzwater Litigation.

The Casey Litigation is a class action lawsuit was filed on
August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners
against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc.
(COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West
Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits. It was filed by the
same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, wherein three
nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC, CCC
and COK (as well as ParentCo) in West Virginia Federal Court
alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health
care benefits.

Raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they
relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health
benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during
Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with
copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company
the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare
Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any ParentCo subsidiary that operated or
employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West
Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose
retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous thermal and
crossover metallurgical coal.  The company owns and operates its
mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin.  Its
flagship operation is the Pennsylvania Mining Complex (PAMC),
which comprises three underground mines, including Bailey, Enlow
Fork, and Harvey.  CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864 and is
headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


COST PLUS: Rayford Sues over Improper Bag Tax
---------------------------------------------
SONY A RAYFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COST PLUS, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a WORLD MARKET, the Defendant, Case
No.2018CH03506 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 16, 2018), is a
class action brought on behalf of the class of persons, who were
improperly charged sales tax on the City of Chicago Checkout Bag
Tax on their purchases at World Market stores in Chicago,
Illinois. The Chicago Checkout Bag Tax Ordinance imposes a tax of
$0.07 per checkout bag sold or used in Chicago. Pursuant to the
Ordinance, sales tax is not to be imposed on the Bag Tax.
Defendant improperly charged Plaintiff sales tax on the Bag Tax,
resulting in an unlawful sales tax charge. On information and
belief, World Market stores in Chicago are automatically and
uniformly charging sales tax on the Bag Tax.

Defendant's acts and omissions alleged violate the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. [BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          www.attomeyzim.com
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com


CUBESMART: Receives Preliminary Court OK on Class Action Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal District Court of New Jersey has granted preliminary
approval of a settlement for a putative class action filed
against CubeSmart, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On July 13, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to
obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company
of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On December 15, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement for the class action.  The settlement and associated
expenses, which were previously reserved for, did not have a
material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position
or results of operations.

CubeSmart is an equity real estate investment trust.  The firm
invests in the real estate markets of the United States.  It
engages in ownership, operation, acquisition and development of
self-storage facilities.  The firm was formerly known as U-Store-
It Trust.  CubeSmart was founded in July 2004 and is based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.


DELTA AIRLINES: Pimental Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PIMENTAL A/K/A AASIR AZZARMI, and OMAR EL-GAZZAR,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC. and any other related
entities, the Defendant, Case No. 704015/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
March 16, 2018), is a class action over Defendant's alleged
unlawful scheme to improperly withheld from Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees, the wages and benefits to which
they have lawfully earned and are entitled.

The Plaintiffs and proposed Class members are non-Fleet Ready
Reserve employees who work or have worked for Defendants in the
state of New York. This action is brought on behalf of the Named
Plaintiffs and a class consisting of similarly situated employees
who worked for Defendants and did not receive their statutorily
mandated wages and were subjected to illegal deductions from
their wages. The Plaintiffs and potential class members are all
victims of the Defendants' common plan or policy to violate the
Labor Law by failing to provide the statutory minimum wage for
all hours worked, by failing to properly pay overtime wages to
any hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, by failing to pay
spread of hours compensation, and by imposing improper deductions
from the Named Plaintiff and class members' wages.

Delta Air is a major American airline, with its headquarters and
largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew I. Marks, Esq.
          RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (347) 464 8694
          Facsimile: (800) 483 4508


DOMIX WINE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ ORTEGA, the Plaintiff, v. DOMIX WINE &
SPIRITS, INC., d/b/a/ MOUNT CARMEL WINE & SPIRITS and RAYMOND
POLANCO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02366
(S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who
elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and
specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour
provisions of the FLSA that occurred at Mount Carmen Wine &
Spirits. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective also bring this
action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, for the Defendants'
failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of
said laws. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective class seek
injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful
actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and
costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff and the purported Class are current and former
clerks and cashiers at the Mount Carmen Wine & Spirits liquor
store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


EDS SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Silva Claims
---------------------------------------------
ROBERT SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and 15 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC697656 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12,
2018), alleges that, for at least four years prior to the filing
of this action and at least one year prior to the date the
Plaintiff began the process of exhausting the administrative
remedies pursuant to the Labor Code, and continuing to the
present, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing
to provide rest breaks to its employees or compensation in lieu
thereof, pay all final wages due at termination or within 72
hours after separation to all employees in California, and
failing to provide employees with accurately itemized wage
statements. The Defendants further failed to pay the premium rate
for all hours worked by its employees in excess of eight hours in
any workday and in excess of 40 hours worked in any workweek. The
Defendants have failed to pay all overtime wages due to exempt
and non-exempt employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: 818) 293 5623
          Facsimile (888) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Nidah@OLFLA.com


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Late 2018 Trial on 2nd "Brinckerhoff" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
A bid to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case,
Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc. Et Al., remains
pending, according to Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.'s Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.  The parties are currently
in discovery, with trial currently scheduled in the fourth
quarter of 2018.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff
(the Plaintiff), individually and as trustee of the Peter R.
Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative
Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against our General Partner, Enbridge, Enbridge Management,
Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., the OLP, us, and the
following individuals: Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts,
Dan A. Westbrook, J. Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory
Harper, D. Guy Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen,
(collectively, the Director Defendants).  The initial Complaint
asserted both class action claims on behalf of holders of our
Class A Common Units, as well as derivative claims brought on
behalf of us.  The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January 2,
2015 repurchase by us of our General Partner's 66.67% interest in
the pipeline that runs from the Canadian international border
near Neche, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin on our Lakehead
System (Alberta Clipper Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction.
First, the Plaintiff alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly
amended without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and
Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to
allocate to the Public Unitholders gross income that should have
been allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax
Allocation).  Second, the Plaintiff alleged that we paid an
unfair price for our General Partner's 66.67% interest in the
Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction breached
the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable to the
Partnership.  The initial Complaint asserted claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious
interference, aiding and abetting, and rescission and
reformation.

"On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge's and
the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case
in its entirety.  On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that
dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.  On March 20, 2017, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the
ruling of the Court of Chancery.  Specifically, the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax
Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question
of whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price we
paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax
Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership.
On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended
Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint).  The Second Amended
Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons &
Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant.  Simmons
acted as the financial advisor to our Special Committee in the
2015 Transaction.  The Second Amended Complaint also revised many
of the allegations against Enbridge and the Director Defendants.
All Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  The parties are currently in discovery, with trial
currently scheduled in the fourth quarter of 2018."

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. provides crude oil and liquid
petroleum gathering, transportation, and storage services assets
in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as Lakehead
Pipe Line Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Enbridge Energy
Partners, L.P. in 2001.  Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


ENSIGN GROUP: To Distribute $11-Mil. to Class Members in 1Q 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. will be distributing the US$11.0 million
settlement amount to the class members in the first quarter of
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Since 2011, we have been involved in a class
action litigation claim alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour laws.  In January 2017, we participated in an
initial mediation session with plaintiffs' counsel.

"In March 2017, we were invited to engage in further mediation
discussions to determine whether settlement in advance of a
decision on class certification was possible.  In April 2017, we
reached an agreement in principle to settle the subject class
action litigation, without any admission of liability and subject
to approval by the California Superior Court.  Based upon the
change in case status, we recorded an accrual for estimated
probable losses of US$11.0 million, exclusive of legal fees, in
the first quarter of 2017.  In December 2017, we settled this
class action lawsuit and the settlement was approved by the
Court.  We funded the settlement in December 2017 in the amount
of US$11.0 million, and it will be distributed to the class
members in Q1 of 2018."

The Ensign Group, Inc. provides health care services in the post-
acute care continuum and other ancillary businesses in the United
States.  It operates through three segments: Transitional and
Skilled Services; Assisted and Independent Living Services; and
Home Health and Hospice Services.  The Company was founded in
1999 and is based in Mission Viejo, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Price Sues over Cambridge Analytica's Data Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Price on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., and Cambridge
Analytica, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01732 (N.D. Cal.,
March 20, 2018), seeks to enjoining Defendants from engaging in
further alleged negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful
business practices relating to Plaintiff's personal information.

Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people
to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.
Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of
information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook
users have the ability to share and restrict information based on
their own specific criteria. By the end of 2017, Facebook had
more than 2.2 billion active users. The company's mission is "to
give people the power to build community and bring the world
closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with
friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and
to share and express what matters to them."

Cambridge Analytica is a privately held company that combines
data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for
use in the electoral process. As part of the sign up process and
while interacting with the network, Facebook users create
profiles containing significant amounts of personal information,
including their name, birthdate, hometown, address, location,
interests, relationships, email address, photos, and videos,
amongst others.

This case involves the absolute disregard with which Defendants
have chosen to treat Plaintiff's Personal Information. While this
information was supposed to be protected, and used for only
expressly disclosed and limited purposes, CA, without
authorization, or by exceeding whatever limited authorization it,
or its agents, had, improperly collected the Personal Information
of nearly 50 million Facebook users. Facebook, for its part, knew
this improper data aggregation was occurring and failed to stop
it, or actively avoided discovering such knowledge in order to
profess supposed ignorance. Plaintiff brings this suit to protect
her privacy interests and those of the class.

Defendants knew that the Personal Information of Plaintiff and
the Class was personal and sensitive information that is
valuable. By being entrusted by Plaintiff and the Class to
safeguard their Personal Information, Facebook had a special
relationship with Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff and the
Class signed up for Facebook's services and agreed to provide
their Personal Information with the understanding that Facebook
would take appropriate measures to protect it, and would inform
Plaintiff and the Class of any breaches or other security
concerns that might call for action by Plaintiff and the Class.
But, Facebook did not. Facebook failed to prevent CA's improper
obtaining of Plaintiff's and the Class' Personal Information.

CA had a duty to refrain from obtaining Plaintiff's and the
Class' Personal Information in without their consent or
authorization. Defendants breached their duties by failing to
adopt, implement, and maintain adequate security measures to
safeguard the Personal Information, or by obtaining that Personal
Information without authorization.

Facebook also breached their duty to timely disclose that
Plaintiff's and the other class members' Personal Information had
been, or was reasonably believed to have been, improperly
obtained. But for Defendants' wrongful and negligent breach of
their duties owed to Plaintiff and the Class, their Personal
Information would not have been improperly obtained. Defendants'
negligence was a direct and legal cause of the theft of the
Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class and all resulting
damages. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924 1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  jwatson@justice4you.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292 1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292 1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


FACEBOOK INC: Yuan Sues over Advertisers' Data Access
-----------------------------------------------------
FAN YUAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., MARK E. ZUCKERBERG
and DAVID M. WEHNER, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01725-EJD
(N.D. Cal., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Facebook between
February 3, 2017 and March 19, 2018, both dates inclusive.
Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people
to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.
Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of
information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook
users have the ability to share and restrict information based on
their own specific criteria. By the end of 2017, Facebook had
more than 2.2 billion active users.

Founded in 2004, the Company is headquartered in Menlo Park,
California. The Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "FB." Throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Facebook violated its own purported data privacy policies by
allowing third parties to access the personal data of millions of
Facebook users without the users' consent; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would foreseeably subject the Company to
heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result, Facebook's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 16, 2017, Reuters reported that France's Commission on
Informatics and Liberty had fined Facebook EUR150,000 -- the
maximum amount then allowed within the CNIL's authority -- for
"failing to prevent its users' data being accessed by
advertisers." The article stated that the fine was said to be
"part of a wider European investigation also being carried out in
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany into some of
Facebook's practices."

On this news, Facebook's share price fell $5.34, or 3.55%, over
two trading days, to close at $144.85 on May 17, 2017. On March
17, 2018, the New York Times published an investigative report
entitled "How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of
Millions," revealing that Cambridge Analytica, a firm brought on
by the Trump campaign to target voters online, used the data of
50 million people obtained from Facebook without proper
disclosures or permission.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FACTOR75 LLC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues over Automatic Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------
INEZ VASQUEZ-COSSIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. FACTOR75, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00397-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., March 12,
2018), seeks to recover damages, restitution, injunctive and/or
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
arise under the California Business and Professions Code, and
California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and a
class of others similarly situated consisting of all persons in
the United States who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in
this action, purchased subscriptions for any products (such as
ready-made meals) from Factor75, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, formerly Optimal Performance, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company.

The Defendant provided, among other things, weekly subscription
programs for ready-made meals, and related products.  According
to the Complaint, the Defendant's services plan constitutes an
automatic renewal and/or continuous service plan or arrangement
for the purposes of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17601. Since
December l, 2010, and continuing to the present, the Defendant
has committed unlawful and/or unfair business acts or practices
as defined by the UCL, by violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.

Factor75, LLC prepares and delivers organic meals to homes and
offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
against a number of non-ordinary course lawsuits, most of which
are putative class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.

These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other
assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one
of its agents overcharged or improperly charged fees for products
and services, conspired to fix prices, participated in the
conveyance of illusory property interests, improperly handled
property and casualty claims, and gave items of value to brokers
and others as inducements to refer business in violation of
certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations,
including:

   * Chavez v. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed
     on June 29, 2017 and pending in the Superior Court of the
     State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
     filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

   * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
     filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court
     of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
     filed on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States
     District court for the Middle District of Florida,

   * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
     al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior
     Court of the State of California, County of Orange,

   * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
     filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court
     of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   * Tenefufu vs. First American Specialty Insurance Company,
     filed on June 1, 2017, pending in the Superior Court of the
     State of California, County of Sacramento, and

   * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
     filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court
     of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Sjobring, are putative
class actions for which a class has not been certified.

First American Financial said, "The Company has not yet been able
to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss
or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make
an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to
the consolidated financial statements as a whole."

First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides financial services.  It operates through Title Insurance
and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments.  First American
Financial Corporation was incorporated in 2008 and is based in
Santa Ana, California.


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends "Agrawal" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, Ford Motor Credit Company v. Sudesh Agrawal, remains
ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio
subclass in a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.
Class claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges.
Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit
in determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is
different than the standard set forth in claimants' leases.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed
nationwide class certification and certification of an Ohio
subclass.  The Company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded
the case for further proceedings.

On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On September 28, 2015, the trial court re-certified a nationwide
class action with an Ohio subclass.  The Company appealed, and on
September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On April 24, 2017, the claimant filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Ohio.  On May 23, 2017, the Company filed a response.

On December 6, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied claimant's
petition for review and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides
various automotive financing products to and through automotive
dealers worldwide.  It offers retail financing products, such as
retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles, as
well as direct financing leases for new vehicles to retail and
commercial customers, including leasing companies, government
entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers.  The
Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.  Ford Motor Credit Company LLC is a subsidiary of Ford
Holdings LLC.


FREDERIC FEKKAI: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FREDERIC FEKKAI NEW YORK,
LLC AND FEKKAI RETAIL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02398 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to
cause Defendants to change their corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that their Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, under the
Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law,
and New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendants for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.fekkai.com ("the
Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
The Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendants deny full and equal access to their Website.

Frederic Fekkai provides hair and body care products. The Company
offers shampoos, conditioners, gifts, travel sets, styling
products, and tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          Christopher H. Lowe
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pitre" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company. The case is captioned as Eric Pitre, Richard Northcutt,
and Richie Ainsworth, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company,
General Motors Holdings, LLC, and General Motors LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-02484-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La., Mar 8, 2018).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Arlen Braud, II, Esq.
          Michelle O. Gallagher, Esq.
          Steven Dewayne Jackson, Jr., Esq.
          BRAUD & GALLAGHER, LLC
          111 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 201
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 778 0771
          Facsimile: (985) 778 0781
          E-mail: arlenb@braudandgallagher.com
                  michelleg@braudandgallagher.com
                  stevenj@braudandgallagher.com

               - and -

          Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
          HAYES HUNTER PC
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (281) 768 4731
          E-mail: chunter@hayeshunterlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis Reich, Esq.
          REICH & BINSTOCK
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 622 7271
          E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com

               - and -

          Ernest O Hopmann, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERNEST O. HOPMANN, III
          3700 N. Main Street
          Houston, TX 77009
          Telephone: (713) 869 9252
          Facsimile: (713) 869 8859
          E-mail: bhopmann@pdq.net

               - and -

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Howard" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aaron Howard and Jan Howard, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings
LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
05131, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 19, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10853-MFL to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon, District Judge
Matthew F. Leitman.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Minarik" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Minarik, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
General Motors LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01615, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 19, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10892-MOB-MKM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Marianne O. Battani.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Kathleen T. Sooy, Esq.
          CORWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624 2500
          Facsimile: (202) 628 5116
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com
                  ksooy@crowell.com


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Briefing Schedule Filed in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genocea Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in a class action
lawsuit have submitted a stipulation proposing a briefing
schedule for the consolidated securities action in Massachusetts.

The proposed deadlines are: filing of an amended complaint by the
lead plaintiffs and counsel due March 29, 2018; filing of an
answer or motion to dismiss by defendants on May 14, 2018; filing
of any opposition by plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June
28, 2018; and filing of any reply by defendants in support of a
motion to dismiss on July 30, 2018.

On October 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"District of Massachusetts" or the "Court"), naming the Company,
Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and Chief Financial
Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
in connection with disclosures made in and subsequent to the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on May 5, 2017, and the
Company's announcement of a strategic shift to immuno-oncology on
September 25, 2017.  The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages and costs.

On November 3, 2017, another purported Company shareholder filed
a substantially identical complaint in the District of
Massachusetts.

On December 15, 2017, a purported Company shareholder filed a
third complaint in the District of Massachusetts, substantially
the same as the previous two, but alleging a class period
beginning on August 4, 2016 and ending on September 25, 2017.

The District of Massachusetts designated all three complaints as
related, and entered an order in each action recognizing that the
defendants are not obligated to respond to the initial complaint
filed in any of the three actions.  Per the procedures set forth
by federal securities laws, applications for appointment of lead
plaintiff(s) and lead counsel in the three actions were due to
the Court on January 2, 2018.  Three applications for lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were submitted to the Court on that
date; one of the three movants subsequently withdrew their
application.  The Court held a hearing on the two remaining
motions for lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel on January 31,
2018.

The Court consolidated the three actions into one case, under the
docket number Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, U.S. District
Court (Mass.), and took the motions for lead plaintiff(s) and
counsel under advisement.  Counsel for both lead plaintiff
movants told the Court that they intended to file an amended
complaint in the consolidated action, if appointed.

On February 12, 2018, the Court appointed the Genocea Investor
Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff,
and appointed Scott+Scott LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Block &
Leviton as lead counsel.

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers
and develops novel cancer vaccines.  The company uses its
proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to
design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell
immune responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an
investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the
treatment of genital herpes infections.  Genocea Biosciences,
Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


GOPRO INC: Accord in Calif. Securities Suit Awaits Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. disclosed its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the agreement in principle to settle a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in California is
subject to final documentation and the approval of the Court,
among other conditions.

On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current
and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of
the Company's IPO ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to
bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO and
alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The suit seeks unspecified damages and
other relief.

A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated
on June 7, 2016.

Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the
consolidated action.

On July 13, 2016, the court sustained the demurrer dismissing the
complaint with leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7, 2016.
Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October
28, 2016.  On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer
with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the
demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect
to the Section 12(a)(2) claim.

Defendants answered the amended complaint on January 3, 2017,
GoPro said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

On November 20, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action.  The settlement is subject to
final documentation and the approval of the Court, among other
conditions.

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. Underway
---------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. continues to defend itself in a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit originally filed in November 2016 with a
second amended complaint filed in August 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.  The
defendants have answered in September 2017.

The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and
CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former
President ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4,
2016.  The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.  On February 6, 2017, the
court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On March 14,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the
Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro Defendants") on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8,
2016.  On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 26, 2017, the court
denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its complaint
to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue.  On August
4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
Defendants answered on September 8, 2017."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. is facing new set of purported shareholder class
action lawsuits filed this year, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of
four purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018
Shareholder Class Actions") were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr.
Woodman, and Mr.  McGee ("Defendants").  Similar complaints were
filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24, 2018.  Each of the
complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018 for the first complaint and
between August 4, 2017 and January 5, 2018 for the remaining
three complaints.  Each of the complaints purports to allege that
Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Camia Investments Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a court has entered final judgment in
Camia Investments class action after the lead plaintiff did not
file an amended complaint and stipulated to enter final judgment
in favor of the GoPro Defendants.

Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants"). Similar
complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and
February 19, 2016.  Each of the complaints purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for
the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and
January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint.

Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs. On April 21, 2016, the
court consolidated the complaints and appointed lead plaintiff
and lead counsel for the first three actions (the "Camia
Investments Class Action"); the court allowed the fourth action
to proceed separately as to the period November 26, 2014 through
July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action") and appointed
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action.

The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file
an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms
Class Action on July 28, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the GoPro
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Camia Investment Class
Action. On May 1, 2017, the court granted that motion, dismissing
the complaint with leave to amend the complaint. On June 16,
2017, the lead plaintiff in the Camia Investment Class Action did
not file an amended complaint and stipulated to enter final
judgment in favor of the GoPro Defendants. On June 18, 2017, the
court entered final judgment in favor of the GoPro Defendants.

GoPro, Inc. is transforming the way people capture and share
their lives. What began as an idea to help athletes self-document
themselves engaged in sport, GoPro has become a mobile
storytelling solution that helps the world share itself through
immersive content. The company is based in San Mateo, California.


HOLOGIC INC: Accrues $9.2MM for Settlement of "ARcare" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hologic, Inc. has accrued US$9.2 million as of December 30, 2017
for a class settlement related to ARcare, Inc.'s legal action,
according to Hologic's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December
30, 2017.

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

On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied
liability.

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

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

As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a
charge of US$9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016,
which is still accrued on the Company's balance sheet as of
December 30, 2017.

Hologic previously said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2017, that a preliminary approval
hearing was held on November 6, 2017.  As a result of the
settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million,
in the period ended December 31, 2016, which was accrued on the
Company's balance sheet as of September 30, 2017.

Hologic, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies diagnostics
products, medical imaging systems, and surgical products for
women in the United States, Europe, the Asia-Pacific, and
internationally.  It operates through five segments: Diagnostics,
Breast Health, Medical Aesthetics, GYN Surgical, and Skeletal
Health.  The Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in
Marlborough, Massachusetts.


HOT POT RESTAURANT: "Xie" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yaowu Zhang, Hengpin Xie individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hot Pot
Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Hot Pot, Zhenjiang Cao, Haiying Zhou and
Karen "Doe" (last name unknown), the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00348-LEK-DEP (N.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
their employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek. The Defendants committed the following alleged
acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully. Defendants knew that
the nonpayment of overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and failure
to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would
financially injure Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
and violate state and federal laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip H. Kim, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: pkim@hanglaw.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Seeks to Drop "Fergus" and "Becker" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in a class action stockholder federal securities case
on January 26, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No.  2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9,
2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-
03374, filed June 10, 2016.  These cases arise from the same
alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between April
20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and
between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the
Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April
2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding
its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of
Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.  The
complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading
in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the
presentation because it contained previously reported
information.

The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock, and
that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was
entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter.

An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on
February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter.  A consolidated complaint
was filed on October 4, 2017.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26, 2018.

Immunomedics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune disorders and other serious
diseases. Immunomedics, Inc. is based on Morris Plains, New
Jersey.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Continues to Defend "Desanctis" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, provided updates on the case, Desanctis v.
Goldenberg, C.A.

On December 13, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action seeking to
compel an annual meeting and relief for breaches of fiduciary
duty for not holding such a meeting, captioned Desanctis v.
Goldenberg, C.A. No. 12981-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), alleging that the
Company's Board of Directors failed to comply with Delaware law
and breached their fiduciary duties when it rescheduled the
Immunomedics 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders from December
14, 2016 to February 16, 2017.

On December 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to
schedule an expedited hearing in the action and concluded that
plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had
pleaded a colorable claim and that there was a threat of
irreparable harm. The Court further stated that the Complaint
failed to demonstrate that the Board's actions were unreasonable
when it rescheduled the Annual Meeting in response to venBio
Select Advisor LLC's proxy contest.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune disorders and other serious
diseases. The company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMPERIAL MARBLE: Schubbe Seeks Unpaid Wages under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SCHUBBE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL MARBLE CORP., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-50097 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant
to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of
1988, (WARN Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is liable under the
WARN Act for the timing and lack of specificity of the notice
provided to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former
employees of their employment loss as required by the WARN Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees suffered
employment loss as part of mass layoff as defined by the WARN
Act, for which they were entitled to receive 60 days' advance
written notice under the WARN Act from Defendant. The notice
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received
notifying them of the employment loss did not comply with the
notice requirements of the WARN Act.

Specifically, the notice did not contain: a) The name and address
of the employment site where the employment loss would occur, and
the name and telephone number of a company official to contact
for further information; b) A statement as to whether the
employment loss was expected to be permanent or temporary; and
c) The job titles of positions to be effected and the names of
the workers currently holding the effected jobs.

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees who reported to Defendant's site of employment were
notified that their "last day of employment will be 2/13/2018."
On February 14, 2018, similarly situated employees to Plaintiff
who reported to Defendant's site of employment were notified that
their "last day of employment will be 2/14/2018."

In total, at least 79 employees suffered employment loss at the
site of employment on February 13, 2018 to February 14, 2018. The
79 employees who suffered employment loss comprised at least 33
of the employees at the site of employment.

Imperial Marble produces the finest quality cultured marble
vanity tops and other cultured marble products for residential,
commercial and the hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


INDIANA: "McQuay" Suit vs IDOC Moved to S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LEONARD MCQUAY and DUKE HENDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA, JEANNE WATKINS, ROBERT MARSHALL,
TERESA LITTLEJOHN, and RICHARD BROWN, the Defendants, Case No.
77D01-1712-CT-000734, the Defendants removed the case from the
Sullivan Circuit Court to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00106-JMS-DLP to the proceeding.

The plaintiffs are suing the Indiana Department of Correction.

Indiana is a Midwestern U.S. state known for its farmland and
renowned auto race, the Indianapolis 500, held at the
Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In the capital, Indianapolis,
theaters and galleries line Massachusetts Avenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802

The Defendants are represented by:

          Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan P. Nagy, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
          302 West Washington Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
          Telephone: (317) 233 8296
          Facsimile: (317) 232 7979
          E-mail: Jonathan.Nagy@atg.in.gov


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Purported Shareholder Class Lawsuit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. still defends in purported shareholder
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013.

The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint.  The case has since been retitled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and
appointed lead counsel.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in
part and denied in part on August 21, 2014.  The plaintiffs
elected not to further amend their complaint at that time.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order.  The Company filed its motion for
reconsideration on November 5, 2014.  Following opposition and
reply briefing, the court denied the motion on December 15, 2014,
allowing the case to move forward on the claims that remained.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1,
2015, and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held
a hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016.  While that motion
remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent
plaintiffs' lead counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, a letter
enclosing a draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court
that lacked a proper factual basis.

In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs' local counsel
withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures
from the disputed pleadings.

On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint that did not include the
disputed statements.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, along with an independent motion to strike
the amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs'
local counsel withdrew their signatures.  Following additional
briefing, the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were
fully submitted to the court on November 23, 2016, and December
7, 2016, respectively.

On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On January 5, 2017,
the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the
order granting class certification in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On October 30, 2017, the court of appeals
denied the Company's petition.  On January 12, 2017, plaintiffs
sought leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the
court's class certification order, which the court granted on
March 17, 2017.  Plaintiffs filed the motion for reconsideration
itself on April 3, 2017, and the Company filed its opposition on
April 17, 2017.  The court denied the motion on September 29,
2017.  On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and denying
the Company's motion to strike.

On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter
was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017.  The court
denied the motion on September 29, 2017.  On July 13, 2017, the
parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the
court entered on July 14, 2017.

On November 8, 2017, the court entered a new case schedule, with
trial set to begin on October 30, 2018.

The Company said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself, the actual outcome of this matter is dependent on many
variables that are difficult to predict.  Based on currently
available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this
matter."


INVUITY INC: April 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Paciga" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Invuity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the motion to dismiss in a stockholder
class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al. is currently
scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2018.

On February 27, 2017, a purported stockholder class action titled
Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01005, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements to investors regarding our business
prospects. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
purchasers of our common stock between July 19, 2016 and November
3, 2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney
fees and costs, and other relief.

On May 30, 2017, the Court appointed Mike Paciga as lead
plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July
31, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on
October 30, 2017 and Defendants filed a reply brief on December
4, 2017.

Invuity said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the motion to dismiss was
scheduled for hearing on January 26, 2018.

In the recent SEC disclosure, the Company said the motion to
dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2018.

The Company added that it intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.

Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable.

Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
developing and marketing advanced surgical devices to improve the
ability of physicians to perform minimal access surgery through
smaller and hidden incisions. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


J & M INC: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Statements, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J & M, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG18897171 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fla., March 16, 2018), seeks
to recover damages and/or penalties pursuant to California Labor
Code.

The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of
all employees by failing to keep accurate records and failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying all
required information, including without limitation, the address
of the employer.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in, among
other things a system of willful violations of the California
Labor Code by creating and maintaining policies, practices and
customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and
benefits. The company failed in its affirmative obligation to
provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor
Code section 226(a)(8). Specifically, pursuant to Labor Code
section 226(a)(8), the wage statements should have listed "the
name and address of the legal entity that is the employer."
However, the wage statements provided to Plaintiffs and the Class
failed to identify the name and address of the employer.
Additionally, the wage statements issued to Plaintiff and Class
Members listed their entire social security numbers in violation
of Labor Code.

J & M, Inc. provides construction services. The Company offers
sanitary sewer construction, pipeline utility trenching, and
engineering services, as well as water, concrete structure,
bypass pumping, storm drain, and dewatering systems installation
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 Sap Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: 831 531 4214
          Facsimile: 831 634 0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


JEC NY: "Wanghok" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JIGME WANGHOK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Simialrly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JEC NY, INC.; KWAN SUB KIM a/k/a
ANDREW KIM, a/k/a KWAN KIM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01440-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants have willfully engaged in a pattern, practice and
policy of unlawful conduct by failing to record, credit, or
compensate work performed by its hourly employees in the State of
New York, including Plaintiffs and members of the prospective
class, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BHURTEL LAW FIRM PLLC
          3749 75th Street 2nd Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (718) 509 6181
          E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and its subsidiaries still
defend themselves in class action lawsuits related to the fire-
fighting foam products and fire suppression products, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2017.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard")
and Tyco Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been
named, along with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of
class action lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam
products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others
for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises.
Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products
manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the
chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and that the use of these
products by others at various airbases and airports resulted in
the release of these chemicals into the environment and
ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring
those airports and airbases.  Plaintiffs generally seek
compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal
injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property
values, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to
address remediation of the alleged contamination.

As of February 2, 2018, the Company is named in 12 putative class
actions in federal courts in three states:

Colorado

   * District of Colorado -- Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et
     al., filed on September 18, 2016.

   * District of Colorado -- Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et
     al., filed on September 18, 2016.

   * District of Colorado -- Davis et al. v. The 3M Company et
     al., filed on September 22, 2016.

The Colorado cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado, and a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification is scheduled for April
2018 with a trial date schedule for April 2019.

New York

   * Eastern District of New York -- Green et al. v. The 3M
     Company et al., filed March 27, 2017 in Supreme Court of the
     State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to
     federal court.

   * Southern District of New York -- Adamo et al. v. The Port
     Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in
     Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior
     to removal to federal court.

   * Southern District of New York -- Fogarty et al. v. The Port
     Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in
     Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior
     to removal to federal court.

   * Southern District of New York -- Miller et al. v. The Port
     Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in
     Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior
     to removal to federal court.

   * Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County --
     Singer et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 10,
     2017.

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in Ayo, et
al. v. The 3M Company, et al., filed on December 11, 2017 in the
Suffolk County Supreme Court of New York.  Approximately 32
plaintiffs allege that releases of PFOS and PFOA have
contaminated surrounding communities' water supplies near the
Gabreski Air National Guard Base located on Long Island, New
York.  The plaintiffs assert defective design, failure to warn,
negligence, private nuisance, and trespass and seek recovery for
alleged diminished property values, personal injury, medical
monitoring and punitive damages.

Responses to the complaints have not been filed yet in any of the
New York actions.

Pennsylvania

   * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Bates et al. v. The 3M
     Company et al., filed September 15, 2016.

   * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Grande et al. v. The 3M
     Company et al., filed October 13, 2016.

   * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Yockey et al. v. The 3M
     Company et al., filed October 24, 2016.

   * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Fearnley et al. v. The
     3M Company et al., filed December 9, 2016.

The Pennsylvania cases have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated
proceeding was denied without prejudice and the cases are
currently stayed pending the appeal of an action in which the
Company is not a party.

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide.  The Company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments.  It was formerly known as Johnson Controls,
Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc
in September 2016.  Johnson Controls International plc was
founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the status hearing
in the case Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., has
subsequently been rescheduled for March 2018.

The status hearing was rescheduled for November 28, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2017.

On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v.
Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was
filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as
defendants. The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger between Johnson Controls Inc. and the Company's merger
subsidiary by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves
improperly and failing to disclose material information in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger.

The complaint further alleged that the Company aided and abetted
Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to
enjoin the merger. On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to
settle the action and release all claims that were or could have
been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of
Johnson Controls Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement. On November 10, 2016, the
parties filed a joint status report notifying the court they had
reached such agreement.

On November 22, 2016, the court ordered that a proposed
stipulation of settlement be filed by March 15, 2017 and
scheduled a status hearing for April 20, 2017. On March 10, 2017,
the parties filed a joint letter requesting that the filing and
hearing be adjourned and that the parties be allowed an
additional 90 days to update the court in light of the Gumm v.
Molinaroli action proceeding in federal court.

Johnson Controls said "There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that
the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or
certain other circumstances, the settlement could be terminated."

Johnson Controls International PLC operates in two primary
businesses: Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions. Building Technologies & Solutions provides facility
systems and services including comfort and energy management for
the residential and non-residential buildings markets, security
products and services, fire detection and suppression products
and services, and life safety products. Power Solutions designs
and manufactures automotive batteries for the replacement and
original equipment markets.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss "Gumm" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the case, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., remains
pending.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its
board of directors at the time of the merger with the Company's
merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and
the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint
asserted various causes of action under the federal securities
laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that
the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary
duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger
among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner
that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus
distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders,
conversion and breach of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing
of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting
to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable
by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.
The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017.

Johnson Controls said "Although the Company believes it has
substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to
predict the outcome of this action."

Johnson Controls International PLC operates in two primary
businesses: Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions. Building Technologies & Solutions provides facility
systems and services including comfort and energy management for
the residential and non-residential buildings markets, security
products and services, fire detection and suppression products
and services, and life safety products. Power Solutions designs
and manufactures automotive batteries for the replacement and
original equipment markets.


KANGAROO FLEET: Withholds Wages over Citations, Kirklands Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA KIRKLAND and DAYVON KIRLAND, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KANGAROO FLEET
MANAGEMENT NY LLC, and RICHARD RACHED, individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 505299/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 16, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief
against the Defendants under the New York State Labor Law, the
New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and The New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, Joshua was employed by Defendants as
a driver and cleaner from June 20, 2017 through February 25,
2017. Dayvon was employed by Defendants as a driver and cleaner
from June 5, 2017 through February 9, 2017.

The Plaintiffs were not provided with a written notice of pay
rate at the time of hire, nor at any time thereafter. Plaintiffs'
duties were to perform labor in furtherance of Defendants'
business. The Plaintiffs had no authority to hire employees, fire
employees, suspend employees, discipline employees, and/or
discretion or independent judgment regarding matters of
significance.

One of Plaintiffs' job duties as a driver and cleaner was parking
vehicles on public streets in and around New York City. In the
event that a parking citation was received on a vehicle parked by
either Plaintiff, that Plaintiff would be required to reimburse
Defendants for the cost of the ticket.  The Defendants would,
without Plaintiffs' authorization or consent, withhold wages from
Plaintiffs pay each week as reimbursement for citations. This
policy was consistently enforced against all employees of
Defendants including those employed as drivers, cleaners,
optimizers, and technicians. In total at least 30 employees were
subject to these deductions. The Defendants had a known, written
policy of requiring employees to pay or otherwise reimburse for
parking citations issued to Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


KELLCO MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Murat St-Surin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLCO MANAGEMENT, INC.; KELLY
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; BRIAN KELLY, individually, the
Defendants, Case No.8-406C (Mass. Super. Ct., March 15, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under Massachusetts
General Laws.

According to the complaint, Kellco has employed more than 40
different car salesmen and saleswomen during the three years
preceding the filing date of this action. Kellco employs more
than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts at
any given time. Kellco employs more than seven different car
salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts on any given day. KAG
has employed more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen
during the three years preceding the filing date of this action.
KAG employs more than 40 car salesmen and saleswomen in
Massachusetts at any given time. KAG employs more than seven car
salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts on any given day. Each
separate dealership within the Kelly Automotive Group has
employed more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen
during the three years preceding the filing date of this action.
Each separate dealership within the Kelly Automotive Group
employs more than seven car salesmen and saleswomen in
Massachusetts on any given day.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees worked
more than 40 hours during one or more weeks. Defendants were
aware that Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees
worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks. Plaintiff and
other similarly situated sales employees worked on a Sunday
during one or more weeks. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff
and other similarly situated sales employees worked on a Sunday
during one or more weeks. Defendants never instructed Plaintiff
or any other similarly situated sales employee that they could
not work more than 40 hours in a week. Defendants never
instructed Plaintiff or any other similarly situated sales
employee that they could not work on Sundays. Defendants have a
company-wide policy to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
sales employees a weekly base salary plus commissions/bonuses
that they earned from selling vehicles. Defendants paid Plaintiff
a weekly salary in the amount of $200.00. Defendants have a
company-wide policy to credit commissions toward overtime
compensation and Sunday premium pay that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated sales employees were entitled to receive for
hours that they worked in excess of 40 and/or on Sundays during
multiple weeks.

Defendants did not calculate the amount of wages that they paid
to Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees based
on the number of regular hours or overtime hours that they worked
each week. Defendants did not pay overtime wages to Plaintiff or
other similarly situated sales employees. Defendants did not pay
Sunday premium pay to Plaintiff or other similarly situated sales
employees. Defendants did not pay holiday premium pay to
Plaintiff or other similarly situated sales employees. During one
or more workweeks, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated sales employees an hourly rate equal to
minimum wage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S.Lane, Esq.
          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3260
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Still Defends Bahamas Surgery Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation continues to face a California
consumer class action by Bahamas Surgery Center, according to
Kimberly-Clark's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "We are party to certain legal proceedings
relating to our former health care business, Halyard, which we
spun-off on October 31, 2014.  This includes Bahamas Surgery
Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California
consumer class action relating to the sale of surgical gowns.  On
April 7, 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class US$3.9 in
compensatory damages and US$350 in punitive damages against us.
We have filed motions challenging the jury's verdict as we
believe it is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and
that the punitive damage award is baseless, excessive and not
consistent with California and federal laws.  Under the terms of
the distribution agreement we entered into with Halyard in
connection with the spin-off, Halyard is obligated to indemnify
us for legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities primarily
related to our former health care business.  Halyard and
Kimberly-Clark have each filed suits against the other seeking
declaratory judgment regarding the scope of these indemnification
obligations.

"We are also party to additional legal proceedings relating to
Halyard, including civil actions, qui tam matters, a shareholder
derivative suit, a securities class action and certain subpoena
and document requests from the federal government.  Although the
results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with
certainty, we continue to believe that the final outcome of these
matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or
in the aggregate, on our business, financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity."

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
professional products worldwide.  It operates through three
segments: Personal Care, Consumer Tissue, and K-C Professional.
The Company was founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.


KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that discovery against the underwriters
defendants is continuing in a consolidated class action suit
pending before the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo.

On February 10, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA
Investigation in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and
CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Pharma's initial public
offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages and other relief based on, among
other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly including misleading
information in its public filings.

On March 20, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA
Investigation in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and
CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Pharma's initial public
offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages and other relief based on, among
other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly including misleading
information in its public filings.

On April 6, 2017, the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo entered an order consolidating the
two California putative class actions, appointed the lead counsel
to plaintiffs in the consolidated action and set a case schedule.
An amended complaint was filed on or about June 5, 2017.

On August 3, 2017, a motion of demurrer was filed on behalf of
the Company and the individual defendants to dismiss the
complaint against them, and, in the alternative, a motion was
filed to stay the action, including, until the Supreme Court of
the United States has ruled as to the jurisdiction of the
California state court to hear this dispute. The underwriter
defendants also filed a motion of demurrer. Answering papers were
filed by plaintiffs on September 19, 2017; the company's reply
papers were filed on October 19, 2017; and the hearing on this
motion was held on October 26, 2017. At the hearing, the judge
ruled against the company, the individual defendants and the
company's underwriters, denying the company's demurrers and its
motions to stay the entirety of the matter.

Kitov Pharma said "We filed an answer on or about November 24,
2017. On December 15, 2017, we filed a more limited motion to
stay discovery pending the resolution of the ISA Investigation.
Following plaintiffs' opposition to our motion on January 5, 2018
and our reply in further support on January 16, 2018, the court
ruled in our favor after arguments on January 29th, 2018 staying
discovery by plaintiffs against the Company and the individual
defendants until June 1, 2018, at which point the parties are to
update the court on the status of the ISA's investigation."
Discovery against the underwriters is continuing.

Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It
develops combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain
caused by osteoarthritis and hypertension.



LANNETT CO: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a putative shareholder class action
suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the
Company damaged the purported class by including in its
securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.  A
first amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September
2017.

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

Lannett Co. said, "The Company expects to file a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the coming months.  The
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this
time."

Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release
(tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished
dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic
areas.


LIONS GATE: Still Faces Consolidated Starz Merger Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated class suit captioned In re Starz
Stockholder Litigation will commence in the second half of fiscal
2019, according to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'s Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  These actions
have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016.

The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of
directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and Leslie Malone; Mr. Bennett and
Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D.
Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"); Dr.
Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub.

It alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz
board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and
the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the
merger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling
stockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other
Starz stockholders in connection with the merger and related
transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted
such breaches of fiduciary duty.

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

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

On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky.

The remaining defendants filed answers to the verified
consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017.

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

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States,
and internationally.  The Company operates through three
segments: Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media
Networks.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Santa Monica, California.


LIONS GATE: "Gross" Class Suit in Colorado Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action suit in Colorado captioned Gross v.
John C. Malone, et al., remains stayed pending the final
resolution of a consolidated class suit in Delaware, according to
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,
2016-CV-32873.  The complaint names as defendants the members of
the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as
well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of
the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in
connection with the merger and the transactions contemplated by
the merger agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions
Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposed
motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the
consolidated Delaware action.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States,
and internationally.  The Company operates through three
segments: Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media
Networks.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Santa Monica, California.


LIONS GATE: Settlement in "Levy" Suit Finally Approved
------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2017, that the court has issued an
order and judgment finally approving the settlement in the case,
Levy v. Malone, et al.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
by a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et
al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants
Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of
the Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed
to Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed
merger, and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of
directors failed to disclose material information in the amended
joint proxy statement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on
September 7, 2016 in connection with the proposed merger.

On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily
enjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery. On
November 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed
a stipulation withdrawing plaintiff's motion. On July 14, 2017,
the court preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered that
notice of the settlement be sent to class members, and scheduled
a hearing for August 30, 2017 to determine whether to finally
approve the settlement. On October 30, 2017, the court issued an
order and judgment finally approving the settlement.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a vertically integrated next
generation global content leader with a diversified presence in
motion picture production and distribution, television
programming and syndication, premium pay television networks,
home entertainment, global distribution and sales, interactive
ventures and games and location-based entertainment.


LOGON COMPUTER: "Santos" Suit Seeks wages & Overtime under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNY SANTOS, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. LOGON COMPUTER & MAILING SERVICES,
INC., DANIEL AENOWITZ, and DAN CANTELMO, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02347 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, approximately 19 years ago, Plaintiff
was hired by Defendants to work in Defendants' mailing warehouse
located at 520 8th Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10001.
On Feb. 16, 2018, Defendants' terminated Plaintiff's employment
without notice. During Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, she
worked approximately 47 hours per week, Plaintiff generally
worked 5 days a week and 9 and 9.5 hours each day. Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' wages and
overtime wages for the hours actually worked in violation of the
FLSA AND NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F Sullivan, E
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, PC
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374 0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374 9931


MALECON RESTAURANT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoilo Sanchez and Erick Espinal, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Malecon
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Malecon Restaurant, 764 Gomez Restaurant
Corp. d/b/a Malecon Restaurant, Pablo Gomez, Percio de Jesus
Gomez, Joselo Gomez, and John Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02199 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Espinal was employed by the
Malecon defendants in three different stints.  He was employed
from approximately June 2011 through May 2012, from around June
2014 through October 2016, and from March 2017 through July 2017.
He was employed at the Amsterdam Ave. restaurant for
approximately three weeks, and was then transferred by defendants
to the Broadway location, where he worked for the remainder of
his employment.

Mr. Sanchez was employed as a waiter. Mr. Espinal was employed as
a kitchen helper, whose job included food preparation, cleaning,
and dishwashing.

The Plaintiffs' work was performed in the normal course of
defendants' business and was integrated into the business of
defendants, and did not involve executive or administrative
responsibilities. The Plaintiffs were paid in cash throughout
their employment. The Plaintiffs received no paystubs or wage
statements with their pay. In addition, defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours
in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law,
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Thorne Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02492 (S.D.N.Y., March
20, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's website, WWW.MASSMUTUAL.COM, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.

MassMutual offers life insurance and protection products,
retirement and investment services to help you meet your
financial goals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (929) 575 4175
          Fax: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


MAXIMUS INC: Still Defends Putative Shareholder Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUS, Inc. still defends itself against a shareholder lawsuit
in Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

In August 2017, the Company and certain officers were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Plan v. MAXIMUS.  The plaintiff alleges the
defendants made a variety of materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material information,
concerning the status of the Company's Health Assessment Advisory
Services project for the U.K. Department for Work and Pensions
from the period October 20, 2014 through February 3, 2016, and
seek damages to be proved at trial.  The defendants deny the
allegations and intend to defend the matter vigorously.

The Company said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
predict whether this matter will be permitted to proceed as a
class or to reasonably estimate the value of the claims asserted.
No assurances can be given that we will be successful in our
defense of this action on the merits or otherwise.  For these
reasons, we are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of
loss in this matter."

MAXIMUS, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to
government health and human services programs in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and
Saudi Arabia.  It was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in
Reston, Virginia.


MAXLINEAR INC: Vladimir Gusinsky and "Marshall" Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust
and Marshall lawsuits have been resolved, following the company's
payment of fees and execution of the settlement agreement.

On April 18, 2017, The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Exar, its board of directors,
MaxLinear, and Eagle Acquisition Corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of MaxLinear). Another similar lawsuit was filed by
Richard E. Marshall on April 25, 2017. The Marshall lawsuit did
not name MaxLinear or Eagle Acquisition Corp. as defendants.

The complaints generally alleged that the merger with Exar
offered inadequate consideration to Exar's shareholders and that
the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Exar in connection with the merger
omitted material information. The complaints purported to bring
class claims for violation of sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14d-9.

The complaints sought certification of a class; an injunction
barring the merger or, if defendants enter into the merger, an
order rescinding it or awarding rescissory damages; declaratory
relief; and plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.

On or about May 3, 2017, the parties to the above-referenced
lawsuits reached an agreement whereby plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the claims brought by Mr. Marshall and The Vladimir
Gusinsky Revocable Trust with prejudice (but without prejudice as
to other members of the putative class), defendants made certain
supplemental disclosures, and the plaintiffs would receive a
mootness fee. On May 3, 2017, Exar made the supplemental
disclosures contemplated by this agreement.

On October 24, 2017, the parties entered a Settlement Agreement
Regarding Claim for Mootness Fees pursuant to which we agreed to
pay counsel for the plaintiffs a mootness fee.

MaxLinear said "We have now paid the fee, and with the execution
of the settlement agreement, this litigation has been resolved."

MaxLinear, Inc. a provider of radio frequency, or RF, mixed-
signal and high-performance analog integrated circuits for the
connected home, wired and wireless infrastructure, and industrial
and multi-market applications. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.


MDL 2545: 210 TRT Claims vs. AbbVie Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Approximately 210 claims are pending in various state courts
against manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies
(TRTs) related to the inadequate warning about associated risks,
according to AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally
allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of TRTs did not
adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart
attacks, strokes and blood clots.  Approximately 4,300 claims are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules
as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2545.  Approximately 210 claims are pending
in various state courts.  Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
and punitive damages.

In July 2017, a jury in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict in the first case
to be tried.  The jury found for AbbVie on the plaintiff's strict
liability and negligence claims and for the plaintiff on the
plaintiff's fraud claim.  The jury awarded no compensatory
damages, but did award plaintiffs US$150 million in punitive
damages.

AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the jury's award of $150 million
in punitive damages without an underlying compensatory damage
award will be subject to post-trial briefing.  AbbVie said it
expects the punitive damage award will not stand.

AbbVie Inc. also said in the September 30 Form 10-Q Report that
in August 2017, a jury in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, reached a verdict for AbbVie on all claims. In October
2017, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie on strict
liability but for the plaintiff on remaining claims and awarded
$140,000 in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive
damages, which will be the subject of post-trial proceedings.

In its Form 10-K Report, AbbVie said that in December 2017, the
Northern District of Illinois court vacated the jury's verdict
and punitive damage award on the fraud claim and ordered a new
trial on that claim.

In a second case, a jury in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie in
August 2017 on all claims, which is the subject of post-trial
proceedings.

In another case, a jury in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie in
October 2017 on strict liability but for the plaintiff on
remaining claims and awarded US$140,000 in compensatory damages
and US$140 million in punitive damages, which is the subject of
post-trial proceedings.

In a separate case, a jury in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for
AbbVie in January 2018 on all claims.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


MDL 2804: "Rees" Suit vs. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Deric Rees and Ceonda Rees,
Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian of Baby T.W.B. on
behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
AmerisourceBergen Corporation; Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma
Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; now known as Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, now known as Actavis plc;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly
known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,
now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00511
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 14, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45252-DAP to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dan Aaron
Polster.

The Rees case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 5, 2017.

The cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and
inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate
medications into cities, states and towns across the country.

Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions
supported centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential
tag-along actions opposed centralization altogether or oppose
transfer of their action.

In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia
suggested a delay transferring its case until the Southern
District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to
state court.

Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of
Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund) opposed centralization of third
partypayor actions.  The Western District of Washington plaintiff
City of Everett opposed centralization and, alternatively,
requested exclusion of its case.  The Northern District of
Illinois tagalong plaintiff City of Chicago asked the Panel to
defer transfer of its action until document discovery is
completed.

The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
          JOHNSON GRAY, LLC
          319 North 4th Street, Suite 212
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 385 9500
          Facsimile: (314) 594 2052
          E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Barney , Jr., Esq.
          Thompson Barney, Esq.
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343 4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343 4405
          E-mail: drbarneywv@gmail.com

               - and -

          James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq.
          CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP
          525 West Main Street, Suite 105
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 239 0187
          Facsimile: (618) 416 7556
          E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com


METLIFE INC: "Pugh" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TILLMAN PUGH, MARGARET SULKOWSKI, DAVID
HENDERSON and ROY REESE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METLIFE, INC., METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, METLIFE RESOURCES, INC., METLIFE
SECURITIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18891665, the Defendants removed the case
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No: 3:18-cv-
01506-SK.

The complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) failure to
reimburse expenses; (2) prohibited wage chargebacks; (3) failure
to provide itemized wage statements; (4) failure to pay wages on
termination; (5) underpayment of wages; (6) untimely payment of
wages; (7) a cause of action seeking civil penalties under
California's Private Attorneys General Act for the underlying
Labor Code violations; and (8) a derivative cause of action for
failure to pay overtime under California's Unfair Competition
Law, Business & Professions Code.

MetLife, Inc. is the holding corporation for the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, better known as MetLife, and its
affiliates.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: +1 714 830 0600
          Facsimile: +1 714 830 0700
          E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Spano" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------s
The class action lawsuit titled Shelley Spano, Individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-
1193, was removed from the Lackawanna County Common Pleas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Scranton) on Mar. 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-00630-RPC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Richard P. Conaboy.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and
is based in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
          SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC
          216 N. Blakely Street
          Dunmore, PA 18512
          Telephone: (570) 341 9000
          Facsimile: (570) 504 2769
          E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          450-106 State Road 13 N., Suite 326
          St. Johns, FL 32259
          Telephone: (904) 201 9120
          E-mail: lburnette@bn-lawyers.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Products Cause Hair Loss, Merritt Claims
------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MERRITT, on Behalf of Herself and all others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00657-L (N.D. Tex., March 20, 2018), alleges the
Defendant failed to disclose and/or warn Plaintiff and other
consumers that MONAT Hair Care Products can and do cause
substantial hair loss and/or scalp irritation.  The Defendant
also actively concealed customers' comments concerning hair loss,
by blocking and/or erasing such comments from the Internet,
filing lawsuits to muzzle consumers and issuing cease and desist
letters to individuals who made public statements concerning
damage caused by the products.

Unlike many beauty products sold through big box stores and
salons, MONAT Hair Care Products are sold through a multi-level
marketing scheme in which the Company actively recruits
purchasers to become "Market Partners." Market Partners are
utilized to market and sell MONAT Hair Care Products through
social media and other marketing channels to consumers. MONAT
provides a sales platform for its Market Partner agents and
micro-websites hosted on the MONAT website where customers can
place orders for MONAT Hair Care Products and credit the Market
Partner. If these Market Partners recruit additional Market
Partners they share in the "down-line" profits generated by their
recruits.  In this way, MONAT functions in a manner many would
think of as a pyramid scheme.

Defendant provides no warning about the ingredients or potential
side effects of using MONAT Hair Care Products and, in fact,
makes numerous assertions about the safety of its products. MONAT
claims without caveat that MONAT Hair Care Products are "suitable
for all skin and hair types." MONAT further claims that its
products will have substantial health benefits, including the
cessation of hair loss and hair regrowth. Beneficial health and
efficacy claims regarding the MONAT products are ubiquitous on
MONAT's website and in MONAT's marketing materials.

However, Defendant fails to inform consumers that, although some
MONAT Hair Care Products and/or ingredients have had limited
testing, MONAT Hair Care Products have not been subjected to any
advance clinical safety tests and have not been clinically tested
on all hair types.

During the Class Period, Defendant also represented that MONAT
Hair Care Products contain no PEGs, silicones, or petrochemicals.
However, MONAT Hair Care Products contain all of these
ingredients, rendering these statements demonstrably false.  In
reality MONAT Hair Care Products have caused scalp irritation,
sores, and hair loss for many consumers. Additionally, MONAT Hair
Care Products contain several ingredients that have been shown to
be harmful to consumers who are pregnant or breastfeeding, taking
blood thinners, or have other conditions such as epilepsy, breast
cancer or other hormonesensitive conditions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          2926 Maple Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 696 1100
          Facsimile: (214) 740 0112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Pfleigier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY PFLEIGIER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00432 (E.D. Mo., March 20, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed
& Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide,
Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide,
Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup
Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro
Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer,
Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed
Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup
Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup
Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus,
Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed &
Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry
Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Terry Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM TERRY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00064-NBB-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 16,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed
& Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide,
Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide,
Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup
Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro
Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer,
Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed
Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup
Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup
Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus,
Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed &
Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry
Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor B. Rockstad, Esq.
          DAVIS & CRUMP
          2601 14th Street
          Gulfport, MS 39501
          Telephone: (228) 863 6000
          Facsimile: (228) 864 0907
          E-mail: trevor.rockstad@daviscrump.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435 7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435 7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


MYEONG HYUN: "Lee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANG HEE LEE, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYEONG HYUN CHO, an
individual; HYUNDAI SHIPPING USA INC., a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC697960 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover
wages owed for missed meal and rest period, and penalties or
damages for failure to keep accurate records, other penalties
under the California Labor Code statutes, and for restitution and
injunctive relief.

During the Class Period, the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Class were
employed by Defendants as hourly employees. Members of the
putative class were paid hourly wages for hours worked. Plaintiff
was hired by Defendants in or around July 2013 and performed his
job at the export department. His job duties include, but not
limited to, actually and physically moving customer's luggage and
moving boxes to scheduling customers and movers to the system.
There was no rest break ever given. Plaintiff complained about
not getting the rest breaks, and the management retaliated
against him for it by cutting his access to the company intranet
and having a departmental meeting without him. Therefore,
Plaintiff and Class members were never allowed to take any
regular rest breaks as mandated by law. Class members were never
provided the opportunity to take rest periods, nor were they
informed of their right to take rest periods. The Plaintiff and
Class members were not allowed to take their 2nd meal breaks. The
Defendants never allowed or make the 2nd meal break available to
Plaintiff and Class members when their shift lasts more than 10
hours.

Defendants did not pay a premium of one hour's pay for any missed
meal and rest periods.  Defendants have willfully prevented and
discouraged, and continue to prevent and discourage, Plaintiff
and Class members from taking 2nd meal and rest breaks and fail
to compensate Plaintiff and Class members for missed breaks in
violation of Labor Code. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has
been widespread, repeated and willful throughout its facilities
in California. Defendants knew or should have known that its
policies and practices have been unlawful and unfair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Jesse Yanco, Esq.
          Jordan T. Wada, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 402
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  jesse.yanco@loywr.com
                  jordan.wada@loywr.com


MYEXPERIAN INC: "Vinsant" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES VINSANT, TARA BEAL, CHELSEA DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN
HENDRY, BELINDA MAXWELL, BRITTANY MORRIS, KIMBERLEY ROLAND and
BETTY FULLER, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MYEXPERIAN, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D. Ark., March 20,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek, under
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates and manages a telephone call center in Van
Buren.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRMM PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com


NAPLES HOTEL: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENYATTA WILLIAMS and SHAWANA SANDERS on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
NAPLES HOTEL GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00422-
RBD-DCI (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages
under Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The Defendant is a hotel development and management company
primarily focused on Florida. The Defendant routinely obtains and
uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks
on progressive employees and existing employees, and frequently
relies on such information as a basis for adverse employment
action such as termination, reduction of hours, change in
position, failure to hire, and failure to promote.

Defendants willfully violated these requirements in multiple
ways, in systematic violation of Plaintiffs' rights and the
rights of the putative class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Tronson" Suit Moved to Dist. of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eric Tronson, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Navient Corporation; Navient Solutions, Inc.; and SLM
Corporation, doing business as: Sallie Mae, No. AMNDC-6004393,
was removed from Hennepin County District Court from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-00695-DWF-BRT to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank.

Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware,
whose operations include servicing and collecting on student
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J S Madgett, Esq.
          Madgett & Peterson, LLC
          619 S. 10th St. Suite 301
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 419 0589
          E-mail: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Patrick R. Martin, Esq.
          Ogletree Deakins, Esq.
          225 South Sixth Street, Ste 1800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 336 6870
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0061
          E-mail: pat.martin@ogletreedeakins.com


NEW YORK: Upland Asks Court to Quash Subpoena in "Powell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as SHEILA POWELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK &
COMPANY, INC.; NEW YORK & COMPANY STORES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-mc-00231-LY (W.D. Tex., March 16, 2018), non-party
Upland Software, Inc. asks the Court to quash an underlying
subpoena and put into place a protective order shielding Upland
from Plaintiff's "overbroad and unreasonable" requests, or, in
the alternative, considerably limit the deposition topics and
document requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome.

Ms. Sheila Powell filed matter number 1:1 6-cv-0855-TSC in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May
6, 2016, alleging that Defendants New York & Company, Inc. and
New York & Company Stores, Inc. have violated portions of the
Telephone Consumer Protections Act (TCPA). Specifically, Ms.
Powell asserts that Defendants willfully violated the TCPA by
sending "multiple automated text messages to cellular numbers
belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without
their prior express written consent. Pursuant to that suit,
Plaintiff issued a third-party subpoena to Upland, demanding the
production of twelve categories of documents most seeking
completely disproportionate requests which are far beyond the
scope of the litigation and a deposition of an Upland corporate
representative on eight topics.

The subpoena sets the deposition for and demands the production
of documents in Austin, on March 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

Upland is a Delaware corporation with its primary headquarters in
Austin, Texas.[BN]

Plaintiff's Counsel:

          Jody Berke Burton, Esq.
          Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424
          E-mail: jburton@lemberglaw.com
                  staylor@emberglaw.com

Defendants' Counsel:

          Diana Lauren Eisner, Esq.
          Stephen T. Raptis, Esq.
          Donna L. Wilson, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 585 6576
          E-mail: deisner@manatt.com
          sraptis@manatt.com
          dlwilson@manatt.com

Attorneys for Non-Party Upland Software, Inc.:

          Matthew Murrell, Esq.
          Carlos Soltero, Esq.
          CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC
          4611 Bee Cave Rdad, Suite 306B
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 689 8698
          E-mail: mmurrell@clevelandterrazas.com
          csoltero@clevelandterrazas.com


NEWLINK GENETICS: Abramson Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newlink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics
Corp., et al.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court,
captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-
cv-3545, or the Securities Action.

Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as
lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick &
Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October
31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
asserts claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link,
Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President
Nicholas Vahanian, or collectively, the Defendants.

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to
the Phase II and III trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged
damages in the amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock during the putative class period of September
17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated
prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

On April 27, 2017, the Court granted the parties' request for
leave to brief a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
ordered the parties to file a stipulation and proposed order
setting forth a schedule for the briefing of that motion.

On May 15, 2017, the Court ordered the following briefing
schedule: motion to dismiss due July 14, 2017, opposition due
September 12, 2017, and reply due September 26, 2017. The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, 2017. The lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
September 12, 2017. The Defendants filed a reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2017. Oral argument was
held on October 19, 2017, after which the Court reserved
decision.

Newlink Genetics said "The Company disputes the claims in the
Securities Action and intends to defend against them vigorously."

Newlink Genetics Corporationa clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company focused on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with
cancer. The company is based in Ames, Iowa.


NILES GRAND: Flores Sues over Use of Biometric Information
----------------------------------------------------------
MARICELA FLORES, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NILES GRAND,
LLC d/b/a FRESH FARMS INTERNATIONAL MKT, an Illinois limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH03334 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 14, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


NIPPON LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says
---------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02361 (S.D.N.Y., March
16, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit
Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Because Defendant's website, WWW.NLIA.COM, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Nippon Life provides employee benefits programs to companies of
all sizes in the United States. Its products and services include
medical, dental, life, disability, vision, wellness, prescription
drugs, care management, and employee assistance programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575 4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


NOBLE FOOD: "Kirkwood" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Gary Kirkwood, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
the Noble Food Group, Inc., NFG Chicago, LLC, NFG Portland, LLC,
NFG Salem, LLC, NFG San Francisco, LLC and NFG Seattle, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00360-JCC (W.D. Wash., March 8,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul Ill
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut, Suite 300,
          KC, MO 64106
          Telephone: 816 984 8100

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997 9150


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hustig" and "Cook" Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company is defending against
two class action suits entitled, Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Cook complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public
offering. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.

Obalon Therapeutics said "The cases are at a preliminary stage
and we intend to vigorously defend against it."

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. is a vertically integrated medical
device company focused on developing and commercializing
innovative medical devices to treat obese and overweight people
by facilitating weight loss. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.


OJUS AUTOMOTIVE: "Wilzek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI JOHANNE WILZEK and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. OJUS AUTOMOTIVE INC., ELIZABETH
TAHARALLY, SEAN TAHARALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
21055-CMA (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment
period with Defendants or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor
Standards Act along with court costs, interest, and any other
relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of
the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ophthotech Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that putative lead plaintiffs in the
case Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-
cv-00210, have moved to consolidate their case with that of,
Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 12,
2016.

The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the prospects of our Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.
The complaint seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

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

The allegations made in the complaint are similar to those made
in the Micholle complaint. Putative lead plaintiffs in the
Micholle action have moved to consolidate the Micholle and Wasson
actions.

Ophthotech Corporation is a science-driven biopharmaceutical
company specializing in the development of novel therapies to
treat ophthalmic diseases, with a focus on age-related and orphan
retinal diseases. The company is based in New York.


PAUL SMITH: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
-------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PAUL SMITH INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02399 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction to cause Paul Smith to change its
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant Paul Smith Inc. for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.paulsmith.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired
people. Paul Smith denies full and equal access to its Website.
The Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York
City Human Rights against Paul Smith.

Paul Smith retails and wholesales apparel, luxury accessories,
and fragrances. The company sells clothing, including blazers,
coats and jackets, jeans, knitwear, polo shirts, shirts, shorts,
suits, sweatshirts and hoodies, swimwear, trousers, T-shirts,
underwear and sleepwear, and waistcoats; accessories, such as
bags.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Has US$1.4MM Liability for Vinyl Clad Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that as a result of the Vinyl Clad
Settlement Agreement related to the Gulbankian- Hartshorn
consolidated class action, the Company has a liability of
approximately $1.4 million as of December 31, 2017 and December
31, 2016.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged
damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of
certain MW vinyl clad windows.

In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc.
("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the
District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad
windows. In April 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and
Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad
windows.

MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of
April 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement
applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from
January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash
payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims
showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW
vinyl clad windows.

The period for submitting qualified claims is the later of: (i)
May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the warranty period for the
applicable window. On December 29, 2014, the District Court
granted final approval of this settlement, as well as MW's
payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in
the amount of $2.5 million. The Company and MW deny all liability
in the settlements with respect to the facts and claims alleged.

The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden,
expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation,
and therefore agreed to settle these matters.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company
has a liability of approximately $1.4 million as of December 31,
2017 and December 31, 2016, with $0.7 million as a current
liability within accrued expenses and $0.7 million as a
noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the
Company's consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016. It is possible that the Company may incur
costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company
currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed this
liability.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in New York Settled for $26MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled,
In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, have reached
an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately
$26.0 million.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO").

It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was
negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue
statements of material fact and omitting material information
which was required to be disclosed.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages
together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs
of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was
certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed.
Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed
to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other
expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this
matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May
22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and
officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume
the defense of such directors and officers.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter for approximately $26.0 million and notified the Court of
this, which is subject to the finalization of the settlement
agreement, Court approval and requests for exclusion by members
of the settlement class. The Company accrued the $26.0 million
within accrued expenses as of December 31, 2017 in the Company's
consolidated balance sheet, and also recognized an insurance
receivable of $25.4 million within other current assets that was
offset by insurance proceeds of $8.7 million from an insurance
carrier, for a net insurance receivable of $16.7 million as of
December 31, 2017 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as
certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance
carriers are to fund the majority of the settlement amount with
the Company agreeing to pay certain disputed litigation expenses
of approximately $0.6 million.

The defendants deny all liability in the settlement and with
respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is
aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to
settle this matter.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Hueso" and "Xiong" Cases Resolved for $1M
------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company paid the settlement
amount of $1.0 million in the suit entitled, In Raul Carrillo-
Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem
Pacific Windows Corporation, during the year ended December 31,
2017.

In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action
filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a
result of, among other things, the defendants' failure to provide
(i) statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento,
California facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees
in California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in
California.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii)
penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On January 7, 2017, the
parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $1.0
million, and on June 29, 2017, the Court granted final approval
of the settlement.

The Company accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of
December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and
subsequently paid the settlement during the year ended December
31, 2017.

The Company denies all liability in the settlement and with
respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is
aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to
settle this matter.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Morgan" Suit Settled for $900,000
----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company paid the settlement
amount of $0.9 million in the suit entitled, In Tina Morgan v.
Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., during
the year ended December 31, 2017.

In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton
Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11,
2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the
defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i)
pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal
breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all
wages owed upon termination.

The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii)
penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 9, 2016, the
parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $0.9
million, and on May 22, 2017, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement.

The Company accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of
December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and
subsequently paid the settlement during the year ended December
31, 2017. The Company denies all liability in the settlement and
with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company,
however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and
therefore agreed to settle this matter.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Action Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company faces a purported class
action suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York, entitled, Gazzillo et al. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
et al.

In Gazzillo et al. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. et al., a
purported class action filed on September 26, 2017 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York,
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the
defective design and manufacture of certain vinyl siding
products.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary
damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


POST HOLDINGS: Antitrust Lawsuit on Egg Products Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. continues to defend class action for alleged
violations of antitrust laws related to the production and sale
of egg products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2017.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("Michael Foods"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the
production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking
unspecified damages.  All cases were transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The case involved three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers
of eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery
chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities
of eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their
own separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs.

In September 2016, the district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment based on purchases of egg products,
thereby limiting all claims to shell eggs.

The status of claims are as follows: (1) Michael Foods settled
all class claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs for a payment of US$75.0 million, which settlement
became final on December 21, 2017; (2) Michael Foods entered into
a settlement, the details of which are confidential, with the
opt-out plaintiffs (excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose
claims relate primarily or exclusively to egg products) on
January 19, 2017; and (3) the district court denied the motion of
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class certification in
September 2015 as well as an alternative motion for certification
of an injunctive class in June 2017.  Michael Foods has at all
times denied liability in this matter, and neither settlement
contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods.

With regards to the remaining portions of the case, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motions of the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to immediately appeal the district court's
denial of their motions for class certification.  In addition,
the elimination of egg products from the case was appealed to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals by certain opt-out plaintiffs who
purchased egg products.

On January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the opt-out plaintiffs who purchased egg products have
standing to seek damages and remanded this portion of the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally.  It was founded
in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PNC BANK: Pfendler Sues over Home Mortgage Loan Servicing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Pfendler, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, National
Association, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00361-DSC (W.D. Pa.,
March 20, 2018), seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of
herself and the hundreds of thousands or millions of borrowers
who have been victimized by PNC's uniform practice of charging
for unreasonable and inappropriate property inspection fees.

According to the complaint, taking advantage of the economic
downturn and the increasing number of loans in default, PNC
services home loans according to uniform practices designed to
maximize fees assessed on borrowers' accounts when they are
behind on their payments. Consistent with these practices, PNC
uses automated mortgage loan management systems to engage in a
deceptive and unfair scheme to collect fees for unnecessary,
unreasonably, and inappropriate property inspections, a default-
related service, cheating borrowers who can least afford them.

Using the automated system, PNC orders drive-by property
inspections whenever a borrower falls sufficiently behind on
their payments. The only necessary, reasonable, or appropriate
purpose of drive-by inspections is to determine whether a home is
occupied. However, even when PNC knows that homeowners still
occupy their homes and do not intend to abandon it, just because
they are behind in payments, PNC continues to order and charge
for property inspections.

This practice is directly contrary to standard form mortgage
agreements for the mortgages PNC services, which only allow for
default related services like property inspections only when they
are necessary, reasonable, or appropriate. A drive-by property
inspection is neither necessary, reasonable, nor appropriate,
especially when it is automatically ordered without regard to
whether PNC has information indicating that a property is not
actually abandoned or vacant. No reasonable consumer would ever
enter into the mortgages serviced by PNC if he or she knew that
it would order property inspections that are not necessary,
reasonable, or appropriate in the event that the consumer has
difficulty making their payments.  Nor would any reasonable
consumer, when presented with a uniform and non-negotiable
mortgage agreement serviced by PNC, understand or expect that PNC
would order such unnecessary, unreasonable, and inappropriate
property inspections given the limitations contained in those
agreements that fees for services would only be assessed when
necessary or reasonable. When borrowers go into default and PNC
unilaterally decides to instruct third parties to perform
unnecessary unreasonable, and inappropriate property inspections,
borrowers have no ability to prevent such inspections, and they
must pay the fees or face further consequences of being in
default, such as eviction and foreclosure and escalating
principle and interests costs.

PNC offers a wide range of services for all our customers, from
individuals and small businesses, to corporations and government
entities. No matter how simple or complicated your needs, we're
sure to have the products, knowledge and resources necessary for
financial success.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes:

          Edwin J. Kilpela
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908 6709
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  bsilverman@fbfglaw.com


PREMIUM HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Jocson Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PRISSA JOCSON, an individual; for herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM HOME
CARE, INC., a California corporation, doing business as MAE
MORGAN; JHAN, INC., a California corporation, doing business as
MAE MORGAN AGENCY; MAE MORGAN NW, INC., a California Corporation,
JANICE BAUTISTA, aka JANICE MAE, an individual; BRENDA ASCUNCION,
an individual; HANY BOUTROS, an individual, JEANEE YOON, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC698516 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 16, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wages and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provide in-home and
in-facility caregiver services throughout Southern California.
The Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class work in non-
exempt, hourly positions, and have not, during the Class Period,
been paid all minimum and overtime wages owed, have not been
provided accurate wage statements, pursuant to the Labor Code,
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15-2001, Wage Order 5-
2001, and other applicable Wage Orders and California law.

The Defendants' uniform policy, applicable to all caregivers
during the Class Period was to misclassify their employees as
"independent contractors" to avoid paying minimum wages and
overtime wages. In furtherance of this policy, Defendants
required class members to obtain business licenses from the
cities in which they were employed. During the Class Period, the
Defendants, by virtue of centralized and uniform pay policies,
failed to provide any wage statements whatsoever to Class
Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Eanet, Esq.
          Brian D. Lauter, Esq.
          EANET, PC FILED
          550 S. Hope Street, Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (310) 775 2495
          Facsimile: (310) 593 2589
          E-mail: matt@eanetpc.com


REPUBLIC NAIL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Jimenez Says
------------------------------------------------------
ROCIO JIMENEZ an individual, the Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC NAIL,
INC., a California corporation; ALEJANDRO TAMAYOLIZARRAGA, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC698924 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 20, 2018), seeks to
recover earned wages pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants failed to maintain Plaintiff's employee records in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. The
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with itemized wage
statements in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Despite demand for payment, Defendants have failed or
otherwise refused to pay Plaintiff any portion of amounts due,
owing and unpaid for the time that Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants. Further, alter ego liability is appropriate when a
corporation is used by an individual or individuals, or by
another corporation, to perpetrate a fraud, circumvent a statute,
or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose, a court
may disregard the corporate entity and treat the acts as if they
were done by the individuals themselves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GAVRIL T. GABRIEL
          8255 Firestone Blvd., Suite 201
          Downey, CA 90241
          Telephone: (562) 758 8210
          Facsimile: (562) 758 8219
          E-mail: GGabriel@GTGLaw.Org


SAINT LUCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Moreno Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
G. MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAINT LUCY REPRESENTS, LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company, and DOE ONE through and including
DOE TEN, the Defendants, Case No. BC698524 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 16, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, on September 15, 2017, the Defendants
employed Moreno and other non-exempt for still photo shoots
entitled "Story Telling Campaign." Wages were due by the next pay
period but Moreno was not paid until January 2018. The Defendants
failed to timely compensate Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees for
all outstanding wages, and did not routinely provide Plaintiff or
Aggrieved Employees wage statements with all required
information, including but not limited to, the legal name and
address of the employer.

Saint Lucy is a full-service creative agency and production
consultant. SAINT LUCY works with talented photographers in
various stages of their careers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Min Ji Gal, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
                  mgal@harrisandruble.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TATYANA LITVINOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01494-JSC (N.D. Cal.,
March 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendant attempted to avoid
directly ordering Plaintiff and the members of the Class to work
overtime (mandatory overtime) by first soliciting the members to
volunteer (voluntary overtime).

The City and County of San Francisco has employed hundreds of
nurses at medical facilities including San Francisco General
Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital, in other facilities such as
the San Francisco County jail, and in various public health
programs.  These nurses are work in job classifications and
titled including Registered Nurse, Clinical Nurse Specialist,
Nurse Midwife, Anesthetist, Operating Room Nurse, Public Health
Nurse, and Nurse Practitioner. These positions are collectively
known as and referred to as "Staff Nurse" positions. Staff Nurses
are employed on a regular basis for at least 20 hours per week.
In addition to Staff Nurses, Defendant also employs "Per Diem"
nurses. Per Diem nurses are employed on an irregular and basis
and are typically used to fill in for regular Staff Nurses as
staffing needs dictate.

San Francisco, in northern California, is a hilly city on the tip
of a peninsula surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco
Bay. It's known for its year-round fog, iconic Golden Gate
Bridge, cable cars and colorful Victorian houses. The Financial
District's Transamerica Pyramid is its most distinctive
skyscraper.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo G. Roy, Esq.
          John R. Hurley, Esq.
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 527 0255


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: 2nd Cir. Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied on
January 8, 2018, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company's request for
interlocutory appeal in a class action lawsuit related to the EZ
Seed grass seed product, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2017

The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California
class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts
claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on
a marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product
from 2009 to 2012.  The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves
and purported class members, various forms of monetary and non-
monetary relief, including statutory damages that they contend
could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Company has
defended the action vigorously, disputes the plaintiffs' claims
and theories, including the recoverability of statutory damages,
and intends to continue vigorously defending the action.

In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case
in certain respects, and permitted the case to continue
proceeding as a class action.

On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on the Company's
request for interlocutory review of issues relating to the
recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on
August 31, 2017, approved that request.

On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the
interlocutory appeal request.

The Company said, "At this point in the proceedings, it is not
currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if
any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no accruals
have been recorded in our consolidated financial statements with
respect to the action.  There can be no assurance that this
action will not have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is an American multinational
corporation headquartered in Marysville, Ohio. The company is
considered an industry leader in the lawn and garden market, with
regional offices and research facilities across the U.S. and
businesses in Canada, Europe and Asia Pacific. In the U.S., the
company's Scotts, Miracle-Gro and Ortho brands are market leading
in their categories, as is the consumer Roundup brand, which is
marketed in North America and most of Europe exclusively by
Scotts.


SECURITAS SECURITY: "Boursiquot" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fredner Boursiquot, and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v.
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., a foreign profit
corporation and Don W. Walker, Individually, the Defendants, Case
No. CACE 18-004370, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft Lauderdale) on March 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60589-FAM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

          Mary Caroline Miller, Esq.
          Meagan Leigh Martin, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 South Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 540 7929
          E-mail: mmartin@bakerlaw.com


SENIOR OPERATIONS: Faces "Hartline" Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN HARTLINE, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENIOR
OPERATIONS LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC697665 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages
not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, and
non-compliant wage statements under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-
paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California,
including the County of Los Angeles. The Defendants, jointly and
severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt
employee, from approximately November 2014 to approximately June
2016, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and
failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks.

Senior Operations, LLC designs and manufactures components for
companies in the United States and internationally. It offers
bellows and engineered products, including complex assemblies,
bellows, and flexible tubing and hoses, as well as medical
bellows, heat exchangers, and flexible tubing; and engine and
exhaust.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that it is currently a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, arising from employee wage-and-hour claims
under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, hourly
and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and necessary
expenditure indemnification violations; and unfair competition.

The Company also said, "Although the Company records reserves for
legal disputes and other matters in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in the United States of America
("GAAP"), the ultimate outcomes of these types of matters are
inherently uncertain.  Actual results may differ significantly
from current estimates.  Given the current status of this matter,
the Company recorded an estimated loss of US$385 as of September
30, 2017 of which US$10 was paid as of September 30, 2017 and the
remaining balance is expected to be paid within the second
quarter of fiscal 2018."

SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined
components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the
United States and Europe.  It was founded in 1916 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


SIGMA DESIGNS: Speiser Balks at Silicon Labs Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPEISER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIGMA DESIGNS, INC., ELIAS NADLER, J.
MICHAEL DODSON, MARTIN MANNICHE, SALEEL AWSARE, AND THINH TRAN,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01670 (N.D. Cal., March 16,
2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate a proposed merger transaction and require Sigma to
file a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and disseminate it to Sigma's stockholders,
and, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated without
the material omissions being remedied, Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendants' violations.

The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, as a public
stockholder of Sigma Design, Inc. against the members of Sigma's
Board of Directors and Sigma for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and on behalf of himself and a class of
public stockholders of Sigma against the Individual Defendants
for breach of fiduciary duty.

On December 7, 2017, Sigma and Silicon Laboratories Inc. revealed
they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which
Silicon Labs would acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Sigma for $7.05 per share. The Merger
Agreement included provisions requiring Sigma to take certain
actions, including (1) terminate certain contracts by January 22,
2018, (2) sell or wind down Sigma's TV business by December 14,
2017, and (3) have $40 million in cash on hand as of January 23,
2018. If these conditions were not met, then Sigma would instead
sell its Z-Wave business to Silicon Labs for $240 million. On
January 23, 2018, Sigma disclosed that it had failed to meet the
conditions of the Merger Agreement and, instead, would be moving
forward with the Proposed Transaction.

The Board of Sigma agreed to the Proposed Transaction without a
fairness opinion, did not have financial analyses on the Proposed
Transaction, or an alternative strategy as to actions to take if
they could not satisfy the conditions of the Merger Agreement.
Moreover, the conditions had deadlines that were too short to
allow Sigma to meet them.

On February 7, 2018, Sigma announced that it has entered into a
definitive agreement with Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. to
sell to ISSI its Wired Connectivity Business Unit, which includes
Sigma Designs Israel, S.D.I. Ltd., a Sigma Designs subsidiary
which is the operating entity for the wired connectivity
business. Subject to satisfaction of closing conditions, ISSI has
agreed to pay $28.0 million in cash, subject to certain
adjustments based on the amount of working capital delivered at
closing and a holdback of $4.2 million to secure indemnification
obligations of Sigma. The parties expect to close the Transaction
in the first quarter of Sigma's fiscal 2019, ending April 28,
2018.

On February 23, 2018, Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, namely
the sale of Sigma's Z-Wave business to Silicon Labs. The
Registration Statement omits material information with respect
the Proposed Transaction.

Sigma Designs is an American public corporation that designs and
builds high-performance system-on-a-chip semiconductor
technologies for Internet-based set-top boxes, and DVD
players/recorders.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278 2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278 2640
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Mckenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983 1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983 0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


SIMONTON BUILDING: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the appeal in the case entitled,
Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., is
pending.

In Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a
purported class action filed on October 17, 2016 in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege
damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design
and manufacture of certain Simonton windows containing two-pane
insulating glass units.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary
damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On April 17, 2017, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and its appellant
brief on May 16, 2017 and July 7, 2017, respectively, defendants
filed its appellee brief on August 7, 2017, and plaintiffs filed
its reply brief on August 21, 2017. The appeal is pending. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells residential and commercial building
products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


SLACK INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN JR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLACK, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02181 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), wants
Defendant to update and remove accessibility barriers on their
Website so that Plaintiff and the proposed Class and Subclass
individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing will be able to
independently and privately view videos posted on the Website.

The lawsuit claims the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of
hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to
the goods and services Defendant provides to non-disabled
individuals through https:// www.healio.com. The Website provides
to the public a wide array of the goods, services, employment
opportunities and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the
Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the
Website.

The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
and hard of hearing individual. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


SOLVAY PHARMA: Still Faces Class Suits on Patent Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face several pending
lawsuits, including three purported class suits, related to its
patent settlement agreement involving AndroGel, according to
AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Solvay Pharmaceuticals is a company Abbott acquired in February
2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC.

On January 1, 2013, AbbVie became an independent company as a
result of the distribution by Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) of
100% of the outstanding common stock of AbbVie to Abbott's
shareholders.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others are consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2084.  These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's patent
litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the 2006
patent litigation settlement agreements and related agreements
with three generic companies violate federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.  These cases include: (a) four
individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) three purported class actions;
and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al.
Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs'
claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the
claims regarding the patent litigation settlements, which are
proceeding in the district court.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
SUSANNNA STEPHENS, the Plaintiff, v. SOPAPILLAS, LLC, and STEVEN
J. DALE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00296 (M.D. Tenn.,
March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid (or underpaid) minimum
and overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and all other legal or equitable relief to which
she and other similar situated employees who join this action are
entitled, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Dale owns and operates the restaurant Sopapillas
located in Franklin, Tennessee personally and through Defendant
Sopapillas, LLC. Defendant Dale manages, owns, and controls the
operation of Sopapillas, directly and indirectly through his
supervision of management and hourly employees.

Defendants for at least three years prior to filing this lawsuit
have had a uniform policy, and practice of paying employees in
various positions a sub-minimum wage while claiming a tip credit.
For at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of failing to
notify employees of the requirements of the tip credit in
violation of 29 U.S.C. section 203(m).

For at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of claiming a
tip credit against the minimum wage and overtime obligations for
Named Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees.  For
at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of mandating
employees working as servers and bartenders to pay a portion of
tips they receive from customers to the restaurant at the end of
their shifts to supplement the hourly wages of employees working
in positions that do not qualify as tipped employees under the
FLSA.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250 2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250 2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


ST LUKES ROOSEVELT: "Edmond" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA EDMOND and CHANELLE STURKEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ST LUKES
ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER d/b/a INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED MEDICINE,
the Defendant, Case No. 152279/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 14,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated nonexempt hourly paid employees employed
by Defendant or in the State of New York at any time during the
period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action
and continuing until such further date as the practices
complained of are discontinued.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and
continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These
practices include: (a) requiring Hourly Employees to perform work
without compensation during meal breaks; (b) requiring Hourly
Employees to perform work without compensation before the start
of their scheduled shift; (c) requiring Hourly Employees to
perform work without compensation after the end of their
scheduled shift; (d) failing to pay Hourly Employees at their
straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours
in a week; (e) failing to pay Hourly Employees overtime of time
and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a week; and (f) failing to provide accurate wages
statements.

St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center owns and operates a
hospital. It provides services in the areas of emergency,
pediatric emergency, pre-hospital care, and medical
toxicology.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative New York Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


STRAIGHT PATH: Gets Initial Court OK on "Zacharia" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
preliminarily approved on February 2, 2018, a settlement between
Straight Path Communications Inc. and the lead plaintiff in
Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications Inc. et al., No.  2:15-
cv-08051-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), which settles the putative shareholder
class action and dismisses the claims that were filed against the
Defendants in that action.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement agreement is
scheduled for September 7, 2018, according to the Company's Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 8, 2018.

Under the settlement, the Company will provide for a US$2.25
million initial payment (the "Initial Payment") and a US$7.2
million additional payment (the "Additional Payment").  The
Initial Payment will be paid into an escrow account, and will be
fully covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company.
The Additional Payment of US$7.2 million will be paid within 60
days after the Closing or, if the Merger (as defined in the
Merger Agreement) is not consummated, within 60 days following
the Company's payment of the non-transfer penalty specified in
the Consent Decree entered into by the Company with the FCC.  In
any event, the Additional Payment will be payable no later than
December 31, 2018.

Straight Path Communications Inc. is a communications asset
company. The company owns, via intermediate wholly-owned
entities, 100% of Straight Path Spectrum, Inc. ("Straight Path
Spectrum") and 100% of Straight Path Ventures, LLC ("Straight
Path Ventures"), and the company own 84.5% of Straight Path IP
Group, Inc. ("Straight Path IP Group"). The company is based in
Glen Allen, Virginia.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Thompson Sues over Defective Engine Parts
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
and SUBARU CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03736-
NLH-JS (D.N.J., March 16, 2018), seeks restitution for all engine
repairs incurred by a proposed class representative and proposed
class members resulting from the defectively designed and
manufactured engines, and incorrect maintenance and service
intervals as set forth in the class vehicles' owner's manuals.

According to the complaint, Subaru withheld material disclosures
concerning engine components known to the defendants to be
defective and used in the following vehicles: 2009 through and
including 2014 model year Impreza WRX and WRX STi. Engines used
in class vehicles include but are not limited to engine codes
EJ255 and EJ257.

Passenger motor vehicle engines should last a minimum of 120,000
miles in a modern automobile such as the class vehicles. This
proposition is demonstrated by the defendants' Owner's Manual and
Warranty & Maintenance Booklet materials accompanying class
vehicles, other predecessor engines manufactured by the
defendants and performance of comparable competitor vehicles.

However, the internal components of the class engine prematurely
fail at low miles.  Subaru and SoA introduced the class engines
in the United States market in late 2007 for the 2008 model year.
Class engines are predisposed to premature engine failure. Class
vehicles are defective with respect to improperly designed and
manufactured pistons and an engine management system and PCV
(positive crankcase ventilation) system that subjects these
models' engines to premature catastrophic engine piston ringlands
failure.

Subaru Corporation, a Japanese business entity was formerly named
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Effective April of 2017 it became
Subaru Corporation and assumed all assets and liabilities of its
corporate predecessor Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, New Jersey 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391 7000
          Facsimile: (201) 307 1086
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  jbrody@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
          THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C.
          7 Evergreen Lane
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (781) 741 6075
          Facsimile: (781) 741 6074
          E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com


SUN LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUN LIFE FINANCIAL (U.S.) SERVICES
COMPANY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02371 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's website, WWW.SUNLIFE.COM, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.

Sun Life provides insurance products and services to businesses
and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575 4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


SUNOCO PIPELINE: Marches Sue over Damage to Home & Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY MARCH and RUSSELL MARCH, h/w 475 Lisa Drive West Chester, PA
19380 AND JARED SAVITSKI 758 Chessie Court West Chester, PA
19380, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the PLAINTIFFS v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. a/k/a ENERGY TRANSFER
PARTNERS L.P. 8111 West Chester Drive Dallas, TX 75225
And SUNOCO LOGISTICS PARTNERS L.P. 3807 West Chester Pike
Newtown Square, PA 19073, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 180301793
(Phily. Ct. of Common Pleas, March 15, 2018), seeks to recover an
amount in excess of $50,000 dollars, together with costs,
punitive damages and any other relief the Court deems
appropriate.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
installation, maintenance, and operation of an underground
pipeline connecting gas drilling operations in western
Pennsylvania with refining operations located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The Defendants employed and continue to employ a
process known as horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to install
the underground pipeline. Defendants' use of HDD caused
destruction of Plaintiffs' properties, undermined the subjacent
support of Plaintiffs' properties, and exposed Plaintiffs to
harms and losses. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer, among other things, physical damage to their property,
the loss of the use and quiet enjoyment of their property, and
impairment of the value of their homes, as a result of
Defendants' conduct.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Neuwirth, Esq.
          NEUWIRTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 270
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (215) 259 3687
          Facsimile: (215) 253 5816
          E-mail: andrew@neuwirthlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Robson, Esquire,
          ROBSON & ROBSON, P.C.
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 270
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 825 3009
          Facsimile: (610) 825 2620
          E-mail: erobson@robsonlaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the putative class action filed by
Nicholas Lewis against Scottrade, Inc. related to client order
routing matters, according to TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Five putative class action complaints were filed between August
and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders and one putative class action was filed in December
2014 regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders.

The cases against TD Ameritrade were filed in, or transferred to,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14CV288; Tyler
Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV289; Bruce Lerner
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV325; Michael Sarbacker v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV341;
and Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 8:14CV396.

The case against Scottrade, Inc. was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Nicholas
Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15CV01255.

The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the
defendants failed to provide clients with best execution and
routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its
order flow.

The complaints in Verdieck, Lerner and Lewis allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders.

The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b)
and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of
Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment and declaratory judgment.  The complaints seek various
kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief.

The Company, including Scottrade, Inc., moved to dismiss the
putative class action complaints.

On March 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Nebraska entered an
order dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions
against TD Ameritrade, denying the motion to dismiss the federal
securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the
plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to
assert a federal securities claim.

On August 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Missouri entered
an order dismissing without prejudice all of the state law claims
against Scottrade, Inc.  None of the plaintiffs in the actions
filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker, Verdieck and Lewis cases
filed appeals.

The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file an appeal and that
case is considered closed.

On January 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of the Lewis case.

The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on any of the cases
against TD Ameritrade.

The Klein case is proceeding.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits
and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses,
if any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities
brokerage services and related technology-based financial
services to retail investors, traders and independent registered
investment advisors ("RIAs").


TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation continues to defend itself
against putative class action and non-class action lawsuits
related to the sales of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC's
securities, according to TD Ameritrade's Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.

A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on
September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a
defendant.

The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities
of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or
after June 9, 2010.

Other groups of plaintiffs have filed four non-class action
lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these
and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche
et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug.  11, 2016), Kenneth
Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439
(filed Nov. 3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte &
Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec.  2, 2016) and
Charles Layton, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No.
17CV42915 (filed October 2, 2017).

FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade,
Inc.

The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated
and materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.  While the factual allegations differ in various respects
among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that:
TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than US$140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for
Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for
the purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities.

In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than US$600 million on
the Aequitas securities they purchased.  In that case and the
other cases, collectively over 200 named plaintiffs allege a
total of over US$125 million in losses plus other damages.  Of
that amount, over 100 plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade
customers, allege approximately US$35 million in losses plus
other damages.

In the Wurster and Pommier cases, TD Ameritrade filed a motion to
compel arbitration as to the claims by those plaintiffs who were
TD Ameritrade customers and the Court dismissed those claims.  In
those cases, plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and
defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

In the Ciuffitelli case, defendants have also moved to dismiss
the pending complaint.  Discovery has commenced.

The Ramsdell case is stayed and the Layton case may similarly be
stayed.  These stays are expected to remain in place until the
resolution of the motions to dismiss the Wurster and Pommier
cases.

TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this litigation.  The Company is unable to predict the
outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of this
litigation, or the potential losses, if any, that may result."

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities
brokerage services and related technology-based financial
services to retail investors, traders and independent registered
investment advisors ("RIAs").


TRAFFIC CONTROL: "Ruffin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MR. ANDRE RUFFIN, I Morris Lea Court Baltimore, Maryland 21234
Baltimore County; MR. SHEA CAMPBELL, 3 Dundas Court - Apartment
B-3 Parkville, Maryland 21234 Baltimore County; and MS. TYRA
GRIFFIN 4603 Marble Hall Road Baltimore, Maryland 21239 Baltimore
City, the Plaintiffs, v. TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a
Flagger Force PO Box 20161, 2744 Heather Drive York, PA 17402;
MS. MICHELLE DONER, 2744 Heather Drive, York, PA 17402; and MR.
MICHAEL DONER 2744 Heather Drive York, PA 17402, the Defendants,
the Defendant, Case No. GCB18CV0779 (D. Md., March 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid straight time and
overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage
and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked five
days a week and were required to be on call and available between
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, without being
compensated for their time spent on call. If Plaintiffs received
a call from Defendants, they were required to call into
Defendants' office within one hour. Failure to call in resulted
in disciplinary action. Defendants paid Plaintiffs for
approximately 35 hours per week by Defendants. Defendants did not
pay Plaintiffs their owed straight time wages for hours worked
between 35 and 40 hours per week as required by the MWPCL.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
when the time spent performing mandatory vehicle inspections,
reporting damage or malfunctions, being on call, driving to
and from jobsites, taking the F-150s to the mechanic, and getting
or buying water are accounted for. The Plaintiffs were never paid
overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half time their regular
rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per work week, as required by the FLSA, and MWHL. The Plaintiffs
were not paid their agreed upon wage for all hours worked,
including all straight time wages and overtime wages for all
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, as
required by MWPCL. two weeks have elapsed from the date on which
Defendants were required to have paid Plaintiffs all owed wages,
including all owed overtime wages, as required by the MWPCL.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Richard P. Neuworth, Esq.
          Devan M. Wang, Esq.
          LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
          606 Baltimore Avenue - Suite 20 I
          Towson. Maryland 21204
          Telephone: (443) 273 1202
          Facsimile: (410) 296 8660
          E-mail: m@joblaws.net
                  dw@joblaws.net



TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Orlowski Sues over U.S.-Made Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA ORLOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS,
INC. d/b/a SHIKAI, the Defendant, Case No. BC697670 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
labeled its personal care products as "Made in the U.S.A."

The unlawfully labeled products are sold via Defendant's website,
catalogue, and in various stores throughout the United States.
The "Made in the USA" claim is prominently printed on Defendant's
products, including the ShiKai Borage Therapy Lotion product
purchased by Plaintiff, and also appears on Defendant's website.

Contrary to Defendant's representation and in violation of
California law, Defendant's Class Products, including the Product
purchased by Plaintiff, include foreign ingredients. This
nationwide sale and advertising of deceptively labeled products
constitutes violations of: California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code
section 17533.7, and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Trans-India Products, Inc. was founded in 1974. The company's
line of business includes the manufacturing of perfumes,
cosmetics, and other toilet preparations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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


TURTABLE LLC: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MARC NELSON, TALIS PETROPOULOUS, and ELIZABETH FESSEL, On behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. TURTABLE, LLC. d/b/a MOMO, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-
00824-TDC (D. Md., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Maryland's Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated restaurant servers who have worked at the MOMO
restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland, which is owned, controlled and
operated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, by
failing to pay the statutory minimum wage that was due to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated server employees,
Defendants willfully violated very clear and well established
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Rubin, Esq.
          THE RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, P.C.
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, Maryland 20852
          Telephone: (301) 760 7914
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Satisfaction of Judgment Filed in "Bouaphakeo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court has approved Tyson Foods, Inc.'s settlement
agreement in three class action suits, including Bouaphakeo
(f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and a satisfaction of
judgment in this case was filed on January 12, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30,
2017.

In the case Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., N.D.  Iowa, February 6, 2007, a jury trial was held
involving the Company's Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant which
resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for
violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work
activities.  The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs
liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the
amount of US$5,784,758.  The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed
an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
US$2,692,145.

The Company appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appellate court
affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and
the Company filed a petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014,
which was denied.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court, which was granted on June 8, 2015,
and oral arguments before the Supreme Court occurred on November
10, 2015.

On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate
court's rulings and remanded to the trial court to allocate the
lump sum award among the class participants.  On remand, the
trial court determined that the lump sum award should be
allocated to class participants according to the method
prescribed by plaintiffs' expert at trial.

Subsequently, a joint notice advising the court of a global
settlement of this case, the Edwards matter, and the consolidated
Murray and DeVoss matter was filed.  The parties agreed to settle
all three matters for a total payment of US$12.6 million,
inclusive of wages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and costs of settlement administration.

The trial court approved the settlement, which became a final
order on December 21, 2017, and a stipulation of dismissal was
filed on December 22, 2017.  A satisfaction of judgment in this
case was filed on January 12, 2018.

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Against Maplevale Farms Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. still defends itself against the class action
complaint filed by Maplevale Farms, Inc. related to alleged
violations of U.S. antitrust laws over broiler chicken prices,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 30, 2017.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of
itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of
Illinois.  Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint,
additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes,
into actions on behalf of three different putative classes:
direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.  These three
actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.
Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on
behalf of each putative class.

The currently operative complaints allege, among other things,
that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state
unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment common laws.  The complaints also allege that
defendants "manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used
Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock."  It is further alleged
that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs
and the members of the putative classes.  The plaintiffs are
seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
classes.

The court issued a ruling on November 20, 2017 denying all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The litigation is currently in a
discovery phase.  Decisions on class certification and summary
judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are not
expected before the latter part of calendar year 2020 under the
scheduling order currently governing the case.  Scheduling for
trial, if necessary, will occur after rulings on class
certification and any summary judgment motions.  Certain putative
class members have opted out of this matter and are proceeding
separately, and others may do so in the future.

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Amend "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to amend or alter a previously entered judgment and to
submit an amended complaint remains pending in a class action
suit filed by William Huser against Tyson Foods, Inc., according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30,
2017.

On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson
Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016,
filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie
Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
periodic filings contained materially false and misleading
statements by failing to disclose that the Company has colluded
with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens
in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the
Western District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio.
Each of those cases have now been transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed.

A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017 (which also
named additional individual defendants).  The consolidated
complaint seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the
court granted on July 26, 2017.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment and
to submit an amended complaint.  That motion is pending.

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 30, 2017, that the company and the other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss in the case, In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, and the motion is pending.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed
a class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-
integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs
also allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on
grower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect
of artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive
levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs
are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017. That motion is pending.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is one of the world's largest food companies
and a recognized leader in protein. Founded in 1935 by John W.
Tyson and grown under three generations of family leadership, the
Company has a broad portfolio of products and brands. The company
is based in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Appeal in Philippine Labor Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 30, 2017, that an appeals court in the
Philippines has granted a writ of preliminary injunction that
will preclude execution of a labor case judgment involving its
Sara Lee unit pending an appeal.

The company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly
named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of
cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the
Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999.

The complaint is filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the
"respondents"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection
with the termination of manufacturing operations in the
Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The
Hillshire Brands Company. In 2006, a labor arbiter ruled against
the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710
(approximately US$67 million) in damages and fees.

The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was
subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent
to the NLRC's decision, the parties filed numerous appeals,
motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of
which remained outstanding for several years. While various of
those appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The
Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting
liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme
Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for
payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an
amount not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately US$6.7
million). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to
be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was
insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the
respondents' settlement motion and all motions for
reconsideration thereof.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature
the NLRC's December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases are now
back before the NLRC, which will once again rule on the
respondents' appeals regarding the labor arbiter's 2006 ruling in
favor of the complainants. In the meantime, the respondents
reached a settlement with a group comprising approximately 18% of
the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire
Brands Company would pay each settling complainant PHP68,000
(approximately US$1,325). The settlement payment was made on
December 21, 2016, to the NLRC, which is responsible for
distributing the funds to each settling complainant.

On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for
reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside.
The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a
resolution received on May 5, 2017, and entered a judgment on the
award on July 24, 2017. Previously, from May 10, 2017 to May 12,
2017, Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee
Philippines each filed petitions for certiorari with requests for
an immediate temporary restraining order and a writ of permanent
injunction with the Philippines Court of Appeals.

On August 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a temporary
restraining order precluding execution of the NLRC judgment
against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee
Philippines, Inc.  The temporary restraining order was slated to
expire November 21, 2017 unless further extended by a preliminary
injunction.

"We have recorded an accrual for this matter for the amount of
loss that, at this time, we deem probable and enforceable. This
accrual is reflected in the Company's consolidated financial
statements and reflects an amount significantly less than the
amount awarded by the labor arbiter in 2004 (i.e.,
PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US$67 million)). The ultimate
enforceable loss is uncertain, and if our accrual is not
adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial condition or results of operations," Tyson
Foods said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017.

On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of
preliminary injunction that will preclude execution of the NLRC
judgment during the pendency of the appeal.

"We have recorded an accrual for this matter for the amount of
loss that, at this time, we deem probable and enforceable. This
accrual is reflected in the Company's consolidated condensed
financial statements and reflects an amount significantly less
than the amount awarded by the labor arbiter in 2004 (i.e.,
PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US $69 million)). The ultimate
enforceable loss is uncertain, and if our accrual is not
adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial condition or results of operations," the
Company said in its latest 10-Q report.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is one of the world's largest food companies
and a recognized leader in protein. Founded in 1935 by John W.
Tyson and grown under three generations of family leadership, the
Company has a broad portfolio of products and brands. The company
is based in Springdale, Arkansas.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Gets Final Court OK on Shareholder Class Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. has received final court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Court") against Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S.
securities laws (collectively, the "Shareholder Lawsuit").

On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.  Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs.

On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of the court.  The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on
August 10, 2015.

On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum opinion, reaffirming the district court's dismissal of
the alleged violations of Section10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and reversing the district
court's dismissal of the alleged violations of Section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

On August 4, 2017, the parties to the Shareholder Lawsuit filed
with the Court a settlement that they reached to resolve the
Shareholder Lawsuit against the defendants.  Pursuant to the
settlement stipulation and subject to certain conditions therein,
the settlement class will receive US$6.8 million, funded largely
by the Company's insurance carriers.

The settlement was approved by the district court and final
judgment was entered on December 20, 2017.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for
service providers, enterprises, and consumers worldwide.  It was
formerly known as Pera Networks, Inc. and changed its name to
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. in 2005.  Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


UNITED AMERICAN: Parshall Balks at Heritage Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED AMERICAN BANK, NICHOLAS J.
SCHRUP, III, JOHN C. SCHRUP, NORMAN I. BOOK, JR., JAY PAUL LEUPP,
DENNIS C. DISALVO, MARGARET A. TAYLOR, WILLIAM W. HILL, STEPHEN
A. WAY, GUY ROUNSAVILLE, JR., HOWARD J. WEILAND, ROSANNE FOUST,
RONALD L. BLAND, HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP, and HERITAGE BANK OF
COMMERCE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01671-HSG (N.D. Cal.,
March 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event
defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
January 11, 2018, pursuant to which United American Bank or the
will be acquired by Heritage Commerce Corp and Heritage Bank of
Commerce. On January 10, 2018, UAB's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Heritage. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of UAB will receive 2.1644 Parent common shares for
each share of UAB they own. On February 26, 2018, defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the Registration Statement.

United American Bank opened its doors in 2003 and has been
serving San Mateo, California and other communities in the San
Fran Peninsula ever since.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Schumacher, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          155 Jackson Street, #1903
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 855 8995
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Ashes Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
----------------------------------------------------------
AMBER and ELLIOTT ASH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, c/o DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC 7556 Mentor
Ave. Mentor, Ohio 44060, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent
3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122;
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter
alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital
and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L.
Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker
Heights, Ohio 44122; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL
CENTER, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605
Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122, the
Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894345 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Mar. 12, 2018), is a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other
Class members who were injured as a result of Defendants'
conduct, which caused irreplaceable damage to their frozen eggs
and embryos. Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and
storing Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' eggs and embryos
at a University Hospitals Fertility Center located at the Ahuja
Medical Center in Beachwood, Ohio.

The damage occurred when the temperature rose in a large storage
tank in which Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and
storing approximately 2,000 of Plaintiffs' and the other Class
members' egg and embryo specimens. In what can only be
characterized as gross negligence and an utter breach of trust,
decency, and responsible stewardship, Defendants destroyed the
hopes, dreams, and futures of hundreds, if not thousands, of
prospective Ohio parents and families.

Recognizing the extent and consequences of its misconduct,
Defendants have reached out to Plaintiffs and the other Class
members to advise them of Defendants' misconduct and that the
consequence of their misconduct is that Plaintiffs' and the other
Class members' frozen eggs and embryos -- eggs and embryos that
they entrusted to Defendants and were relying on Defendants for
their preservation and safekeeping -- may have been destroyed or
irretrievably damaged. One of University Hospitals'
representatives is reported saying, "It's absolutely
devastating."

University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit
medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Other Members of the Proposed
Class:

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953 8888
          E-mail: madicello@dlcfirm.com
                  rfdicello@dlcfirm.com
                  mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Adam M. Prom, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214 7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  aprom@dlcfim.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Crosses Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE R. CROSS and KEVIN M. CROSS 929 Berkshire Drive
Macedonia, Ohio 44056, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY
HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory
Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122;
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter
alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital
and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L.
Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker
Heights, Ohio 44122; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL
CENTER, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605
Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122, the
Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894335 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Mar. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages,
equitable relief, and other remedies from Defendants as a result
of their misconduct.

According to the complaint, UH provided for-profit, assisted
reproduction services, including cryogenic preservation and
storage facilities at Ahuja Medical Center among other locations,
to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. These fertility
services are designed to assist married couples, unmarried
couples and unmarried single persons who desire to become
pregnant by increasing the likelihood of pregnancy. In a typical
procedure, a woman's eggs are retrieved, after medically-induced
stimulation of the ovaries, by a transvaginal aspiration
performed under anesthesia in an operating room.

These "harvested" eggs are either frozen in cryogenic storage for
later use or are combined with sperm by in vitro fertilization to
develop into viable embryos that it is hoped will grow to become
human babies. This process causes women to produce many more eggs
than the naturally-occurring amount. The increased number of eggs
enables multiple attempts of in vitro fertilization, thereby
reducing the required number of surgical retrievals. In order to
preserve those eggs that are not immediately fertilized, UH
provides the onsite cryogenic storage and cryopreservation of
such unfertilized human eggs using liquid nitrogen and specially-
designed, temperature-controlled storage tanks. Similarly, UH
cryogenically stores and preserves the fertilized human embryos
resulting from this process using temperature-regulated liquid
nitrogen in the same type of specially designed storage tanks.

The preserved unfertilized human eggs and/or fertilized human
embryos are removed from cryogenic storage from time to time, at
Plaintiffs' or each Class member's direction, for use in
attempting to become pregnant. At all relevant times prior to
March 3, 2018, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were
induced to store their respective unfertilized human eggs and
fertilized human embryos at UH's cryopreservation facility by
UH's promise and agreement to properly store and maintain such
eggs and embryos in temperature-regulated liquid nitrogen until
such time in the indefinite future as they would be used.

On March 3, 2018, Plaintiffs had five fertilized human embryos
stored at the UH facility in what they believed to be properly
maintained and temperature-regulated liquid nitrogen
cryopreservation. On March 3-4, 2018, all of Plaintiffs'
fertilized human embryos were damaged or destroyed by a
malfunction at UH's facility that caused a temperature
fluctuation in the liquid nitrogen cryopreservation system. As a
proximate result of the malfunction at UH's cryopreservation
facilities, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have been
injured and damaged.

University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit
medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eric K Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 200 [j
          Cleveland, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 771 1000
          E-mail: eric@zagrans.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Goldberg, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A.
          Solon Business Campus
          31300 Solon Road, Suite 12
          Solon, OH 44139
          Telephone: (440) 519 9900
          E-mail: steven@smglegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq.
          30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 241
          Cleveland, OH 44124
          Telephone: (216) 308 1401
          E-mail: ieffwahl@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 999 7576
          Facsimile: (216) 241 8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  dhollowell@karonllc.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Human Embryos
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY AND RICK PENNIMAN, individually and on the behalf of all
others similarly situated, c/o Taubman Law 1826 West 25th
Cleveland, Ohio 44113, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605
Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY
HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia,
University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and
University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L.
Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker
Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville
Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL
CORP; JOHN DOE MECHANIC; JOHN DOES I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER;
JOHN DOE MONITOR; and JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. CV 18 894396 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, Mar. 12, 2018), is a class action lawsuit on the behalf
of Plaintiffs, individually and on the behalf of other Class
members who were injured as result of Defendants' conduct which
caused irreparable and permanent damage to their frozen eggs and
embryos.

The Defendants are in the business of protecting, preserving,
extracting and storing Plaintiff's and other Class members' eggs
and embryos at a University Hospital Fertility Center located at
the Ahuja Medical Center located at 3999 Richmond Road,
Beachwood, Ohio 44122. The damage and harm occurred when the
temperature in the storage tank which the Defendants' were using
to store, preserve and maintain the viability of embryos and eggs
rose. The temperature increase impacted more than 2,000 vials of
eggs and embryos, affecting the Plaintiffs and other Class
members.

The Defendants' gross and inexcusable conduct was a breach of
trust, confidence, decency, stewardship and professionalism,
Defendants' actions or lack thereof have ruined and destroyed the
hopes, aspirations and dreams of countless prospective parents
and families. Defendants' actions have ruined the last chance for
the Plaintiffs, as well as other Class members, to have children
or additional children. The Defendants have not reached out to
the Plaintiffs and other Class members properly for their
misconduct and negligence, advising them of the extent of damage
done to their eggs and embryos, and not offering them proper
compensation and psychological counseling.

University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit
medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Taubman, Esq.
          TAUBMAN LAW
          1826 West 25th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621 0794
          Facsimile: (216) 621 8886
          E-mail: brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net
                  briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lieberman Sues over Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LIEBERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA; BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, AND DOES 1 TO 50,
24 INCLUSIVE, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564930 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 12, 2018), seeks declaration that Defendants' practice
of claiming UM/UIM benefits from its employees is unlawful, and
seeks a permanent injunction against Defendants from continuing
their unlawful practice of willfully violating the Insurance Code
provisions intended to safeguard Plaintiffs' UM/UIM coverage,
restitution, and costs and attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, Mr. David Lieberman has been employed
by the defendant Regents of the University of California as a
professor at UC Berkeley Law School. Employees of the Regents are
entitled to health care coverage as a group benefit of their
employment. This coverage is a self-funded plan paid through
monthly contributions by employees and the Regents and plaintiff
was enrolled in this health plan in 2016. Since Defendant is a
political subdivision of the State of California, it is a public
entity and therefore the Regents group health plan is not subject
to ERISA.

On May 2, 2016, plaintiff was involved in a serious motor vehicle
accident and suffered severe injuries, requiring hospitalization
and extensive treatment. At the time of the accident, plaintiff
was covered under the REGENTS health plan, and the health plan
paid for plaintiff's medical expenses in excess of $500,000. The
tortfeasor who caused the accident injuring plaintiff had only
$15,000 of liability coverage. However, plaintiff had $500,000 of
uninsured and underinsured ("UM/UIM") coverage which provides for
an additional $485,000 of coverage to plaintiff. The Regents
group health plan at the time of plaintiff's accident provided
for reimbursement rights purporting to allow REGENTS to recover
medical expenses its health plan had paid from any "Recovery"
made by an injured employee.

The lawsuit alleges the Defendants have willfully violated this
law by demanding reimbursement rights from Plaintiffs' UM/UIM
coverage, despite the fact that Regents is a state public entity
and political subdivision of the State of California and
therefore prohibited by the Insurance Code section from directly
benefiting from any person's UM/UIM coverage.

The Regents of the University of California is the governing
board of the University of California system. The board has 26
voting members. The California Constitution grants broad
institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the
Regents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Padilla, Esq.
          Jeffrey Padilla, Esq.
          O'MARA & PADILLA
          320 Encinitas Blvd., Suite A
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: 858 481 5454
          Facsimile: 858 720 9797

               - and -

          Donald M. De Camara, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DONALD M. DE CAMARA
          1241 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite E
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 730 7404
          Facsimile: (760) 730 7409

               - and -

          Thomas D. Haklar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR
          320 Encinitas Blvd., Suite A
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (858) 481 5454
          Facsimile: (858) 720 9797


UTILQUEST LLC: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UTILQUEST, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00294 (M.D. Tenn., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, plus an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee by Defendant
working as a Locator. The Plaintiff regularly and routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a typical workweek, frequently 60 or
more hours per week.

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff and the Class Members: a)
worked off the clock; and b) were denied proper compensation for
all hours worked, including overtime pay at time and one-half
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours within a workweek.  Plaintiff was told that he was an
exempt "Supervisor" by Defendant and paid on a salary basis, plus
bonuses. Other similarly situated employees also were called
"Supervisors" by Defendant who worked in the states of Tennessee
and/or Georgia and were paid on a salary basis, plus bonuses.

Although called "Supervisors" by Defendant, Plaintiff and
Supervisor Class Members did not meet the legal criteria to
qualify as exempt employees under the managerial exemption of the
FLSA, or any other exemption of the FLSA. Thus, Defendant was
legally required to pay Plaintiff and Supervisor Class Members
for all hours worked, including overtime pay at time and one-half
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours within a workweek.

UtiliQuest, LLC provides facility locating and damage prevention
services in North America. It also offers meter reading services
for electric, gas, and water utilities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Classes:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
                  pklett@dickinsonwright.com
                  jburgener@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Bryant, Esq.
          James Bewley, Esq.
          Jennifer Bryant, Esq.
          JAMES BEWLEY LAW PLLC, Esq.
          10th Ave South, Suite 107
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 988 9411
          E-mail: jbewley@JBLfirm.com
                  jbryant@JBLfirm.com


VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with AIG
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RUBIN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALIDUS HOLDINGS, LTD., EDWARD J.
NOONAN, MAHMOUD ABDALLAH, MICHAEL E.A. CARPENTER, MATTHEW J.
GRAYSON, JEFFREY W. GREENBERG, JOHN J. HENDRICKSON, JEAN-MARIE
NESSI, MANDAKINI PURI, GAIL M. ROSS, THERESE M. VAUGHAN,
CHRISTOPHER E. WATSON and KARIN HIRTLERGARVEY, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03828 (D.N.J., March 20, 2018), is a stockholder
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
other public stockholders of Validus Holdings, Ltd. against
Validus and the members of Validus' Board of Directors for their
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  It seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed
merger transaction unless and until Securities Exchange Act
violations are cured.

On January 22, 2018, Validus and AIG issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated January 22, 2018 to sell Validus to AIG for $68.00 per
share in cash. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the
merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $5.56 billion.

On March 7, 2017, Validus filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Validus stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Validus insiders' potential
conflicts of interest; (ii) Validus' financial projections
prepared by Validus' management and provided to and utilized
by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in connection with its evaluation
of the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the valuation analyses
prepared by J.P. Morgan in connection with the rendering of its
fairness opinion. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act,
as Validus stockholders need such information to cast a fully-
informed vote or make an appraisal decision in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

Validus Holdings provides reinsurance coverage, insurance
coverage, and insurance linked securities management services
worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
          Kearny, New Jersey 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          Facsimile: (973) 282 8603
          E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010


WARNER MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action suit against Warner Music Group Corp. related
to the pricing of digital music downloads, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied the plaintiffs' request
for leave to appeal the District Court's order denying their
motion for class certification, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads.  On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.  Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of
digital music downloads.

The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New
York.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13,
2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the
release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their
pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including us.  However, on January
13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on
January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims.  The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion
in part, and denied it in part.  Notably, all claims on behalf of
the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice.  However, a
wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers.  On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.  Plaintiffs filed an
operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015.
The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015.
A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution.

On July 18, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the
district court's order denying class certification.  On August
11, 2017, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
petition.

On December 8, 2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs'
request for leave to appeal the District Court's order denying
their motion for class certification.

According to the SEC report, the parties were in talks to resolve
the matter and already informed the District Court that they were
expected to file a dismissal in February 2018.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The case is In re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
06-md-01780 (S.D.N.Y.).

Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content
company in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Recorded
Music and Music Publishing. The company is based in New York.


WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Suits on Silver Spring Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
WGL Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Washington Gas Light Company,
continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a class action
suit, related to the Silver Spring, Maryland explosion and fire
incident, according to WGL Holdings and Washington Gas's Form 10-
Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, the cause of
which has not been determined.  Additional information will be
made available by the NTSB at the appropriate time.

A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been
filed against WGL and Washington Gas in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland.  Thirty-nine of these suits seek
unspecified damages for personal injury and/or property damage.
The final action is a class action suit seeking total damages
stated to be less than US$5 million for, among others, property
damage and various counts relating to the loss of the use of the
premises.

Two of the 40 cases were originally filed in the District of
Columbia Superior Court, but were dismissed.  Those two actions
were re-filed in Maryland on November 27, 2017.

WGL Holdings said, "We maintain excess liability insurance
coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self-
insured retention.  We believe that this coverage will be
sufficient to cover any significant liability to it that may
result from this incident.  Management is unable to determine a
range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of
occurring and therefore we have not recorded a reserve associated
with this incident.  Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be
a party to the investigation and in that capacity, continues to
work closely with the NTSB to help determine the cause of this
incident.  Information about our obligations as a signed party to
the investigation can be found in the form of the Certificate of
Party Representation, which is available on the investigations
page of the NTSB website -- https://is.gd/a9qrlS -- and 49 CFR
831.13."

On August 14, 2017, the NTSB opened the public docket related to
its ongoing investigation.

WGL, through its subsidiaries, sells and delivers natural gas and
provides a variety of energy-related products and services to
customers primarily in the District of Columbia and the
surrounding metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.


WOLF APPLIANCE: Sharp Sues over Defective Ovens
-----------------------------------------------
FREDERICK I. SHARP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01723 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory, compensatory and punitive damages in
favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members against defendant
for the harm it caused to consumers in connection with its
design, manufacture, advertising, sale and performance of the
Wolf Ovens.

Wolf's L, M and E Series built-in ovens, and "dual fuel" and
induction ranges, for example, contain blue porcelain interiors.
Wolf's gas ranges contain black porcelain interiors. Through this
action, plaintiff seeks to represent all purchasers of Wolf's
wall or built-in ovens and ranges, whether single or double oven
models, containing porcelain interiors since March 20, 2012.

Wolf Ovens are defectively designed in that the porcelain
interior of the oven cavity floor will chip, crack or craze
through regular use, including, for example, through the use
of the self-clean function of the Ovens. The Defect has obvious
aesthetic ramifications. Additionally, once the chipping,
cracking and crazing occurs, the Ovens' convection systems then
propel the porcelain pieces throughout the oven cavities.

Owners of the Wolf Ovens, therefore, cannot use the Ovens,
including the self-clean feature, without the risk of chipping,
cracking or crazing the interior porcelain. Owners of the Wolf
Ovens also risk, through regular use, having the Defect
contaminate the food cooked in the Ovens or cause related harm
resulting from the loose porcelain chips.

Wolf is a manufacturer of high-end cooking appliances, including
ranges and built-in ovens. It competes directly with, for
example, Viking and Gaggenau in the luxury kitchen appliance
market. Wolf charges a premium price for its top-of-the-line
Ovens. Currently, its Ovens typically retail for approximately
$4,000 to over $17,000. E Series built-in double ovens, like the
one plaintiff purchased, retail for more than $6,500. A 60 inch
dual fuel range with six burners and a French top currently
retails for more than $17,500.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  vserra@rgrdlaw.com


ZACKY & SONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
GRISELDA MUNOZ MARTIN, individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZACKY & SONS POULTRY, LLC,
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. BC697972 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fla., March 14, 2018), seeks
to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately April 30,
2016 to approximately October 12, 2017. During Plaintiffs
employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were underpaid all minimum and overtime wages to which
they were owed due to Defendants' unlawful policies/practices.
Specifically, Defendants maintained a policy/practice requiring
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff
protective gear including, but not limited to overalls, work
boots, gloves, and mouth covers, during their work shifts.
However, Defendants' policy/practice required all donning and
doffing to be performed off the clock. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees, therefore, were required to arrive
at Defendants' worksite to don their protective gear before
clocking in for the day, then clock out at the end of their work
shifts before doffing the protective gear. Further, Defendants
required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don/doff
their protective gear while clocked out for meal periods.

As a result of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees to don/doff while off-the-clock, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all minimum and
overtime wages to which they were owed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew JTRowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Lawsuit over CoolSculpting Ads Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Zeltiq Aesthetics,
Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action
lawsuit related to the promotion of its CoolSculpting product.

On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. in state court in California
alleging that Zeltiq misled customers regarding the promotion of
its CoolSculpting product and the product's premarket
notification clearance status.

On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  On July
20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In August 2017,
Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments.  The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


                            *********


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  * * *