CAR_Public/180503.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 89



                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing on KBC Suit Set for June 25
AARAV KHUSHI: "Thorpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
ABP AVENTURA: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
ACETO CORPORATION: Yang Sues over 64% Drop in Stock Price
ACETO CORPORATION: Mulligan Sues over Share Price Drop

ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Hague" Class Suit
ACOSTA INC: "Qualley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
AHCA: Faces "Lenoir" Suit in S.D. Florida
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Faces "Martin" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
ALLIANCE MMA: Enters Into Binding Term Sheet to Settle NJ Suit

AMAZON.COM: "Avalos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
ANTARES PHARMA: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. Still Ongoing
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval on BELVIQ Settlement
ARROWHEAD CLINIC: "Bata" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on May 30
BALK TK: Underpays Tipped Employees, "Johnsey" Suit Claims
BANGKOK THAI: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says
BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kakkar" Securities Class Suit

BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
CALIBER HOME: Reizes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CLIFTON BANCORP: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Montoya" Suit in E.D. New York

CHEMIX ENERGY: "Tarango" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CHICOS FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Sues over 22% Drop in Stock Price
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Jury Trial to Begin Oct. 15 in "Fastrich"

CPI CARD: Awaits Court Approval on Proposed Scheduling Order
CTI BIOPHARMA: $20,000,000 Accord Wins Final Approval
CURO GROUP: Settlement of "Harrison" Suit Finally Approved
DIXIE GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Class Action Suit
DYNAMIC LEDGER: Trigon Trading Sues over Initial Public Offering

EKSO BIONICS: Faces "Behket" and "Cheehy" Securities Suits
ENDOLOGIX INC: Continues to Defend Nellix EVAS-Related Suit
ESS-A-BAGEL: Faces "Marett" Suit in E.D. Virginia
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Crow Creek Tribe Suit in S. Dakota
FJALLRAVEN USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Claims

FNCB BANCORP: Settlement in "Antonik" Suit Gets Final Approval
FORTUNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Herrera Claims
GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Action Claims
GIANT EAGLE: Underpays GetGo Senior Team Leaders, Fitch Says
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Files Class Suit over 16% Share Price Drop

GUTMAN MINTZ: Faces "Wagner" Suit in E.D. New York
HC2 HOLDINGS: DBMG Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Airquip Class Suit
ICON HEALTH: Records Consumer-Initiated Phone Calls, West Claims

ICONIX BRAND: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss
INNOVATE BIOPHARMA: California Class Complaint Withdrawn
INTEL CORP: Hodsdon Alleges Defect in Semiconductor Chips
IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Ryan-Nielson Class Action

KABBAGE INC: Faces Barnabas Clothing Suit in C.D. California
L.L. BEAN: Faces "Pershouse" Suit in D. Massachusetts
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Glover" Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hanks" Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in E.D. Pa. Court

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Tutor" Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Trinchero" Class Suit Underway
MDL 2827: "Santino" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
MDL 2827: "Taylor" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
MDL 2827: "Honigman" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated

MDL 2827: "Sens" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
MDL 2827: "Borstelmann" Suit over iPHone Performance Consolidated
MERCK & CO: Sugartown Pediatrics Sues over Vaccine Monopoly
MERRILL LYNCH: Porter Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
MICRO FOCUS: Gildea Challenges Hewlett Packard Merger

MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Class Suit Still Pending
MONAT GLOBAL: Hoffpauir Alleges Defect in Hair Care Products
NATIONAL RESEARCH: Class Suits Underway in Nebraska and Wisconsin
NEW YORK: "Bucceri" Suit vs Health Dept Moved to E.D. New York
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Denies FHFA's Bid to Stay NJCH Fund
MICROSEMI CORP: Johnson Balks at Microchip Merger Deal
NEW YORK, NY: Sued over Use of Sealed Arrest Records
NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
OAKLEY COUNTRY: "Flores" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

PINE RIDGE VINEYARDS: Class Suit Settled for $400,000
PINGTAN MARINE: Amended Complaint in "Zheng" Suit Due May 29
PJB METHUEN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Vazquez Claims
PLAZA HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDonough Says
RBC CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval

SCRUB INC: Norman Sues over Misuse of Biometric Identifiers
SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
SENECA RESOURCES: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification
SIENTRA INC: Settles Calif. Class Suits for $10.9 Million
SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove et al. Seek to Certify Class

SPOTIFY USA: Parties in "Ferrick" Suit Await Final Settlement OK
TANDOORI NIGHTS: Faces "Portillo" Suit in E.D. Virginia
TARGET CORP: Bid to Alter Judgment in Minnesota Suit Pending
TARGET CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit
TENNIS CHANNEL: Deceptively Markets TC Plus, Wilson Claims

UNITED COLLECTION: Odeh Sues over Debt Collection Practices
US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Class Action Pending
VIVINT INC: Underpays Staff, Linehan-Clodfelter Says
VIVUS INC: Deadline for Rehearing in "Jasin" Suit Expired
WATTS GUERRA LLP: Faces "Kellogg" Suit in D. Minnesota

WILLIAM PENN: TVPX ARS Sues over Excessive Cost of Insurance




                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing on KBC Suit Set for June 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems 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 final approval hearing in the case
styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al.,
has been scheduled for June 25, 2018.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have
been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is
styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
(the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and
omissions and that the former officers are control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013,
and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which was denied
by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2016 (the
"Order"). Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Order on August 4, 2016, which was denied by Order dated February
24, 2017.

On September 28, 2017, the court granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. On February 15, 2018, following
mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
that provides for, among other things, payment of $50 million by
the Company's insurance carriers and a mutual exchange of
releases. The Stipulation of Settlement calls for a dismissal of
all claims against the Company and the individual defendants with
prejudice following Court approval, a denial by defendants of any
wrongdoing, and no admission of liability.

On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February
21, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing for Notice. The final approval hearing
has been scheduled for June 25, 2018.

3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through
subsidiaries in North America and South America, Europe and the
Middle East and the Asia Pacific region.


AARAV KHUSHI: "Thorpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
BETTY THORPE, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARAV KHUSHI INC., and
AARAV KHUSHI, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01076
(W.D. Tenn., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The action is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees of the
Defendants who worked over forty hours in a workweek, but did not
receive overtime pay for all of their overtime worked. The
Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Newbern Fuel Market, located
at 302 W. Highway 77, Newbern, Tennessee, 38059, from
approximately July 7, 2017, until approximately February 2, 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed within the
two-year statute of limitations under the FLSA. The Plaintiff was
compensated by Defendants for her work at an hourly rate of $8.00
per hour. During Plaintiff's employment, she regularly and
repeatedly performed work in excess of 40 hours per week. When
Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants
compensated her only at her regular rate of pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilbert Mcwherter, Esq.
          Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
          SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com


ABP AVENTURA: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR SHARPE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABP AVENTURA, INC., ERNEST JORDAN,
individually, and CHARLES KETSER, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-21678-UU (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2018), seeks to
recover seeks to unpaid wages and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per week for Defendants but was not paid time and one-half
wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked for Defendant.
Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff based upon a regular
rate of $12.00/hour without paying time and one-half wages for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

ABP Aventura owns furniture stores and operates under the trade
name Relax The Back.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gawane Grant, Esq.
          GAWANE GRANT PA
          2331 North State Rd. 7, Suite 212
          Lauderhill, FL 33313
          Telephone: (954) 739 5600
          Facsimile: (954) 739 5663
          E-mail: reggaelawyer@hotmail.com


ACETO CORPORATION: Yang Sues over 64% Drop in Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------
JINCAI YANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACETO CORPORATION, WILLIAM C.
KENNALLY III, and DOUGLAS ROTH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02437 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2018), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto securities
between February 1, 2018 through April 18, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

Aceto Corporation markets, sells, and distributes human health
products, pharmaceutical ingredients, and performance chemicals.
The Company offers finished dosage form generics, nutritionals,
pharmaceutical intermediates, active pharmaceutical ingredients,
specialty chemicals, and agricultural protection products.
Founded in 1947, Aceto is headquartered in Port Washington, New
York, and its securities trade on the NASDAQ Global Select
Marketunder the ticker symbol "ACET."

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
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) due to undisclosed
competitive and pricing pressures, Aceto was unlikely to meet the
performance metrics the Company provided to its investors as
financial guidance; (ii) accordingly, Aceto's financial guidance
was overstated; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Aceto's
financial statements and Defendants' statements about Aceto's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 18, 2018, after the market closed, Aceto disclosed that
"the financial guidance issued on February 1, 2018, should no
longer be relied upon," and suspended "further financial guidance
for at least the balance of the fiscal year." Aceto also
disclosed that "the Company anticipates recording non-cash
intangible asset impairment charges, including goodwill, in the
range of $230 million to $260 million on certain currently
marketed and pipeline generic products as a result of continued
intense competitive and pricing pressures." Aceto also disclosed
the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, Edward Borkowski,
who had joined Aceto just two months earlier.

As a result of the disclosure, Aceto's stock price fell $4.74 per
share, or 64%, to close at $2.66 per share on April 19, 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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, 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


ACETO CORPORATION: Mulligan Sues over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
RONALD L. MULLIGAN JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACETO CORPORATION,
SALVATORE GUCCIONE and DOUGLAS ROTH, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02425-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2018), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto common
stock from August 25, 2017 through April 18, 2018, both dates
inclusive.1

Aceto is an international company engaged in the development,
marketing, sales and distribution of finished dosage form generic
pharmaceuticals, nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical active
ingredients and intermediates, specialty performance chemicals
inclusive of agricultural intermediates and agricultural
protection products.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company
failed to implement and enforce proper internal control to
identify the misapplication of cash; the Company would incur
large non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, the Company
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; the
Company's financial results for the fiscal year 2017 could not be
relied upon; the Company's fiscal 2018 financial guidance was
overstated; and, as a result of the foregoing, Aceto's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 3, 2017, Aceto filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
disclosing the nonreliance on its previously issued financial
statements and a material weakness in internal control
over financial reporting. On April 18, 2018, Aceto issued a press
release announcing an update on the Company's business and
financial condition. Therein, the Company disclosed the non-
reliance on the previously issued 2018 fiscal year earnings
guidance and the recording non-cash intangible asset impairment
charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260
million.

On this news, Aceto's common stock declined $4.74 from a close
price of $7.40 on April 18, 2018, to a close price of $2.66 on
April 19, 2018, a drop of approximately 64.05% in the course of a
trading day. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's
common stock, Plaintiff, and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com


ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Hague" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that continues to defend a purported
class action suit filed by Michael Hague.

On November 17, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, by Michael Hague on behalf of stockholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between
April 18, 2016 through November 14, 2017, which we refer to as
the purported class period.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including
allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the
class period because we and certain current and former officers
allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding tozadenant, a pharmaceutical product
candidate we acquired with Biotie Therapies in 2016.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the company failed to
disclose, throughout the class period, tozadenant's safety risks
and approval prospects, and also that we overstated the benefits
of the Biotie Therapies acquisition. The complaint seeks, among
other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

Acorda Therapeutics said "We believe we have valid defenses to
the claims in the lawsuit, will deny liability and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously. However, the outcome of litigation
is inherently uncertain, and there can be no assurance that we
will be successful. An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have
a material adverse effect on our business, operating results,
financial condition and cash flows. The defense of this case will
require management attention and resources."

Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing therapies that restore function and improve the
lives of people with neurological disorders. The company is based
in Ardsley, New York.


ACOSTA INC: "Qualley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH QUALLEY, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACOSTA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and ACOSTA SALES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00723-AA (D. Oreg.,
April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensatory
and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court,
pre- and post-judgment interest and penalty wages for Defendants'
willful failure to pay wages when due, including the correct
amount of overtime wages, and other relief pursuant the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Oregon Wage and Hour Laws.

According to its website, Defendant Acosta, Inc. has over 30,000
employees worldwide. The Defendants employ Retail Merchandisers
throughout the United States. The Defendants' Retail Merchandiser
employees are non-exempt. Deborah Qualley is a resident of Lane
County, Oregon who was employed as a Retail Merchandiser by the
Defendants in Oregon from on or about May 2009 to February 2018.

Acosta Sales & Marketing is a full-service sales, marketing and
service company in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida, Acosta is a sales and marketing company for consumer
packaged goods companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
          Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
          LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
          44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
          Eugene, OR 97401
          E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com
                  alan@leimanlaw.com


AHCA: Faces "Lenoir" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AHCA. The case is
styled as M.D. Allen Lenoir, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. AHCA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21621-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 24,
2018).

AHCA is a health care facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William J. Sanchez-Calderon, Esq.
   12600 SW 120th ST, Suite 102
   Miami, FL 33186
   Tel: (305) 232-8889
   Fax: (305) 232-8819
   Email: william@wsanchezlaw.com


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Faces "Martin" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aircraft Service
International Inc. a corporation. The case is styled as Dion
Martin, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Aircraft Service International
Inc., Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. a corporation and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566072 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 25, 2018).

Aircraft Service International Group, Inc. provides commercial
aviation services to major airlines, airports, oil companies, and
other partners worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
   Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: norm@bamlawca.com


ALLIANCE MMA: Enters Into Binding Term Sheet to Settle NJ Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance MMA, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has entered
into a binding term sheet to a stockholder class action lawsuit,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On March 8, 2018, Alliance MMA, Inc. (the "Company") (Nasdaq:
AMMA) entered into a binding term sheet to settle a stockholder
class action lawsuit initially filed in April 2017 against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriter in the Company's initial public
offering (the "IPO").

The litigation is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. Pursuant to the term sheet and
subject to certain conditions, including the approval of the
settlement terms by the District Court, the settling parties have
agreed to submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to
the District Court to resolve all claims brought against the
defendants.

The settlement will provide for a payment to the class of
$1,550,000, of which the insurer will pay $1,520,000 and the
underwriter in the IPO will contribute $30,000. The Company will
be obligated to pay a deductible of $250,000, of which the
Company has paid $137,761 in the form of legal fees and expenses
incurred in connection with defending the lawsuit.

Alliance MMA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on April and May 2017, two
purported securities class action complaints --  Shapiro v.
Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583 (D.N.J.), and Shulman v.
Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-3282 (S.D.N.Y.) -- were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, respectively.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, and purport to seek
damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering.

In July 2017, the plaintiffs in the New York action voluntarily
dismissed their claim. The court has not yet ruled on the motion
by the claimants in the New Jersey case to be named lead
plaintiffs.

Alliance MMA, Inc. was formed on February 12, 2015 to acquire
companies in the mixed martial arts ("MMA") industry, and to
develop and promote fighters to the sport's highest level of
professional competition, including The Ultimate Fighting
Championship (UFC), Bellator MMA, World Series of Fighting (now
known as the "Professional Fighter League") and other prestigious
MMA promotions worldwide. The company is based in New York.


AMAZON.COM: "Avalos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN C. AVALOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC; a Delaware limited
liability company; GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC., a Delaware limited
liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (C.D. Cal., April 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
unpaid rest and meal period compensation, penalties and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

According to the complaint, the Defendants enforced shift
schedules, employment policies and practices, and workload
requirements wherein Plaintiff and all other Non-Exempt
Employees: (1) were not paid proper wages they earned for all
hours they worked including overtime compensation; (2) were not
permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal
periods, or had their rest and meal periods shortened or provided
to them late due to the scheduling and work load and time
requirements placed upon them by Defendants. Defendants failed to
pay employees one hour of pay at the employees regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal period and/or rest
period that was not properly provided. During the liability
period, Defendants have also failed to maintain accurate itemized
records reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide
Non Exempt Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements
reflecting total hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for
those hours worked.

Amazon.com LLC was founded in 1994 and is based in Hebron,
Kentucky. Amazon.com LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676


ANTARES PHARMA: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SMITH v. ANTARES PHARMA, INC. et al., Case No. 3:17-
cv-08945(D. N.J., October 23, 2017), the Hon. Michael A Shipp has
yet to rule on motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

As of Dec. 22, 2017, these entities sought appointment as lead
plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel:

     1. Rehan Khan, represented by Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.

     2. Serghei Lungu, represented by Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.

     3. Antares Investor Group, consisting of Tai Duong, Dennis
        Roof, Robert Szczodrowski, Qiang Xie, and Daniel DeYoe,
        and represented by Eduard Korsinky, Esq.

     4. Faraj Touchan, represented by Sherief Morsy, Esq.

     5. Randy Smith, represented by Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.

     6. Chiru Mackert and Vikram Rao, represented by Laurence
        Rosen, Esq.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the
District of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma,
Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No.
3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities between
December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, asserting
claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against Antares,
Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the
NDA for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated
the approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM.

Antares Pharma said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that motions for the appointment
of Lead Plaintiff were due December 22, 2017.

Antares Pharma said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017: "The Company believes that the claims in
the Smith action lack merit and intends to defend them
vigorously."

Antares Pharma, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of self-
administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and technologies.
The company's strategy is to identify new or existing approved
drug formulations and apply its drug delivery technology to
enhance the drug delivery methods. The company is based in Ewing,
New Jersey.


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aratan 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 continues to defend
itself in a consolidated class action under the caption, In re
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00880.

Aratana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that in February 2017, two purported
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and two of its current officers. Those cases have been
consolidated into one purported class action lawsuit under the
caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00880.

The consolidated lawsuit, which was amended in August 2017,
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
March 16, 2015 to March 13, 2017.

Aratana said "The Company is vigorously defending all claims
asserted, including by filing a motion to dismiss. Given the
early stage of the litigation, at this time a loss is not
probable or reasonably estimable."

Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing,
developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs
and cats. As a pioneer in pet therapeutics, Aratana's mission is
to deliver safe and effective therapeutics that elevate the
standard of care in veterinary medicine.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval on BELVIQ Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena 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 the lead plaintiff in a
consolidated class action suit-related to the company's BELVIQ
program, filed motions for final approval of the settlement.

Arena Pharmaceuticals said "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a
number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of California, or District Court, against us
and certain of our current and former employees and directors on
behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock."

The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that the company
and certain of its current and former employees and directors
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On August 8, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1,
2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On March 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead
plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On
November 5, 2013, the District Court dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended
complaint. On March 20, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, or Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, the
company filed its answering brief in response to the lead
plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply brief.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on
May 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel
reversed the District Court's dismissal of the second
consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings. On January 25, 2017, the
District Court permitted the company to submit a renewed motion
to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On February
2, 2017, the company filed the renewed motion to dismiss. On
February 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition, and
on March 2, 2017, the company filed its reply. On April 28, 2017,
the District Court denied the company's renewed motion to
dismiss. On November 3, 2017, the company and the lead plaintiff
signed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, or Stipulation,
to resolve the consolidated class action.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, and in exchange for a release
of all claims by class members and a dismissal of the
consolidated class action with prejudice, we have agreed (i) our
insurers will pay class members and their attorneys a total of
approximately $12.025 million and (ii) Arena will pay class
members and their attorneys approximately $11.975 million in
either shares of our common stock or cash at our election. On
November 30, 2017, the District Court preliminary approved the
settlement and the form of notice to potential class members of
the proposed settlement and the procedure by which they can
become class members. On March 8, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed
motions for final approval of the settlement, the plan of
allocation and award of attorney fees. The settlement and the
related matters remain subject to final approval by the District
Court.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing novel, small molecule drugs with optimized
receptor pharmacology designed to deliver clinical utility across
therapeutic areas. The company is based in San Diego California.


ARROWHEAD CLINIC: "Bata" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Farrah Bata, Individually in part
and in part on behalf of herself and all other entities and
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arrowhead Clinic of
Tennessee, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Intending to refer to those
persons, Corporations or other legal entities that acted as
agents, consultants, independent contractors, or representatives,
the Defendants, Case No. 18C774, was removed from the Davidson
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on April 25, 2018. The Middle District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00392the proceeding.[BN]

Attorneys for Farrah Bata:

          Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
                  gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com

Attorneys for Arrowhead Clinic of Tennessee, Inc.:

          Erik C. Lybeck, Esq.
          William T. Ramsey, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 238 3522
          Facsimile: (615) 726 0573
          E-mail: elybeck@nealharwell.com
                  wramsey@nealharwell.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on May 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo 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 the District Court has set a
Final Approval Hearing for May 30, 2018 in the case entitled, In
re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No.
1:13-cv-11157-DJC.

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 stockholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1,
2013 (the "Class"). 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 District Court ruled in
the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint
with prejudice on November 18, 2015.

The lead plaintiffs appealed the District 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 opposed. On January 3, 2017, the
District 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
stockholders 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 the
Company's former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's 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 District Court entered an order referring the case to
alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated on September
12 and 13, 2017. On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the
settlement of the lawsuit.  On January 29, 2018, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation"),
which was filed with District Court on February 2, 2018. Under
the terms of the MOU and Stipulation, AVEO agreed with counsel
for the lead plaintiffs to cause certain of AVEO's and the
Individual Defendants' insurance carriers to provide the Class
with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which includes the cash
amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation expenses that the
District Court may award lead plaintiffs' counsel and costs lead
plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of the
settlement.

Additionally, AVEO agreed to issue to the Class the Settlement
Warrants for the purchase of 2.0 million shares of AVEO common
stock exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of
a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price
equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day
prior to the execution of the MOU, which was $3.00 ("the
"Settlement Warrants"). On February 8, 2018, the District Court
issued an order preliminarily approving the terms of the
Stipulation.

The Stipulation is subject to final approval by the District
Court.  The District Court set a Final Approval Hearing for May
30, 2018. The Company has agreed to use its best efforts to issue
and deliver the Settlement Warrants within ten business days
following the effective date of the final approval of the
Stipulation.

The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a
quarterly basis. The Company records an accrual for loss
contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is
probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the
related loss can be reasonably estimated. In December 2017, upon
entering into the MOU, this settlement became estimable and
probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $17.1
million contingent liability, including $15.0 million for the
cash portion of the settlement with a corresponding insurance
recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of
the Company's insurance carriers, and an approximate $2.1 million
estimate for the warrant portion of the settlement with a
corresponding non-cash charge to the Statement of Operations as a
component of operating expenses. In February 2018, the insurance
carriers funded the settlement escrow account for the $15.0
million cash settlement. Refer to Note 3, "Potential Class Action
Settlement" for further discussion of the warrants.

Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted medicines
for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. The company
is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BALK TK: Underpays Tipped Employees, "Johnsey" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Darian Johnsey and Holly Hilton, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BAL TK, LLC, d/b/a
The Tilted Kilt, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00643-JHE (N.D.
Ala., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The case is a collective action brought on behalf of "Tipped
Employees" worked at the restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama,
operating under the trade name "The Tilted Kilt," located at 14
Perimeter Park So., Birmingham, Alabama 35243.

The Tilted Kilt was owned and operated and/or managed by
Defendant BAL TK, LLC. The Tilted Kilt ceased operations in May
of 2017. The Tilted Kilt employs waiters, waitresses, and
bartenders who are subjected to Defendants' unlawful pay
practices. The Tilted Kilt systematically and willfully denies
Tipped Employees wages due and owing under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Defendant failed to pay Tipped Employees for
all their compensable time. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees for the time it took these
individual to don and doff their employer-mandated uniforms.

The Defendant also required its Tipped Employees to effectively
purchase their employer-mandated uniforms which drove the Tipped
Employees' pay rate for the pay period in which the uniform was
purchased below the minimum wage. In addition, the Defendant
required the Plaintiffs to purchase outfits for special events
around holidays and football themed parties without
reimbursement. In addition, while taking the tip credit,
Defendant failed to pay the Tipped Employees for the hours
worked. In other words, the $2.13 per hour the Tipped employees
were to be paid while working as tipped employees was not paid.

Due to Defendant's unlawful practices concerning gratuities, the
Defendant has improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages
paid to Plaintiffs and current and former Tipped Employees, thus
paying them less than the mandated minimum wage. As a result of
the aforementioned pay practices, the Plaintiffs and the members
of the Class were illegally under-compensated for their work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian M. Clark, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
          FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314 0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1500
          E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Allan L. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER, LLC
          The Berry Building
          2820 Columbiana Road
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216


BANGKOK THAI: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Ochoa, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff,
v. Bangkok Thai and Sushi, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00312-A (N.D. Tex., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendant
failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby
violating the minimum wage provisions of Section 206 of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly
wage plus tips, which were improperly shared with other employees
and managers, who may not lawfully participate in a tip pool.
Furthermore, the Defendant also unlawfully deducted other amounts
from Plaintiff and Class Members' tips, which is also a violation
of condition two of the tip credit.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887 1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com


BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA L. SANCHEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS CORP. d/b/a Shepley Hotel
d/b/a Beachcomber Hotel d/b/a Leslie Hotel d/b/a Nassau Suite
Hotel; ALQUIMIA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Shepley Hotel d/b/a
Beachcomber Hotel d/b/a Leslie Hotel d/b/a Nassau Suite Hotel;
JUAN P. D'ONOFRIO; and PAOLA MEDINA, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-21636-UU (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime under the laws of the United
States and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff performed her work admirably and her work was
revered by her coworkers. On or about November 2017, the
Plaintiff requested FMLA leave by telling her supervisor,
Mercedes Caballero, that she was going to take time off to give
birth to her baby. The Corporate Defendants approved Plaintiff's
request for leave and advised her that she was due back to work
in March of 2018. While on leave, on or about February 18, 2018,
Plaintiff called the Corporate Defendants and advised them that
she was ready to go back to work and did not need to wait until
March 2018.

In response, the Corporate Defendants told Plaintiff that she was
not needed anymore and that her job was terminated. The Corporate
Defendants routinely grant leave to their pregnant employees and
fire them while they are on leave, regardless of their
obligations under the FMLA. When Plaintiff made her request in
2017, she was an "eligible employee" and entitled to leave under
the FMLA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, Florida 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kakkar" Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum 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 the company is facing a
purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun
Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan
Musso.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against the company, and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lawsuit
purports to be class action brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities during the period from May 8, 2017
through January 30, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess
BPX-501 as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after
allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaint
purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for various forms of cancer, including both
hematological cancers and solid tumors, as well as orphan
inherited blood disorders. The company is based in Houston,
Texas.


BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
CIRO RIVERA REYES, JORGE RUSTRIAN, MOISES FLORES REYES, and LUIS
QUIZHPI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC (D/B/A
BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN), BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN LLC (D/B/A BLACK
FOREST BROOKLYN), RESTAURANT 181 LLC (D/B/A BLACK FOREST
BROOKLYN), TOBIAS HOLLER, LISA MARIE HOLLER, and AYANA HOLLER,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02483 (E.D.N.Y., April 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as food and salad
preparers, kitchen supervisors, cooks and sous chefs at their
restaurants located at 733 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217 and
at 181 Smith Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The Plaintiffs worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of ours
compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over
10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct is
extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


CALIBER HOME: Reizes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MENDEL REIZES on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02482 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in
the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The
Defendant began to attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt
from the Plaintiff. The alleged debt was originally a home loan
with HSBC Bank which fell into default status sometime in 2009.
HSBC Bank accelerated the note and mortgage on March 6, 2010 and
HSBC Bank filed for foreclosure on June 1, 2010.

The initial HSBC Bank foreclosure was dismissed on August 25,
2014. The accelerated mortgage debt became time-barred on March
6, 2016. A mortgage debt that becomes time-barred due to the
expiration of the statute of limitations becomes unenforceable
and loses its legal attachment to the real estate. The expiration
of the statute of limitations does not invalidate the debt, but
it does render the debt legally unenforceable thereby severing
the debts legal attachment to any real estate.

The Defendant invented a fictitious date of default of February
1, 2012 despite knowing that the acceleration letter was dated
for February 3, 2010. The Defendant fraudulently attempted to re-
age the debt as it invented a fictitious date of March 1, 2012
despite knowing that there was a pending foreclosure during
February and March of 2012. The Defendant was aware that Seterus
Inc. was the previous servicer of this account. Seterus Inc.
informed Defendant that this debt became time-barred on March 6,
2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CLIFTON BANCORP: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Clifton Bancorp Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that Paul Parshall has dropped
his class action lawsuit without prejudice.

On February 16, 2018, Paul Parshall, a purported stockholder of
Clifton, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned
Parshall v. Clifton Bancorp Inc., et al. (2:18-cv-02273-SDW-CLW),
against Clifton, the members of Clifton's Board of Directors and
Kearny on behalf of all of Clifton's public stockholders.

The relief sought in the lawsuit includes preliminary and
permanent injunction against the consummation of the Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed,
costs and attorney's fees.

On March 9, 2018, Mr. Parshall filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal without prejudice.

Clifton Bancorp Inc. operates as the holding company for Clifton
Savings Bank that provides various financial services to
consumers and businesses in New Jersey.


CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC, YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM HOLTZBERG,
ZALMAN LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and Severally,
the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 26,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wage, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 hours per week that he worked. The Defendants' conduct is
extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them with
appropriate overtime compensation required by State and Federal
law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Jose Cruz Hernandez Ramirez and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs:

          Peter Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 1354
          Telephone: (718) 445-1300


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Montoya" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Martha E. Montoya,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02433 (E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2018).

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collecting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHEMIX ENERGY: "Tarango" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO TARANGO, Individually and PLAINTIFF on behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEMIX ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex., April 26,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other Operators lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant
as an Operator. Within the time period relevant to this case, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess
of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. On
average, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees
worked approximately 100-120 hours per week. They did not receive
any overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
misclassified as exempt and paid a salary. Within the time period
relevant to this case, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were also paid non-discretionary bonuses on a regular
basis for days on which they worked at a well site operating
machines.

Chemix Energy is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from San
Antonio, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CHICOS FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 3, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, entitled, Altman v. White House
Black Market, Inc.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a
putative class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that
WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than
the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on
customers' point-of-sale receipts.

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
believes the case is without merit. On October 25, 2017, the
magistrate in the matter recommended that the class be certified.
On November 8, 2017, WHBM filed objections to such
recommendation.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order
certifying the class. On February 26, 2018, the Company filed a
petition with the District Court for permission to appeal its
decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chico's FAS said "The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to
dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any,
related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of
any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a)
whether the action will ultimately be permitted to proceed as a
class, (b) if the action proceeds as a class, the resolution of
certain disputed statutory interpretation issues that may impact
the size of the putative class and (c) whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages. No assurance can be
given that these issues will be resolved in the Company's favor
or that the Company will be successful in its defense on the
merits or otherwise. If the case were to proceed as a class
action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on
the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc., is an omni-channel specialty retailer of
women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy apparel,
intimates and complementary accessories. The company operates
under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma
brand names in the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Canada. The company is based in Fort Myers, Florida.


COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Sues over 22% Drop in Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLONY NORTHSTAR, INC., RICHARD
B. SALTZMAN, DARREN J. TANGEN, NEALE REDINGTON, and DAVID T.
HAMAMOTO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03520 (C.D. Cal.,
April 26, 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 securities of Colony NorthStar
between February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, both dates
inclusive. Colony NorthStar operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company invests in healthcare, industrial, and
hospitality sectors, as well as offers equity and debt management
services. Colony NorthStar serves customers globally. The Company
resulted from the January 2017 merger between Colony Capital,
Inc., NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. and NorthStar Realty
Finance Corp. The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles,
California, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "CLNS."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Colony NorthStar's Healthcare and Investment Management
segments were performing worse than reported; and (ii) as a
result, Colony NorthStar's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2018, Colony NorthStar reported its financial and
operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31,
2017, announcing a goodwill impairment of $375 million,
attributable to the Company's Healthcare and Investment
Management segments. On this news, Colony NorthStar's share price
fell $1.78, or 22.88%, to close at $6.00 on March 1, 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:

          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
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC, YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM HOLTZBERG,
ZALMAN LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and Severally,
the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 26,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wage, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 hours per week that he worked. The Defendants' conduct is
extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them with
appropriate overtime compensation required by State and Federal
law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Jose Cruz Hernandez Ramirez and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs:

          Peter Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 1354
          Telephone: (718) 445-1300


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Jury Trial to Begin Oct. 15 in "Fastrich"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Fastrich et al v. Continental General Insurance
Company et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00487 (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order dated March 22, 2018,
setting a schedule for final progression of the civil case.

Specifically, the Court set this timeline:

     -- Depositions due Nov. 16, 2018;

     -- Jury Trial set for Oct. 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in
        Courtroom 2, Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse,
        111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE before Chief Judge Laurie
        Smith Camp; and

     -- Pretrial Conference set for Sept. 30, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
        in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson.

HC2 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 court ordered the parties in a class
action suit filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment
Services, Inc., to submit a status report regarding the status of
their settlement negotiations in advance of the upcoming status
conference scheduled on March 22, 2018.

On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company
("CGI"), a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial
Resource, Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and
CIGNA Corporation were served with a putative class action
complaint filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment
Services, Inc. in The United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska alleging breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under
various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on
policies that were replaced. The complaint also alleges breach of
contract claims relating to allegedly unpaid commissions related
to premium rate increases implemented on certain long-term care
insurance policies. Finally, the complaint alleges breach of
contract claims related to vesting of commissions.

On August 21, 2017 the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious
interference with contract claim. CGI believes that the remaining
allegations and claims set forth in the complaint are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

The case has been set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on
January 26, 2018. Meanwhile, the Court has stayed discovery
pending the outcome of the mediation. On February 12, 2018, the
parties notified the Court that mediation did not resolve the
case and that the parties' discussions regarding a possible
settlement of the action were still ongoing. The Court ordered
the parties to submit a status report regarding the status of
their settlement negotiations to the Court in advance of the
upcoming status conference scheduled on March 22, 2018.

Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and
indemnification for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental
General Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and
Restated Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the
Company's acquisition of CGI in December 2015. GAFRI and CGC
rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification and, on
January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a Complaint against
GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a
declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights
under the SPA. On February 23, 2017, Great American answered
CGI's complaint, denying the allegations. The dispute is ongoing
and CGI will continue to pursue its right to a defense and
indemnity under the SPA.

HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks
opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate
long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in
order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is
based in New York.


CPI CARD: Awaits Court Approval on Proposed Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group 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 are awaiting court's approval
on the proposed scheduling order governing the case related to
purchases of Europay, Mastercard(R), and VISA chip cards.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against CPI, certain of its former officers and current and
former directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial
institutions who served as underwriters for CPI's October 2015
initial public offering ("IPO").

The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and
costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay,
Mastercard(R), and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV cards")
during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card
inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV
cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the
remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The
complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the "PSLRA"). On
October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based
principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but
adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained
inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and
mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV
technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition
CPI faced in the EMV market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied by the court on October 30,
2017. The defendants answered the amended complaint on January
12, 2018, and on January 19, 2018, the parties jointly submitted
for the Court's approval a proposed scheduling order governing
the case.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends
to defend the actions vigorously.

CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
the design, production, data personalization, packaging, and
fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through three
segments: U.S. Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and U.K.
Limited.


CTI BIOPHARMA: $20,000,000 Accord Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an
Order and Final Judgment approving a settlement agreement as
fair, reasonable and adequate, following a hearing on February 1,
2018.  The Court also entered an order approving the Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement, and awarding
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses to
Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, DAFNA LifeScience, LP and
DAFNA LifeScience Select LP, on behalf of itself and the other
members of the Settlement Class reached a settlement of the
Action with CTI BioPharma Corp. and the other defendants in the
Action for $20,000,000 in cash that resolves all claims in the
Action.

CTI Biopharma said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on February 10, 2016 and
February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI
BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v.
CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of
shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
pursuant to the company's September 24, 2015 public offering
and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired the company's stock
between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive.

The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers for violations of
the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims
allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and
prospects for pacritinib.

Plaintiffs'' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public
disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or
omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the
clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. On May 2, 2016, the
Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The motion was unopposed and granted by the court on May 19,
2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to
consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to
proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016,
the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being
captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and
Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a
scheduling order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016,
setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated
class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. The consolidated class
action complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the
initial complaints, although it no longer asserts claims relating
to the September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds claims
relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4, 2015
public offerings. On July 26, 2017, the company received a
written offer for the global resolution and settlement of the
consolidated action in exchange for cash payment of $20.0
million. The Company has insurance coverage related to this
matter and such insurance is expected to cover $18.0 million of
the claim. In August 2017, the company agreed in principle to the
terms of the settlement and submitted the terms and proposed
class notice to the court for its preliminary approval. On
October 24, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval and set
a final approval hearing for February 1, 2018.

Additional information on the case is available at:

         http://www.ctibiopharmasecuritiessettlement.com/

CTI Biopharma Corp. a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted
therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer
a unique benefit to patients and health care providers. The
company is based in Seattle, Washington.


CURO GROUP: Settlement of "Harrison" Suit Finally Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. 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 court in the case, Harrison, et
al v. Principal Investments, Inc. et al., has issued final
approval of the class settlement.

During the period relevant to this class action litigation, the
company pursued in excess of 16,000 claims in the limited actions
and jurisdiction court in Clark County, Nevada, seeking payment
of loans on which customers had defaulted. The company utilized
outside counsel to file these debt collection lawsuits. On Scene
Mediations, a process serving company, was employed to serve the
summons and petitions in the majority of these cases. In an
unrelated matter, the principal of On Scene Mediations was
convicted of multiple accounts of perjury and filing false
affidavits to obtain judgments on behalf of a Las Vegas
collection agency.

In September 2010, the company was sued by four former customers
in a proposed class action suit filed in the District Court in
Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs in this case claimed that
they, and others in the proposed class, were not properly served
notice of the debt collection lawsuits by the company.

CURO Group said "On June 7, 2017, the parties reached a
settlement in this matter. We have accrued approximately $2.3
million as a result of this settlement as of December 31, 2017."

At a hearing before the District Court in Clark County, Nevada,
on July 24, 2017 the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On October 30, 2017, the court issued final approval
of the class settlement.

Curo Group Holdings Corp. operates as a consumer finance company.
The Company offers unsecured and secured installment, open-end,
and single-pay loan services, as well as renders other customer
service, robust operating systems, call center, and a track
record services. Curo Group serves customers in the United
States, United Kingdom, and Canada.


DIXIE GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, 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 facing a class action
complaint filed by Carlos Garcia.

The Dixie Group said "We have received a class action complaint
filed by Carlos Garcia, a current employee, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against Fabrica [Carlos
Garcia et al. vs. Fabrica International, Inc., et al., in the
Superior Court of Orange County, California, Case No. 30-2017-
00949461 CU-OE-CXC]."

The complaint alleges causes of actions on behalf of classes of
Fabrica's current and former employees during the four-year
period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint for
failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to compensate for
all meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay all proper
overtime and double time, and for the provision and maintaining
of inaccurate wage statements. Finally, the complaint asserts a
cause of action for unfair competition by means of the above
actions and seeks restitution of monies supposedly unlawfully
withheld and demands attorneys' fees and costs.

The Dixie Group said "We have denied liability, are defending the
matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential
exposure to loss, if any, at this time."

The Dixie Group, Inc.'s business consists principally of
marketing, manufacturing and selling floorcovering products to
high-end residential and commercial customers through its various
sales forces and brands. The company focuses exclusively on the
upper-end of the floorcovering market where the company believes
it had a strong brands and competitive advantages with its style
and design capabilities and customer relationships.


DYNAMIC LEDGER: Trigon Trading Sues over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRIGON TRADING PTY. LTD., AND BRUCE MACDONALD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
The DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, NC, a Delaware corporation, TEZOS
STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation, KATHLEEN BREITMAN, an Individual,
ARTHUR BREITMAN, an Individual, TIMOTHY COOK DRAPER, an
individual, DRAPER ASSOCIATES V CRYPTO LLC, and DOES 1-100,
INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV02045 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 24, 2018), is a class action brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Tezos tokens by contributing fiat currency,
e.g., US Dollars, or other consideration including the
blockchain-based digital currencies Bitcoin and/or Ethereum to
the Tezos "Initial Coin Offering" in July 2017.

Tezos tokens are securities within the meaning of the Securities
Act of 1933. As such, any offering or sale of such securities are
required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants, in violation of Section
5 of the Securities Act of 1933, engaged in an illegal
unregistered securities offering by selling Tezos tokens without
filing a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Defendants capitalized on the recent enthusiasm for
blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies to raise funds through
the ICO, illegally sold unregistered securities, used a Swiss-
based entity in an unsuccessful attempt to evade U.S. securities
laws, and are now admittedly engaged in the conversion, selling,
and possible dissipation of the proceeds that they collected from
the Class through their unregistered offering.

According to the lawsuit, the Tezos ICO has been widely reported
as the largest ICO to date, with 65,627 Bitcoin and 361,122
Ethereum collected. At the time of the Tezos ICO, the digital
currencies paid by investors were valued at an estimated $232
million.  Today, the digital currencies invested in the Tezos ICO
are worth an estimated $1.2 billion as of December 11, 2017.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          Danielle Smith, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: 510 725 3000
          Facsimile: 510 725 3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  peterb@hbsslaw.com
                  danielles@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.oom
                  joel@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com


EKSO BIONICS: Faces "Behket" and "Cheehy" Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ekso Bionics 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 is facing two
class action suits entitled, Behket v. Ekso Bionics Holdings,
Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin (E.D.N.Y.),
Case No. 1:18-cv-00001-KAM-CLP and Cheehy v. Ekso Bionics
Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin,
(N.D. Cal.), Case no. 3:18-cv-00212.

In December 2017, the Company disclosed that management had
identified a material weakness in the Company's internal controls
over financial reporting due to a deficiency in the Company's
information technology (IT) general controls and segregation of
duties. The Company has since implemented a more robust
accounting and enterprise resource planning system.

In response to the Company's announcement, on January 2, 2018,
and January 10, 2018, two securities class action lawsuits were
filed: Behket v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and
Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin (E.D.N.Y.), Case No. 1:18-cv-00001-
KAM-CLP (filed Jan. 2, 2018); and Cheehy v. Ekso Bionics
Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin,
(N.D. Cal.), Case no. 3:18-cv-00212 (filed Jan. 10, 2018).

Both actions assert claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and both propose class
periods which would include purchasers of the Company's stock
between March 15, 2017, and December 27, 2017.

The Company's management believes that the lawsuits are without
merit, and the Company plans to defend against them.

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. designs, develops and sells
exoskeleton technology that currently has applications in
healthcare and industrial markets. The companys's wearable
exoskeletons are worn over clothing and are mechanically
controlled by a trained operator to augment human strength,
endurance and mobility. The company is based in Richmond,
California.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Continues to Defend Nellix EVAS-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, 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 continues to defend in a
class action suit related to the Nellix EVAS System.

In January 2017, two stockholders purporting to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's securities between August
2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, filed lawsuits against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about its business, operational and financial performance,
in violation of federal securities laws, relating to U.S. Food
and Drug Administration Premarket Approval for the Company's
Nellix EVAS System. On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint extending the class period to include persons
who purchased the Company's securities between May 5, 2016 and
May 18, 2017 and adding certain factual assertions and
allegations regarding the Nellix EVAS System.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of
the alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of
litigation. The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated
with the second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No.
8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff
filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint.

On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix's
motion to dismiss lead plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with
leave to amend. On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint.

Endologix said "The Company believes these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells
medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms
in the United States and internationally. It offers minimally-
invasive endovascular repair (EVAR) products, including AFX
(Anatomical Fixation) endovascular AAA system, which is a
minimally invasive delivery system; VELA Proximal Endograft,
which is designed for the treatment of proximal aortic neck
anatomies with AFX; and the ovation abdominal stent graft system.
The company is based in Irvine, California.


ESS-A-BAGEL: Faces "Marett" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ess-A-Bagel, Inc.
The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Ess-A-Bagel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03621
(E.D. Va., April 24, 2018).

Ess-A-Bagel is known for amazing bagels, luscious, appetizing
salads, varieties of cream cheese, choice meats, and great
catering services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Crow Creek Tribe Suit in S. Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). The case is styled as Crow Creek
Tribe of South Dakota, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and
all those tribes similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), Chairman AjitPai, Commissioner
Michael O'Riley, Commissioner Brendon Carr, Commissioner Mignon
Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01010-CBK (D. S.D., April 24, 2018).

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of
the United States government created by statute to regulate
interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite,
and cable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary J. Montana, Esq.
   Montana & Associates
   Osseo, WI 54758
   Tel: (715) 597-6464
   Fax: (715) 597-3508
   Email: lakotagm@yahoo.com

      - and -

   Terry L. Pechota, Esq.
   Pechota Law Office
   1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
   Rapid City, SD 57702
   Tel: (605) 341-4400
   Fax: (605) 341-0716
   Email: tpechota@1868treaty.com


FJALLRAVEN USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. FJALLRAVEN USA,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03577 (S.D.N.Y., April 23,
2018), seeks to compel Defendant to change its policies,
practices, and procedures so that its 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.  The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action
against Fjallraven 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 persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-
impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access
to the goods and services Fjallraven provides to non-disabled
customers through http://www.Fjallraven.usin violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fjallraven.us provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by Fjallraven.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504 7555


FNCB BANCORP: Settlement in "Antonik" Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
FNCB Bancorp, 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 Settlement Agreement in a class
action suit filed by Steven Antonik, receives final court
approval.

On February 16, 2017, FNCB and the Bank entered into a Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement
Agreement") in the matters filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County to Steven Antonik, Individually, and as
Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells
and Louise A. Howells, Summer Benjamin, and Joshua Silfee, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated vs. First
National Community Bancorp, Inc. and First National Community
Bank, Civil Action No. 2013-CV-4438 and Charles Saxe, III,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
First National Community Bank No. 2013-CV-5071 (collectively, the
"Actions").

By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the parties to the
Actions have resolved the claims made in the complaints to their
mutual satisfaction. FNCB has not admitted to the validity of any
claims or allegations and denies any liability in the claims made
and the Plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or
allegations lack merit or foundation.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have
agreed to the following:

1) FNCB is to pay the Plaintiffs' class members the aggregate sum
of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) (an amount
which FNCB recorded as a liability and corresponding expense in
its 2015 operating results);

2) Plaintiffs shall release all claims against FNCB related to
the Actions;

3) FNCB shall move to vacate or satisfy any judgments against any
class members arising from the vehicle loans that are the subject
of the Actions; and

4) FNCB shall waive the deficiency balance of each class member
and remove the trade lines on each class members' credit report
associated with the subject vehicle loans that are at issue in
the Actions for Experian, Equifax, and Transunion.

The Settlement Agreement provides for an Incentive Award for the
representative Plaintiffs and an award to Plaintiffs' counsel of
attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
their roles in these Actions, subject to Court approval. The
Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by Court Order on
February 16, 2017. On March 2, 2017, FNCB paid the Settlement
Administrator $750,000 pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Settlement Agreement.

FNCB Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the Settlement Agreement
was approved by Court Order on May 31, 2017.

Additionally, in association with the subject vehicle loans, FNCB
has completed the removal of trade lines on each class members'
credit report and has substantially completed satisfying
judgments, where applicable, in favor of class members. As
previously mentioned above and in connection with the primary
terms of the tentative settlement agreement entered by Order of
Court on December 17, 2015, FNCB recorded a liability and
corresponding expense in the amount of $750,000, which was
included in FNCB's 2015 operating results.

FNCB Bancorp, Inc., formerly First National Community Bancorp,
Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a Pennsylvania business
corporation and a registered bank holding company headquartered
in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. FNCB Bancorp, Inc. became an active
bank holding company on July 1, 1998 when it acquired 100%
ownership of the former First National Community Bank.


FORTUNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Herrera Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
RINA AREVALO HERRERA, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORTUNA ENTERPRISES, LP dba
HILTON LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, a Delaware corporation; HILTON HOTELS
CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS,
INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC703147 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees in California for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to pay wages for all hours worked at
the correct rates of pay, provide all timely rest breaks, provide
all timely meal periods, fairly compete, indemnify for all
expenses, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely
pay final wages upon termination of employment.

Fortuna Enterprises distributes electronic parts and equipment
which include home audio & video equipment, batteries, air
conditioner parts and other electrical equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

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


GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01156-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., April 13, 2018), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of sending an initial collection
letter attempting to collect a consumer debt that includes false
disclosures that interest, fees and costs are continuously
accruing, or in the alternative, the creditor has made the
decision to waive accruing interest and fees, and would accept
the amount stated on the collection letter as payment in full.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yaakov Saks, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 282-6500
      Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
      E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


GIANT EAGLE: Underpays GetGo Senior Team Leaders, Fitch Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW FITCH On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. GIANT EAGLE, INC. d/b/a GETGO CAFE + MARKET, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01236-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 23,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and
similarly situated co-workers who have worked as Senior Team
Leaders for GetGo anywhere in the United States between April 20,
2015 and the present.

GetGo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Giant Eagle, Inc. GetGo,
through its parent company Giant Eagle, Inc., owns and operates
retail convenience store/gas stations throughout the United
States, including in Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.

According to the complaint, GetGo employs Senior Team Leaders at
its store locations throughout the United States. Throughout the
relevant time period, the Defendant's nationwide policy has been
to uniformly classify Senior Team Leaders as exempt from federal
and state overtime provisions and to not pay them any overtime
wages. This exempt classification is improper because the primary
duties of Senior Team Leaders are non-exempt duties. The primary
duties of Senior Team Leaders are customer service, working on
the cash register, stocking the shelves, preparing food, and
cleaning the store. Senior Team Leaders spend the majority of
their time performing duties similar to those performed by non-
exempt, hourly-paid employees. The primary duties of the Senior
Team Leader position do not vary among Defendant's locations
nationwide.

In order to meet the needs of its customers and for the GetGo
stores to run smoothly, the Defendant regularly requires Senior
Team Leaders to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The
Defendant does not pay Senior Team Leaders for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek because they are classified as exempt.
As a result, Defendant does not pay Senior Team Leaders premium
overtime compensation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Collective Members:

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2495
          E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
          E-mail: GSHAVITZ@SHAVITZLAW.COM
                  CJONES@SHAVITZLAW.COM

               - and -

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, Pa 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278 4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278 4807
          E-mail: JCONWAY@CONWAYLEGALPA.COM

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1000
          Facsimile: (215) 592 4663
          E-mail: DLEVIN@LFSBLAW.COM


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Files Class Suit over 16% Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEIFA XU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRIDSUM HOLDING INC., GUOSHENG
WI and PENG ZHANG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03655
(S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2018), is a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum securities
between April 27, 2017 through April 20, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

Gridsum Holding, Inc. is a holding company that designs and
develops sophisticated data analysis software for multinational
and domestic enterprises and government agencies in China. The
Company offers software that allows customers to collect and
analyze information that is collected, indexed, and stored in an
organized manner.  Founded in 2005, Gridsum is headquartered in
Beijing, China, and its ADRs trade on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the ticker symbol.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Gridsum lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Gridsum's financial
statements were inaccurate and misleading, and did not fairly
present, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, Gridsum's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 23, 2018, Gridsum issued a press release entitled
"Gridsum Reports Suspension of Audit Report on Financial
Statements," announcing that its "audit report for the Company's
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 should
no longer be relied upon." According to the press release,
Gridsum's auditor identified certain issues in conducting its
audit of Gridsum's financial results for the year ended December
31, 2017. Those issues related to "certain revenue recognition,
cash flow, cost, expense items, and their underlying
documentation which [the auditor] had previously raised" with
Gridsum.

On this news, Gridsum's ADR price fell $1.17, or 16.04%, to close
at $6.12 on April 23, 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


GUTMAN MINTZ: Faces "Wagner" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gutman, Mintz,
Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP. The case is styled as Brian Wagner, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP, Eric Keilbach, Kenneth
P. Mintz and Neil D. Sonnenfeldt, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
02436 (E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2018).

Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


HC2 HOLDINGS: DBMG Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
HC2 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 DBMG class action,
have been exploring alternative frameworks for a potential
settlement.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired
approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares
of DBM Global Inc. (DBMG) was filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A.
Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin
Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc.,
and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the
"Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender
offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and
HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their
fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.

The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the
completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeks rescission of
the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as
attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to
the Complaint on July 30, 2015.

On February 24, 2017, the parties agreed to a framework for the
potential settlement of the litigation. Plaintiff advised
defendants on June 7, 2017 that plaintiff was not proceeding with
the February 2017 potential settlement framework. The parties
have been exploring alternative frameworks for a potential
settlement.

HC2 Holdings said "There can be no assurance that a settlement
will be finalized or that the Court would approve such a
settlement even if the parties were to enter into a settlement
stipulation or agreement. If a settlement cannot be reached, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend this matter."

HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks
opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate
long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in
order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is
based in New York.


HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is pending.

HD Supply said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended July 30, 2017, that on July 10, 2017, a putative class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia by The City of Hollywood Police
Officers' Retirement System (the "Retirement System complaint")
against HD Supply and certain senior members of its management
(collectively, the "defendants").  On August 8, 2017, a second
class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by Obioma Ebisike (the "Ebisike
complaint" and together with the Retirement System complaint, the
"complaints") against the defendants.

The complaints are brought individually on behalf of all persons
other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Company
securities between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017.  The
complaints generally allege that the defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to inflate the Company's stock price by making
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, operational, and compliance policies that allegedly
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's full year 2017 growth
and operational leverage targets were unattainable; (2) the
operational recovery of the Company's Facilities Maintenance
business unit's supply chain was not going according to plan; and
(3) the Company was exploring the sale of its Waterworks business
unit.

The complaints assert claims against the defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5, and they seek (1) class certification under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, (3) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and (4) attorneys' fees and other costs.

According to the Company's recent disclosure, the two securities
cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead
plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the
defendants on behalf of all persons other than defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended
Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false or
misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's
progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues
encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business
unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the defendants
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and other costs.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in
December 2017. That motion is pending.

HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in
North America. The company's Facilities Maintenance segment
distributes electrical and lighting items, plumbing and HVAC
products, appliances, janitorial supplies, hardware, kitchen and
bath cabinets, window coverings, textiles and guest amenities,
healthcare maintenance products, and water and wastewater
treatment products. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Airquip Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-01849 (D. Colo.), the Unopposed Motion for Leave to
Restrict Documents filed by HomeAdvisor, Inc., and
IAC/Interactivecorp has been referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen
L. Mix.

ANGI Homeservices 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 discovery is underway and the issue
of class certification remains to be litigated in the case
captioned as, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business engages
in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain
charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October
2012, asserts claims of fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act
("CCPA") and the federal RICO statute and seeks injunctive relief
and damages in an unspecified amount. In December 2016,
HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO and CCPA claims.

ANGI Homeservices said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that in September 2017, the
court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing those
claims. In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint.
Discovery is under way and the issue of class certification
remains to be litigated.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against
them.

                    Securities Suit Dismissed

ANGI Homeservices said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that in accordance with the
parties' memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs filed
notices of dismissal with prejudice in the Parshall, Pill, and
Chojar cases on September 29, October 2, and September 29, 2017,
respectively.


On July 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action was filed
in federal court in Indianapolis against Angie's List, the
members of its board of directors, IAC/InterActiveCorp ("IAC")
and two related corporate entities, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws based upon alleged material omissions
from the registration statement related to the proposed
combination of the HomeAdvisor and Angie's List businesses into a
single, publicly traded company. Parshall v. Angie's List, Inc.
et al., No. 1:17-cv-2418 (U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Indiana).

On July 20, 2017, a second, substantially similar purported
shareholder class action was filed in the same court entitled,
Pill v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-2461 (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Indiana).

On September 11, 2017, a third, substantially similar purported
shareholder class action was filed in the same court entitled,
Chojar v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-3208 (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Indiana).

The gravamen of the complaints in these lawsuits is that the
registration statement was materially misleading to shareholders
of Angie's List because it omitted: (i) certain financial
projections, assumptions and other information relied upon by
Angie's List's financial advisors in rendering their fairness
opinions with respect to the proposed combination, (ii) certain
information about Angie's List's board members' potential
conflicts of interest and (iii) certain information about the
background of the transaction.

The complaints asserted violations of Sections 14-a and 20-a of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought to enjoin the
transaction, require the issuance of a revised registration
statement and rescind the transaction and obtain damages should
it go forward. On September 19, 2017: (i) the parties in these
three lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding in
which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims in exchange
for the filing by Angie's List of agreed-upon supplemental
disclosures to the registration statement, with the court in
Parshall case to retain jurisdiction for purposes of adjudicating
the anticipated application by plaintiffs' counsel for a mootness
fee award, and (ii) Angie's List filed the agreed-upon
supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K. In accordance with the
parties' memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs filed
notices of dismissal with prejudice in the Parshall, Pill, and
Chojar cases on September 29, October 2, and September 29, 2017,
respectively.

ANGI Homeservices is the world's largest digital marketplace for
home services, connecting millions of homeowners across the globe
with home service professionals. ANGI Homeservices operates
leading brands in eight countries, including HomeAdvisor(R) and
Angie's List(R) (United States), HomeStars (Canada), Travaux.com
(France), MyHammer (Germany and Austria), MyBuilder (UK),
Werkspot (Netherlands) and Instapro (Italy).


ICON HEALTH: Records Consumer-Initiated Phone Calls, West Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WEST individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS,
INC.; and DOES I through SO, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG 18901957 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks permanent
injunction enjoining Defendant from engaging in further conduct
in violation of the California Penal Code.

This class action lawsuit arises out of the policy and practice
of Defendant to record and/or monitor without the consent of all
parties, consumer-initiated telephone calls made to Defendant's
toll-free customer service telephone numbers contained in
television advertisements that are in California including but
not limited to the toll-free telephone number 877-708-9839 used
in television advertisements for ICON's Nordic Track line of
products. The Defendant intentionally and all surreptitiously
recorded and/or monitored telephone calls made to Defendant's
toll-free telephone numbers contained in television
advertisements that ran in California, including the telephone
number 877-708-9839. The Defendant did so without warning or
disclosing to inbound 16 11 callers that their calls might be
recorded or monitored.

Defendant's policy and practice of recording and monitoring
consumer-initiated telephone conversations by callers to toll-
free telephone numbers contained in television advertisements
that ran in California without the consent of all parties
violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act. Specifically,
Defendant's policy and practice violate Penal Code prohibits the
recording or monitoring of communication made to or from a
cellular or cordless telephone without the consent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          111965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facs1m1le: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspcncer@kellergrover.com


ICONIX BRAND: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, 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 defendants have moved to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former
officers and one current officer (the "Class Action").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012
to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations
and prospects.

On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the
individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On
February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.

Iconix Brand said "The Company and the individual defendants
intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these
matters."

Iconix Brand Group, Inc. is a brand management company and owner
of a diversified portfolio of approximately 30 global consumer
brands across the women's, men's, home and international
segments. The Company's business strategy is to maximize the
value of its brands primarily through strategic licenses and
joint venture partnerships around the world, as well as to grow
the portfolio of brands through strategic acquisitions.


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. 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, Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v.
ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al., are awaiting court
decision on defendants' motion to dismiss.

ImmunoCellular Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on May 1, 2017, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v.
ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-03250)
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors and others.

On July 21, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the
matter. On August 24, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed Consolidated
First Amended Complaint.

On September 26, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation
to allow lead plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Second Amended
Complaint (the "SAC"). The SAC asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to
allegedly materially false or misleading statements made between
May 1, 2012 and May 30, 2014. The SAC alleges, among other
things, that the Company failed to disclose that it purportedly
paid for articles to be published about ICT-107. Lead plaintiffs
seek an award of unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, and
other costs.  The Company's motion to dismiss the SAC was due on
November 10, 2017.

According to the Company's Form 10-K Report, on November 10,
2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. The parties
completed briefing on December 21, 2017 and the motion to dismiss
is currently under submission.

ImmunoCellular Therapeutics said that "The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. It is possible that similar
lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name
the same or additional defendants."

ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. is a clinical-stage
biotechnology company that is developing immune-based therapies
for the treatment of cancers. Immunotherapy is an emerging
approach to treating cancer in which a patient's own immune
system is stimulated to target tumor antigens, which the immune
system uses to identify foreign bodies. The company is based in
Westlake Village, California.


INNOVATE BIOPHARMA: California Class Complaint Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------
Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, 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 putative class
action complaint filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California has been withdrawn.

On September 15, 2017, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, David H. Clarke, the
Company's then Chief Executive Officer and then a member of the
Company's Board of Directors ("Clarke"), Jonathan Clark
("Clark"), the Company's then Interim President and then a member
of the Company's Board of Directors, Robert Machinist
("Machinist"), then a member of the Registrant's Board of
Directors, Christopher Miner ("Miner"), then a member of the
Company's Board of Directors and Steven Barre ("Barre"), then a
member of the Company's Board of Directors (Messrs. Clarke,
Clark, Machinist, Miner and Barre are hereinafter referred to as
the "Individual Defendants").

The Class Complaint sought class status on behalf of all of the
Company's public stockholders and alleged violations by the
Company and the Individual Defendants of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
the rules promulgated thereunder, and secondary control person
liability against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act primarily related to the Merger.

The Class Complaint sought to enjoin the Company and the
Individual Defendants from proceeding with an anticipated
stockholder vote on the Merger or consummating the Merger, unless
and until the Company disclosed certain alleged material
information which the Class Complaint alleges has been omitted
from the Company's proxy statement or in the event the Merger was
consummated, to recover an unspecified amount of damages
resulting from the Individual Defendants' alleged violations
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Class Complaint
was withdrawn in November 2017.

Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology
company, focuses on developing autoimmune and inflammation
therapeutics. Its late-stage clinical pipeline focuses on
addressing unmet needs in diseases, such as celiac disease,
inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis (NASH). The company is based in Raleigh, North
Carolina.


INTEL CORP: Hodsdon Alleges Defect in Semiconductor Chips
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HODSDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02424-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 23,
2018), is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to
disclose a critical defect in its semiconductor chips ("CPUs")
that exposes CPU users to serious security vulnerabilities.

The Defendant is one of the world's largest manufacturers of
CPUs, the hardware component of a computer responsible for
interpreting and executing most of the commands from the
computer's hardware and software.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's focus on producing a
faster CPU left its CPUs with security vulnerabilities and
exposed to attack.  Since 1995, Defendants' CPUs have been
designed to perform a process known as "speculative execution,"
which is intended to increase performance by allowing a CPU to
predict its next set of instructions.  Although this may increase
the CPU's speed, Defendant knows and has known for many months --
and confirmed on January 3, 2018 -- that speculative execution
creates serious security vulnerabilities that can be exploited by
hackers to steal passwords, encryption keys, photos, emails,
instant messages, sensitive business documents, and other
sensitive data.

Reportedly, approximately 90% of the 1.5 billion personal
computers in use today are powered by Defendant's CPUs. The
Defect exists in nearly every CPU Defendant has manufactured in
the last 20 years, affecting most personal computers, laptops,
smartphones, tablets, and servers in use today. Third-party
researchers were able to discover the Defect in 2017, when
Defendant knew or should have known of the Defect much earlier
with its inside knowledge of its CPUs design and functionality.
Since the exposure of the Defect, the Defendant has acknowledged
the Defect and software companies have scrambled to introduce
software patches to cure the Defect. However, the Defect is
hardware-based, so these patches only mitigate the security
threat while significantly compromising the Device's performance.

The Defendant has conceded that the Defect may only be cured by
an architectural change to its CPUs' hardware. Since security is
an essential feature of any Device, Defendant's CPUs sold to the
Plaintiff and the Class were not merchantable and unfit for their
ordinary and particular purposes for which such goods are used.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now forced to either purchase
new devices without the Defect or continue to use their defective
Devices with security vulnerabilities and/or reduced performance.
The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries as a result of
Defendant's conduct because they would not have purchased their
Devices or would not have paid the price they paid for them, but
for Defendant's failure to disclose the Defect.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com


IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Ryan-Nielson Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson filed a class action lawsuit
against iPic Entertainment Inc., the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company currently is a defendant in a class action lawsuit
captioned Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class
Entertainment, LLC, Case # BC 688633, which was filed in Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
December 29, 2017. This lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum
wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods,
and provide accurate itemized wage statements with respect to
certain workers.

iPic Entertainment Inc. was formed as a Delaware corporation on
October 18, 2017. The Company was formed for the purpose of
completing an initial public offering ("IPO") and related
transactions in order to carry on the business of iPic-Gold Class
Entertainment, LLC ("iPic-Gold Class") and its subsidiaries.


KABBAGE INC: Faces Barnabas Clothing Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kabbage, Inc. The
case is styled as Barnabas Clothing, Inc., a corporation and
Alexander Aquino, an individual; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kabbage, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Celtic Bank Corporation, a Utah corporation
and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03414 (C.D. Cal.,
April 24, 2018).

Kabbage, Inc. is an online financial technology company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


L.L. BEAN: Faces "Pershouse" Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.L. Bean, Inc. The
case is styled as Benjamin T Pershouse, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.L. Bean,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10800 (D. Mass., April 24,
2018).

L.L. Bean is an American, privately held retail company founded
in 1912 by Leon Leonwood Bean. The company is based in Freeport,
Maine, United States. It specializes in clothing and outdoor
recreation equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Pastor, Esq.
   Pastor Law Office, LLP
   63 Atlantic Avenue
   3rd Floor
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 742-9700
   Fax: (617) 742-9701
   Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Glover" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Glover class action suit.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16cv00827,
is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8,
2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy
who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-
guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those
of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

The Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously
defending this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is
based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hanks" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Hanks class action suit.

Helen Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("Voya"), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, No. 16cv6399, is a putative class action
that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a
universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and
alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it
increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's
policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of

Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance
rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.

The Lincoln National Life Insurance sais "We are vigorously
defending this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is
based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in E.D. Pa. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 consolidated class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to
consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers
any future cases filed in the same district related to the same
subject matter.

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally
issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL
and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and
seek damages on their behalf.

Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending
this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is
based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Tutor" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 the Tutor class action suit.

Tutor v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-04150, is a
putative class action filed on September 18, 2017.

Plaintiff owns a universal life insurance policy originally
issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiff alleges
that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts
by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017.

Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending
this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is
based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Trinchero" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 the Trinchero class action suit.

Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-
00765, is a putative class action filed on February 22, 2018.

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally
issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege
that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts
by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017.

Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending
this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is
based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


MDL 2827: "Santino" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nikita Santino and Aaron
Rabbanian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01252, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April
26, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:18-cv-02486-EJD the proceeding.

The Santino case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and
potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action
in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern
District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of
Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while
common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the
Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central
District of California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering
of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and
complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false
advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to
chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover,
plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative
classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          E-mail: Bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com

Attorneys for Apple Inc.:

          Theano Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy William Loose, Esq.
          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229 7726
          Facsimile: (213) 229 6726
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tloose@gibsondunn.com
                  cchorba@gibsondunn.com


MDL 2827: "Taylor" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian Taylor, on behalf of
himself and as representative of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 7:18-cv-00168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 26,
2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-
cv-02484-EJD to the proceeding.

The Taylor case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and
potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action
in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern
District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of
Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while
common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the
Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central
District of California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering
of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and
complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false
advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to
chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover,
plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative
classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Archibald I Grubb, II, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          272 Commerce Street
          P O Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269 2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
          E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Wilson F Green, Esq.
          BATTLE FLEENOR GREEN WINN & CLEMMER LLP
          505 North 20th Street, Suite 1150
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 397 8160
          Facsimile: (205) 397 8179
          E-mail: wgreen@bfgwc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN &
          WHITE, L.L.C. - BIRMINGHAM
          The Clark Building
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Telephone: (205) 581 0700
          Facsimile: (205) 380 9314
          E-mail: lolson@lightfootlaw.com


MDL 2827: "Honigman" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marc Honigman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, the
Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00046, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02463-EJD to the
proceeding.

The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in 30 actions and potential
tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the
alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of
California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida
action proposes centralization in that district, while common
defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern
District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of
California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering
of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and
complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false
advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to
chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover,
plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative
classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jillian Nicole London, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LOS ANGELES)
          333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: jlondon@gibsondunn.com


MDL 2827: "Sens" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alex Sens, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the
Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60128, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Florida Southern, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02460-EJD to the
proceeding.

The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and
potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action
in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern
District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of
Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while
common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the
Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central
District of California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering
of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and
complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false
advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to
chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover,
plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative
classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33329
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven Saul, Esq.
          3263 Barbados Ave
          Cooper City, FL 33026
          Telephone: (954) 629 6564
          Facsimile: (954) 629 6564

               - and -

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
          5400 University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jacob Benjamin Monk, Esq.
          SHUTTS AND BOWEN LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379 9116
          Facsimile: (305) 347 7780
          E-mail: jmonk@shutts.com


MDL 2827: "Borstelmann" Suit over iPHone Performance Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Borstelmann, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Apple
Inc.; AT&T Corp; Verizon Wireless Services, LLC; T-Mobile USA
Inc.; Sprint Corp.; and Does 1-10, the Plaintiffs, the Apple
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00289, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02453-EJD to the proceeding.

The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple
Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization,
but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In
addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and
potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action
in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern
District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of
Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while
common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the
Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central
District of California.

In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system
(iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model
iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the
nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to
iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the
performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering
of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and
complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false
advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to
chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover,
plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative
classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead
case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          Erica Blume Slater, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241 2029
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
          eslater@simonlawpc.com

Attorneys for Apple Inc.:

          Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
          Jordan T. Ault, Esq.
          Matthew D Knepper, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480 1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480 1505
          E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com
                  jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com
                  matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com


MERCK & CO: Sugartown Pediatrics Sues over Vaccine Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUGARTOWN PEDIATRICS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 18-1734 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2018),
challenges Merck's anticompetitive scheme to enhance and maintain
its monopoly power in the market for rotavirus vaccines sold in
the United States.

The Plaintiff purchased rotavirus vaccine directly from Merck and
brings this action to recover the overcharges that resulted from
Merck's illegal monopolization scheme. This action challenges
Merck's anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby Merck
leverages its monopoly power in multiple pediatric vaccine
markets to maintain its monopoly power in the Rotavirus Vaccine
Market and, consequently, to charge supracompetitive prices to
purchasers of its rotavirus vaccines.

Merck is one of the world's largest vaccines manufacturers and a
leading manufacturer of vaccines in the United States. It is the
sole United States manufacturer in the markets for multiple
pediatric vaccines, including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella)
and Varicella, holding 100% of United States sales for those
vaccines. In addition, Merck dominates United States sales in the
market for human papilloma virus ("HPV") vaccine, with a market
share of over 95%. Merck is by far the dominant seller in the
Rotavirus Vaccine Market, marketing its vaccine under the trade
name RotaTeq; its only competitor in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market
is GlaxoSmithKline pie ("GSK"), which markets its rotavirus
vaccine under the trade name Rotarix.

Indeed, Merck was the only seller of rotavirus vaccine in the
United States from 2006 until 2008, when GSK received approval to
market Rotarix. Before the threat of competition from GSK, Merck
had contracts that offered "bundled" discounts that would
condition prices on loyalty to a bundle of Merck vaccines. In
preparation for GSK's introduction of a competing rotavirus
vaccine, Merck added a condition to its contracts that required
customers to buy all or nearly all of their pediatric rota virus
vaccines from Merck or face substantial price penalties on all
other Merck vaccines. This new bundle meant that any customer who
wanted to buy Rotarix from GSK had to be willing to accept
substantial penalties on any RotaTeq the customer buys and
substantial penalties on all other Merck vaccines. The Merck
Bundle forecloses competition in greater than 40% of the
Rotavirus Vaccine Market.

The Merck Bundle substantially foreclosed the Rotavirus Vaccine
Market to GSK. For GSK to sell Rotarix to any of Merck's
customers who are subject to the bundled loyalty contracts, GSK
would have to cut its prices substantially to all its customers,
including those customers subject to Merck's bundled loyalty
contracts, those customers subject to GSK's contracts, and those
customers not subject to any vaccine buying contracts. This made
it more profitable for GSK to instead adopt a high-price
strategy, to maximize revenues in the unforeclosed portion of the
market, and not attempt to compete with Merck for sales in the
foreclosed portion. The result is that the Merck Bundle
substantially forecloses competition by reducing GSK's incentive
to compete based on price, thereby allowing Merck to maintain its
monopoly share of the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, and, ultimately,
to charge artificially-inflated prices for rotavirus vaccine.

Thus, instead of decreasing the price of RotaTeq when GSK entered
the market, as would normally be expected to result from
competitive entry into a monopoly market, Merck has maintained
and increased the price of RotaTeq. As a result, plaintiff and
the proposed class were overcharged having paid artificially
inflated prices for rotavirus vaccines.

Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the
United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical company
and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Counsel for Sugartown Pediatrics, LLC and the Proposed Class:

          Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
          Karissa Sauder, Esq.
          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  zcaplan@bm.net
                  ksauder@bm.net
                  dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Hugh D. Sandler, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559 9745
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  hsandler@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Gavin
          GA VIN LAW LLC
          855 Hillsdale Road
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Tel: (610) 918-7271
          E-mail: mgavin@gavinlaw.net

               - and -

          Brent W. Landau, Esq.
          Gary I. Smith, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 985 3270
          E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com
                  gsmith@hausfeld.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Porter Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER PORTER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH
PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
08043-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the court on May
21, 2018, for an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying collective action composed of:

      "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith employees who worked
      as Email Reviewers (including the job titles Supervision
      Analyst, Senior Supervision Analyst, Specialist, or Senior
      Specialist) at any time from October 9, 2014, to the
      present";

   2. granting the issuance of Court authorized notice to the
      members of the conditionally certified collective action;
      and

   3. compelling the production of names, job titles, dates of
      employment, addresses, telephone numbers, personal email
      addresses, work email addresses, locations of employment,
      employee I.D. numbers, and last four digits of social
      security numbers of such prospective collective action
      members for the effective dissemination of notice as soon
      as possible.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2w6rTXKr

Attorneys for plaintiff Jennifer Porter individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated:

          Mitchell Schley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
          197 Route 18 South
          South Tower, Suite 3000
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (732) 325 0318
          E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          E-mail: pechman@pehcmanlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Thomas A. Linthorst, Esq.
          Emily C. DeSmedt, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919 6642
          E-mail: tlinthorst@morganlewis.com
                  edesmedt@morganlewis.com


MICRO FOCUS: Gildea Challenges Hewlett Packard Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
JAMES GILDEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC,
CHRISTOPHER HSU, MIKE PHILLIPS, KEVIN LOOSEMORE, BRAUCKMANN,
KAREN SLATFORD, BY FAX RICHARD ATKINS, AMANDA BROWN, DARREN ROOS,
GISELLE MANON, JOHN SCHULTZ, and Does 1-25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CIV02033 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 24,
2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired Micro Focus American
Depositary Shares, pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the merger of Micro Focus with Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company, and their subsidiaries, pursuant to which Micro Focus
combined with the software business segment of HPE. This action
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Micro
Focus and certain members of the Company's executive officers,
directors, and authorized representatives.

The Micro Focus Group is a global enterprise software provider
supporting the technology needs and challenges of the Forbes
Global 2000. The Micro Focus Group's solutions help organizations
leverage existing IT investments, enterprise applications and
emerging technologies to address complex, rapidly evolving
business requirements, including the protection of corporate
information at all times. The Micro Focus Group's product
portfolios are Micro Focus and SUSE. Within Micro Focus, the
solution portfolios are COBOL Development and Mainframe
Solutions, Host Connectivity, Identity, Access and Security, IT
Development and IT Operations Management Tools, and Collaboration
and Networking. SUSE, a pioneer in Open Source software, provides
reliable, interoperable Linux, cloud infrastructure and storage
solutions. Micro Focus has also announced plans to add a
Container-as-a-Service Platform product and a Platform-as-a-
Service product.

For the six months ended October 31, 2016, the Company's Existing
Products and SUSE Products reporting segments generated $684
million in total revenue for the Company, with 78% of this
revenue coming from Micro Focus' Existing Products portfolio. Of
the $537.3 million in Existing Products revenues for the quarter,
approximately $364.2 million came from maintenance services,
$146.9 million from licensing, and $26.2 million from
consultancy.

On September 7, 2016, Micro Focus issued a press release
announcing a proposed merger with HPE Software, the software
business segment of HPE. According to the deal terms, the Company
would issue newly registered ADSs to shareholders of HPE as
consideration in the Merger, such that immediately following the
completion of the Merger, HPE shareholders would own 50.1% of the
fully diluted share capital of the combined company. In addition,
HPE would receive $2.5 billion financed through newly incurred
indebtedness of HPE Software, and Micro Focus shareholders would
receive a $400 million return of value prior to completion. The
transaction was valued at $8.8 billion, larger than Micro Focus'
market capitalization at the time, and was projected to triple
the Company's revenues. The stated that the Merger would create
"one of the world's largest pure-play infrastructure software
companies" with "annual revenues of US $4.5 billion and EBITDA of
US $1.35 billion." Defendant Loosemore, Micro Focus' Executive
Chairman at the time, was quoted in the release as stating that
the Merger "represents a compelling opportunity to create
significant value for both companies' shareholders." A
significant portion of the assets Micro Focus acquired in the
Merger consisted of assets acquired from British software firm
Autonomy Corporation PLC in 2011 by a predecessor entity to HPE,
in a deal valued at $10.3 billion. In 2012, HP recorded an $8.8
billion impairment charge related to the write down of goodwill
and intangible assets from its acquisition of Autonomy. HP
subsequently accused Autonomy of fraud and accounting
misrepresentations, leading to various regulatory investigations
into the deal and litigation between HP and former officers of
Autonomy, and ultimately resulting in fraud charges being brought
against Autonomy's former CFO by the US. Department of
Justice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, 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 putative class action suit
filed against MLV & Co. is still ongoing.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May
2016 naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR,
as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims
under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.

The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et
al., is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor
complaints, continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration
statement and prospectuses issued in connection with six
offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013;
September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August
21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of
approximately $151.0 million. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and
expenses.

B. Riley said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that in August 2017, the Court granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims and found that
the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a corrective
disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil action was
announced.

Defendant's answer was filed on September 25, 2017.

B. Riley said "Although MLV is contractually entitled to be
indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller
filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will
decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV
receives from Miller."

                 "Rubin" and "Kim" Suits Concluded

B. Riley said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that a mootness fee has been paid
leading to the dismissal of the cases, Michael Rubin v. FBR &
Co., et al., and Kim v. FBR & Co., et al.

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

On July 12, 2017, per stipulation, the complaints were dismissed
with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only, without prejudice
as to the class. In August 2017, a mootness fee was paid and the
case was dismissed.

B. Riley provides financial services and solutions primarily in
the United States and Europe. The company operates in four
segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and
Appraisal, and Principal Investments. The company is based in
Woodland Hills, California.


MONAT GLOBAL: Hoffpauir Alleges Defect in Hair Care Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Hoffpauir, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monat Global Corp., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-21606-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and equitable remedies for Plaintiff and the
Class, which includes consumers who have purchased Monat Hair
Care Products.

According to the lawsuit, Monat prides itself on its
"exceptional, naturally-based products" specifically focused on
women's hair care. Monat knowingly preyed on women's humble
desire for self-beautification through longer, thicker, more
luxuriant hair. That simple hope was crushed by the reality Monat
delivered: painful scalp irritation and embarrassing hair loss
for many consumers.  To further their deceit, Monat erases all
consumer complaints about hair loss or scalp irritation from its
website, thereby precluding hopeful women from protecting their
hair. Shamefully, hair loss claims are met with unsubstantiated
claims of a "detox" period that will cause increased hair loss
before the purported benefits of Monat Products accrue or worse
yet, suggestions to spend more money on still more expensive
Monat Products. To be sure, Monat has systematically denied
legitimate claims of hair loss and methodically sued individuals
with the courage to stand up and tell the truth about the harm
caused by the product. For example, Vickie Harrington, a woman
who started a Facebook page dedicated to victims of Monat, was
sued by Monat on January 26, 2018, for "in excess of $225,000."
See Monat Global Corp. v. Harrington, No. 4:18-CV-8 at Docket
No. 1.

Monat Products are promoted as "naturally-based" and "safe."
These and other claims made by Monat are patently false. Indeed,
Monat previously claimed without caveat that Monat Products are
"suitable for all skin and hair types." Beneficial health and
efficacy claims regarding the Monat products were ubiquitous on
Monat's website and in Monat's marketing materials. For example,
Monat's claims about Capixyl, a central ingredient to many, if
not all of its products, included "clinical results prove
significant decrease in hair loss effect and increase in hair
regrowth." Monat went on to claim that its products boast "higher
proven results than the other leading hair rejuvenation brands."
Relying on the foregoing statements in Defendant's so-called "The
Science of Monat" webpage, which shows a scientist in a lab coat
with rubber gloves and a microscope, reasonable consumers reach
the logical conclusion that Monat Products are safe for everyone
and will re-grow hair for those losing it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444

               - and -

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, Esq.
          JULIE BRAMAN KANE
          E-mail: julie@colson.com
                  lindsey@colson.com
                  b.cancela@colson.com
                  eservice@colson.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street
          Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214 7900
          E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  alebdjiri@dlcfirm.com
                  rleason@dlcfirm.com


NATIONAL RESEARCH: Class Suits Underway in Nebraska and Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Research 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 class action suits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska and in the Circuit Court for
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Since the September 2017 announcement of the original proposed
recapitalization plan, three purported class action and/or
derivative complaints have been filed in state or federal courts
by three individuals claiming to be shareholders of the Company.

All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and the
individual directors of the Company. Two of these lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska -- a putative class action lawsuit captioned Gennaro v.
National Research Corporation, et al., which was filed on
November 15, 2017, and a putative class and derivative action
lawsuit captioned Gerson v. Hays, et al., which was filed on
November 16, 2017. These lawsuits were consolidated by order of
the federal court. A third lawsuit was filed the Circuit Court
for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin -- a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Apfel v. Hays, et al, which was filed on
December 1, 2017.

The allegations in all of the lawsuits are very similar. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the allegedly
unfair proposed transaction, at an allegedly unfair price,
conducted in an allegedly unfair and conflicted process and in
alleged violation of Wisconsin law and the Company's Articles of
Incorporation. One of the lawsuits also alleges the proposed
transaction is a voidable "conflict of interest transaction"
under Wisconsin statutes. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek,
among other things, an injunction enjoining the defendants from
consummating the original proposed recapitalization plan,
damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.

The Company believes that the allegations of the complaints are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Despite the changes to the original proposed recapitalization
plan that culminated in the December 13, 2017 announcement of a
revised proposed recapitalization plan (the "Proposed
Recapitalization"), the Company expects that these shareholders
or other shareholders might assert similar claims regarding the
Proposed Recapitalization. The Company will defend any such
lawsuits vigorously. As of December 31, 2017, no losses have been
accrued as the Company does not believe the losses are probable
or estimable.

National Research Corporation is a provider of analytics and
insights that facilitate measurement and improvement of the
patient and employee experience while also increasing patient
engagement and customer loyalty for healthcare providers, payers
and other healthcare organizations. The company is based in
Lincoln, Nebraska.


NEW YORK: "Bucceri" Suit vs Health Dept Moved to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Madeline Bucceri, Patricia
Trujillo, and Betty Francisco, on behalf of LOURDES LO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Commissioner Howard Zucker, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health; HF Management Services, LLC; Senior Health Partners,
Inc.; HF Administrative Services, Inc.; Healthfirst, Inc.; and
Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-08274, was
transferred the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-02380-LDH-SMG to the proceeding.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Belkys Raquel Garcia, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Stephens, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          199 Water Street
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 577 3582
          Facsimile: (646) 616 9280
          E-mail: brgarcia@legal-aid.org
                  kstephens@legal-aid.org

               - and -

          Angela Aziza Smedley, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          1301 Avenue Of The Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 259 7079
          Facsimile: (212) 632 0183
          E-mail: asmedley@dl.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Amato, Esq.
          Jill K. Freedman, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 294 6700
          Facsimile: (212) 294 4700
          E-mail: jamato@winston.com
                  jfreedman@winston.com
                  jkessler@winston.com

Attorneys for Commissioner Howard Zucker:

          Joshua Evan Keller, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Simon, Esq.
          NYS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway, 24th Fl
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416 8367
          Facsimile: (212) 416 6009
          E-mail: joshua.keller@ag.ny.gov

Attorneys for HF Management Services, LLC; Senior Health
Partners, Inc.; HF Administrative Services, Inc.; Healthfirst,
Inc.; and Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc.:

          Scott B. Klugman, Esq.
          Seth L. Levine, Esq.
          LEVINE LEE LLP
          650 Fifth Avenue, 13th floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 223 4400
          Facsimile: (212) 223 4425
          E-mail: sklugman@levinelee.com
          slevine@levinelee.com


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA C. FIGUEROA, ARLENE NUGENT, EARVIELEE C. POOLE, SARPAUL
S. MEHAT and STEVEN L. PERRETT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORRED &
ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01261 (S.D.
Tex., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, Norred violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for
a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate
them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours at a rate
not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
[they are or were] employed." Norred also failed to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees as required by FLSA.

Norred & Associates, Inc. is the largest and oldest locally owned
corporate security and investigative firm in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Denies FHFA's Bid to Stay NJCH Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Commodity Index Funds Trust 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered an order denying the
Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA's") motion for a stay of
the Court's proceedings.

New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. NovaStar Mortgage, et al. is
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("the Court") involving six
different NovaStar offerings in which Wachovia Capital Markets,
LLC served as one of the underwriters. Plaintiff alleged that the
offering documents were materially misleading because they failed
to disclose that NovaStar, which originated or acquired the loans
backing the certificates, systematically disregarded its lending
guidelines.

In rulings in March 2011 and March 2012, the Court dismissed the
action with prejudice. In March 2013 the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Second Circuit") reversed the rulings and directed the
Court to consider the possible inclusion with regard to the other
five offerings. In February 2015 the Court added the other five
offerings back to the case. The parties subsequently reached an
agreement in principle to settle the matter for $165MM, with
approximately $54MM representing Wells Fargo's contribution to
the settlement.

The parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court on March 15, 2017. The Court issued an
order granting the motion on May 10, 2017. Wells Fargo submitted
its contribution to the settlement on June 1, 2017. Subsequently,
one of the investors in the securities at issue, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), did not submit timely its opt
out notice and is now contesting the settlement.

On September 12, 2017, the Court ruled that FHFA had received
notice and therefore had waived the right to opt out. The Court
set the final hearing to approve the settlement for September 20,
2017. FHFA filed an emergency appeal and motion for stay of the
September 20, 2017 hearing with the Second Circuit. On September
19, 2017, the Second Circuit granted a temporary stay of the
September 20, 2017 hearing while FHFA's emergency motion is
considered by a three-judge panel.

On October 19, 2017, the Second Circuit entered an order denying
FHFA's motion for a stay of the Court's proceedings. Wells Fargo
awaits instruction from the Court as to rescheduling of the final
approval hearing, which Wells Fargo expects will be the next step
in the case.

The United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the "Trust") is a
Delaware Statutory Trust formed on December 21, 2009. The Trust
is a series trust formed pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act and is organized into four separate series (each series,
other than UCCO, a "Trust Series" and collectively, the "Trust
Series"). As of December 31, 2017, the Trust includes the United
States Commodity Index Fund ("USCI"), a commodity pool formed on
April 1, 2010 and first made available to the public on August
10, 2010, the United States Copper Index Fund ("CPER"), a
commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made
available to the public on November 15, 2011, the United States
Agriculture Index Fund ("USAG"), a commodity pool formed on
November 26, 2010 and first made available to the public on April
13, 2012, and the USCF Canadian Crude Oil Index Fund ("UCCO"),
which is currently in registration, and has not commenced
operations.


MICROSEMI CORP: Johnson Balks at Microchip Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICROSEMI CORPORATION,
JAMES J. PETERSON, DENNIS R. LEIBEL, KIMBERLY E. ALEXY, THOMAS R.
ANDERSON, WILLIAM E. BENDUSH, RICHARD M. BEYER, PAUL F.
FOLINO, WILLIAM L. HEALEY, and MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00698 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a
proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the proposed
merger unless, and until, the material information discussed
below is disclosed to Microsemi shareholders sufficiently in
advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the
Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Microsemi Corporation against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors and together with Microsemi for
their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger
between Microsemi and Microchip Technology Incorporated.

On March 1, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Company
shareholders will receive $68.78 per share in cash for each share
of Company common stock they own, a deal with a total equity
value of about $8.35 billion. On April 19, 2018, in order to
convince Microsemi shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete
and misleading Proxy independently violates both Regulation G (17
C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9),
each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and of the
Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections for
the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by
the Board in recommending that Company shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Merger.

The lawsuit contends it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed
prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote on May 22, 2018 in
order to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed
decision regarding the Proposed Merger. For these reasons, and as
set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts claims against
Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, based on Defendants' violations of (i) Regulation G
(17 C.F.R. Sec. 244.100); and (ii) Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-
9).

Microsemi Corporation is an Aliso Viejo, California-based
provider of semiconductor and system solutions for aerospace &
defense, communications, data center and industrial markets.[BN]

Attorney for Robert Johnson:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: Sued over Use of Sealed Arrest Records
----------------------------------------------------
R.C., J.J., and A.G., using under pseudonyms, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JAMES P. O'NEILL, New York City Police
Department Commissioner, in his official capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 153739/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 24, 2018),
seeks to enforce statutory and due process rights of thousands of
predominantly Black and Latino people whose sealed arrest
information the New York City Police Department routinely uses
and discloses in violation of New York law.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end the
NYPD's unlawful practice. The NYPD collects and uses information
about everyone the Department has arrested, even in cases where
the prosecutor declined to pursue charges, the charges were later
dismissed, or the allegations were disproven in court. Under New
York law, records of such cases must be sealed. By this action,
the Plaintiffs challenge the NYPD's unlawful and prejudicial use
and disclosure of information from records of arrests that do not
result in criminal convictions. Through a series of
interconnected database systems, the NYPD has a policy and
practice of using sealed arrest records in the ordinary course of
law enforcement activities. The NYPD uses information in sealed
arrest records to target people -- including people who have
never been convicted of a crime -- for investigation, arrest, and
harsher penalties. The NYPD also regularly discloses information
from sealed arrest records outside of the Department, including
to the media and to prosecutors. In this way, the NYPD is
marking, tracking, and punishing scores of people on the basis of
mere allegations of criminal conduct. The NYPD's policy and
practice of using and disclosing information collected through
sealed arrest records violates a forty-year-old New York statute
that was designed to prevent the stigmatization of people who
were arrested for, but not convicted of, felonies or
misdemeanors.

The City of New York Police Department, commonly known as the
NYPD, is the primary law enforcement and investigation agency
within the five boroughs of New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niji Jam, Esq.
          Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, Esq.
          Johanna Steinberg, Esq.
          Shakeer Rahman, Esq.
          Annette Lee, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          360 East 161st Street
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 838 7878

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Kolodner, Esq.
          Sharon L. Barbour, Esq.
          Martine B. Fomeret, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Theobald, Esq.
          Eric B. Boettcher, Esq.
          Pekham Pal, Esq.
          Michael Cinnamon, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225 2000


NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL RIVERA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH SYSTEM INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00053-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 24,
2018), seeks to recover monetary and declaratory relief, along
with liquidated and actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs to
redress the unlawful employment practices, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

This action is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees of
Defendant employed at NGHS as medical caregivers whose pay is
subject to an automatic meal break deduction even when they
perform compensable work during their meal breaks. The Plaintiff
is a respiratory therapist in the respiratory therapy department
at NGHS.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are supposed to be
given a 30-minute meal break for each shift. The employees do not
clock out and in for any of these mandatory breaks, but the 30-
minute reduction in time and pay is automatically deducted from
each paycheck by the Kronos engaged by Defendants. The Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees are required to carry a duty
cell phone with them during the alleged meal break, and remain on
call during every such break period. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees are required to answer the phone even when on
the mandatory meal break, and the Kronos system does not account
for the compensable labor performed during the meal breaks.

The Plaintiff is therefore paid for only 12 hours of each 12.5
hour shifts, and/or 15.5 hours of each 16.5 hour shift he works
on the presumption that he was receiving a 30-minute meal break.
The Defendant supervised and controlled the Plaintiff's work
schedule and that of the putative class. The Defendant set
Plaintiff's rate of pay, controlled the terms and conditions of
Plaintiff's employment and maintained his employment records.

The Plaintiff and his co-workers rarely took a full 30-minute
lunch break. Usually Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
go to the on-site cafeteria and pick up food to bring back to the
unit and eat the meal while continuing to provide medical service
to the patients on the unit, whether actively or inactively. The
Plaintiff and the other RTs assigned to the therapy unit
generally took their breaks on the unit, as well.

Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc. owns and operates hospitals
that provide medical services for residents in Northeast Georgia.
It offers services in the areas of bariatric weight loss, cancer,
community health, diabetes, emergency and unplanned care,
endoscopy, heart, hospice, imaging/radiology, and laboratory.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard P. Slomka, Esq.
          SLIPAKOFF AND SLOMKA P.C
          2859 Paces Ferry Rd. SE., Suite 1700
          Atlanta, Georgia 30339
          Telephone: (404) 800 4017
          E-mail: hs@myatllaw.com


OAKLEY COUNTRY: "Flores" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RENE FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OAKLEY COUNTRY CLUB, INC., JOHN
DEVITO, SR., and DAVID JOAQUIN, the Defendants, Case No. 18-1171
(Mass. Sup. Ct., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rene Flores brings this action concerning certain unlawful wage
and gratuity distribution practices at the Oakley Country Club, a
private golf club located in Watertown, Massachusetts that is
owned and operated by Oakley Country Club, Inc., its president
John De Vito, Sr. and its treasurer David Joaquin. On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Mr. Flores alleges
that the Oakley Country Club has failed to pay wait staff
employees the correct service rate in violation of the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Oakley Country Club frequently requires, encourages, and
permits wait staff employees to work through their 30 minute meal
breaks. Even when the wait staff employees work through their
meal breaks, the club routinely deducts 30 minutes' worth of time
from the wait staff employees' compensation. For example, if a
wait staff employee works a six-hour shift with no meal break,
the Oakley Country Club will pay the wait staff employee for
five-and-a-half hours of work. In addition, the Oakley Country
Club adjusts the wait staff employees' time records by altering
their clock-in or clock-out times, or by reducing the number of
hours that they report working, resulting in non-payment of wages
and non-payment of overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3261
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com


PINE RIDGE VINEYARDS: Class Suit Settled for $400,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. 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 class action complaint against
one of the company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards has been
settled by the company for $0.4 million.

On May 17, 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against one of the Company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards,
alleging various wage and labor violations. On February 5, 2018,
the Company settled this class action complaint at mediation for
$0.4 million, which was recorded in the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The settlement does not contain any admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. The
settlement will be sent to the court for preliminary approval in
the next 60 days and final approval in the next six months.

Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. The company
operates through two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer.
The company sells wines through independent wine and spirit
distributors in the United States; and independent importers and
brokers internationally. The company is based in Napa,
California.


PINGTAN MARINE: Amended Complaint in "Zheng" Suit Due May 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-03807 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017), Magistrate Judge
Steven Tiscione entered an order dated April 10, 2018, directing
the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 29. The
Defendants are directed to either file an answer or a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint by July 30.

Pingtan Marine 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 on June 23, 2017, a purported securities
class action complaint, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd.,
Xinrong Zhuo and Roy Yu, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Section
10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint
alleges that the Company and the executive officers made
materially false and misleading statements in filings with the
SEC regarding the Company's business operations.

The Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Pingtan securities
between August 8, 2016 and May 10, 2017 and seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. IS a marine enterprise group
primarily engaging in ocean fishing through ITS operating
subsidiary, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group
Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing, which is organized in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC").


PJB METHUEN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Vazquez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PJB METHUEN LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S; PJ
BOSTON, LLC; HARSHA V. AGADI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
10803 (D. Mass., April 25, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage,
statutory damages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery driver in
Massachusetts. When he delivered pizzas, Plaintiff was paid a
"tipped minimum wage" (of about $7 per hour) that was below the
regular minimum wage, plus tips (but not the delivery charges).
As a result, the Plaintiff relied heavily on tip income to earn
wages. The Defendants allegedly did not provide written notice
about the tipped minimum wage to delivery drivers pursuant to
M.G.L. c. 151, section 7, paragraph three, or 29 U.S.C. section
203(m). The Defendants focus primarily on pizza delivery as
opposed to in-store dining, but Defendants have walk-in customers
who are served food and beverages at the store. Pizza delivery
accounts for the majority of Defendants' retail sales. As a
result, Defendants employ a large number of delivery drivers like
Plaintiff. The Defendants impose a "delivery charge" on
customers, typically around $4.00, when a driver makes a
delivery. The delivery charge is within the range of what an
objectively reasonable customer pays as a tip to a delivery
driver, and an objectively reasonable customer would expect the
delivery charge to be paid to the driver. The Defendants retain
all of the "delivery charge" rather than paying it to the
driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 6230
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com


PLAZA HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDonough Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE MCDONOUGH, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLAZA
HOME MORTGAGE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00020121-CU-0E-
CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff commenced her employment as an hourly-paid, non-
exempt employee for Defendants in the State of California in or
about August 2011 and terminated in or about January 2017. The
Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and
failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to
hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members; to set
work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other
class members' employment; and to supervise their daily
employment activities. The Defendants exercised sufficient
authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs and the
other class members' employment for them to be joint employers of
Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue to
employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California, involving,
inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime
wages earned, missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259


RBC CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Gasoline Fund, LP 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 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York has entered an order
preliminarily approving a pending settlement with class
plaintiffs.

On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital was added as a new defendant in a
pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange
dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations,
in foreign exchange trading. Various regulators are also
conducting inquiries regarding potential violations of law by a
number of banks and other entities, including RBC, regarding
foreign exchange trading.

In September 2017, the U.S. District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving a pending settlement with class
plaintiffs. Canadian class actions and one other U.S. action that
is purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of
plaintiffs remain pending.

United States Gasoline Fund, LP is an exchange traded fund
launched and managed by United States Commodity Funds LLC. The
fund invests in the commodity markets. It uses futures contracts
to invest in gasoline. The fund seeks to track the daily changes
in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline for delivery to
the New York harbor, as measured by the daily changes in the
price of a specified short-term futures contract on gasoline.


SCRUB INC: Norman Sues over Misuse of Biometric Identifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE NORMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SCRUB, INC., an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05306 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook County, April 24, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and dissemination 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.

The case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information by a professional
janitorial services company which requires its workers'
biometrics to be captured, converted, used, stored and
disseminated as a condition of employment without lawful consent.
Defendant causes this through the use of biometric scanning
devices and associated software technology which capture a
person's fingerprint information derived from their fingerprints
to authenticate the identity of such persons in the future.

New technology now allows consumers to pay their bills, secure
financial accounts, and purchase physical goods, all with their
biometric information, which is often a fingerprint.
Unfortunately, along with the increased utility of biometric
technology, so too has come grave privacy risks associated with
the dissemination and unregulated collection of biometric
information, with the risk of such harms greatly magnified by the
unregulated collection of biometric information. Indeed, the
permanent and irreplaceable nature of one's biometrics makes the
illegal collection of the same a significant public problem with
far-reaching consequences, including irreversible identify theft
and potential financial ruin.

Scrub, Inc. is a highly specialized contract cleaning company
with nearly 1,000 employees providing nationwide janitorial and
facility services.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          William Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com


SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Scynexis, 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 continues to defend itself in
a stockholder class action suit captioned, Gibson v. Scynexis,
Inc., et al.

Scynexis said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on March 8, 2017, a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers, captioned Gibson
v. Scynexis, Inc., et al. The action was filed on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities (1) pursuant or traceable to the
Company's IPO, or (2) on the open market between May 2, 2014, and
March 2, 2017.

It asserts claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs
on behalf of the putative class.

In May 2017, Boussad Baguenane filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel
and Lead Plaintiff.  Baguenane is represented by Laurence Rosen,
Esq., at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Scynexis said "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend
to defend the litigation vigorously."

Scynexis, Inc. is a biotechnology company committed to positively
impacting the lives of patients suffering from difficult-to-treat
and often life-threatening infections by delivering innovative
anti-infective therapies. The company is based in Jersey City,
New Jersey.


SENECA RESOURCES: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARY MCLAUGHLIN individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENECA
RESOURCES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00255-NBF
(W.D. Pa.), Mr. McLaughlin asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
      and discovery;

   2. directing that judicial notice be sent to all Putative
      Class Members;

   3. approving the notice and consent;

   4. directing mailing and e-mailing of the notice, along with a
      reminder notice;

   5. permitting Class Counsel to contact by telephone those
      Putative Class Members who are former employees of Seneca
      or whose contact information is not valid;

   6. directing Seneca to post the Notice and Consent forms in
      Seneca's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period;

   7. directing Seneca to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days
      of the Court's order; and

   8. authorizing 60 day notice period for Putative Class Members
      to join the case.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer M. Solak, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  jsolak@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300


SIENTRA INC: Settles Calif. Class Suits for $10.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, 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 has agreed to pay $10.9
million to settle the class action lawsuits filed in San Mateo
Superior Court and the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the
Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants for allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. On October 28, November 5, and
November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the
Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo naming the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that
closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants for allegedly false
and misleading statements in the Company's offering documents
associated with the follow-on offering concerning its business,
operations, and prospects.

On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the
San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Central District of California signed a memorandum of
understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a
settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide
relief.

Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that following a final fairness
hearing in the federal court, on May 23, 2017, the federal court
extended an order granting final approval of the settlement and
dismissing the federal court action with prejudice. Following a
final fairness hearing in the state court, on May 31, 2017, the
state court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement and dismissing the state court action with prejudice.

As a result of these developments, the Company determined a
probable loss had been incurred and recognized a net charge to
earnings of approximately $1.6 million within general and
administrative expense which was comprised of the loss
contingency of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected
insurance proceeds of approximately $9.4 million. In the first
quarter of 2017, the Company received $9.3 million in insurance
proceeds and paid the $10.9 million loss contingency. The
remaining insurance proceeds receivable is classified as
"insurance recovery receivable" on the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets.

Sientra, Inc. is a medical aesthetics company committed to making
a difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image,
growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence. The
company is based in Santa Barbara, California.


SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL, MARCO EUSEBIO,
individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SLEEPY'S LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-
01138-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
their renewed motion for class certification of:

   "111 individuals who performed deliveries for Sleepy's
   pursuant to independent contractor agreements in New Jersey at
   any time since March 4, 2004, who were single-route operators
   at all times that they worked for Sleepy's, or who did so for
   at least six months."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VIEVVLk7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 306
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 414 1800
          E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

                - and -

          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com


SPOTIFY USA: Parties in "Ferrick" Suit Await Final Settlement OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spotify Technology S.A. said in its Form F-1/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 14, 2018,
that the parties in the case, Ferrick et al. v. Spotify USA Inc.,
are awaiting final court approval of a settlement agreement.

Between December 2015 and January 2016, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the
company unlawfully reproduced and distributed musical
compositions without obtaining licenses.

In an order dated May 23, 2016, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell
granted the motions to consolidate and directed consolidation of
the cases. The low-numbered case, Lowery v. Spotify USA Inc., No.
CV 15-09929 BRO (RAOx), was designated the Lead Case, and the
Court directed all counsel to file all further documents under
Case No. 15-09929 BRO (RAOx) only.  The Court further ordered
that the Court Clerk administratively close Ferrick v. Spotify
USA Inc., No. CV 16-00180 BRO (RAOx) and to add all parties and
counsel from Ferrick to Lowery.  The Court further granted the
Ferrick Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim co-lead class
counsel and appointed Susman Godfrey L.L.P and Gradstein and
Marzano, P.C. as interim co-lead class counsel. The Court denied
the Lowery Plaintiffs' cross-motion to appoint Michelman and
Robinson, LLP as interim lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint
was due to be filed on or before June 27, 2016.

The cases were subsequently transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2016, as
Ferrick et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 1:16-cv-8412-AJN
(S.D.N.Y).

In May 2017, the parties reached a signed class action settlement
agreement which the court has preliminarily approved, pursuant to
which the company will be responsible for (i) a $43 million cash
payment to a fund for the class, (ii) all settlement
administration and notice costs, expected to be between $1
million to $2 million, (iii) a direct payment of class counsel's
attorneys' fees of up to $5 million dollars, (iv) future
royalties for any tracks identified by claimants, as well as
other class members who provide proof of ownership following the
settlement, and (v) reserving future royalties for unmatched
tracks. The final approval hearing was held on December 1, 2017
and the court has not yet issued a ruling.

Andrew Paley has filed an opposition to the Motion for final
approval of class action settlement.

Spotify Technology S.A., through its subsidiary, offers digital
music-streaming services. The company was incorporated in 2006
and is based in Luxembourg.


TANDOORI NIGHTS: Faces "Portillo" Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tandoori Nights,
LLC. The case is styled as Claudia Portillo on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tandoori Nights, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00475-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., April 24,
2018).

Tandoori Nights, LLC is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
   Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC.
   8757 Georgia Ave, Suite 400
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   Tel: (301) 587-9373
   Fax: (240) 839-9142
   Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


TARGET CORP: Bid to Alter Judgment in Minnesota Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Target 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 and the other defendants have
filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
final judgment dismissing the federal securities law class
actions in Minnesota, and the motion has not yet been heard or
decided.

On May 17, 2016 and May 24, 2016, Target Corporation and certain
present and former officers were named as defendants in two
purported federal securities law class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the
Court). The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint (the First Complaint) on November 14, 2016, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada
Disclosure and naming Target, its former chief executive officer,
its present chief operating officer, and the former president of
Target Canada as defendants.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Target common stock between March 20, 2013 and
August 4, 2014 and sought damages and other relief, including
attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the defendants misled
investors about the performance and prospects of Target Canada
and that such conduct affected the value of Target common stock.

On July 31, 2017 the Court issued a combined order dismissing the
Federal Securities Law Class Actions.

Target said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that on August 29, 2017 the plaintiff
filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment entered by
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
July 31, 2017 dismissing the Federal Securities Law Class
Actions. The plaintiffs also asked the Court for permission to
file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second
Complaint"), which, like the prior complaint, alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada
Disclosure. Target, its former chief executive officer, its
present chief operating officer, and the former president of
Target Canada are named as defendants in the Second Complaint.

In its recent disclosure, the Company said that on October 16,
2017, Target and the other defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the final judgment
dismissing the Federal Securities Law Class Actions. That motion
has not yet been heard or decided.

Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902. The
company offers its customers everyday essentials and fashionable,
differentiated merchandise at discounted prices.


TARGET CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Target 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 and the other defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the Second ERISA class action, but the
motion has not yet been decided.

On July 12, 2016 and July 15, 2016, Target Corporation, the Plan
Investment Committee and Target's current chief operating officer
were named as defendants in two purported Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions filed in the
Court. The plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
(the First ERISA Class Action) on December 14, 2016, alleging
violations of Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the
Canada Disclosure and naming Target, the Plan Investment
Committee, and seven present or former officers as defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Target
Corporation 401(k) Plan or the Target Corporation Ventures 401(k)
Plan (collectively, the Plans) at any time between February 27,
2013 and May 19, 2014 and whose Plan accounts included
investments in Target stock and sought damages, an injunction and
other unspecified equitable relief, and attorneys' fees,
expenses, and costs, based on allegations that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take action to
prevent Plan participants from continuing to purchase Target
stock during the class period at prices that allegedly were
artificially inflated.

On July 31, 2017 the Court issued a combined order dismissing the
ERISA Class Actions.

Target said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that on August 30, 2017 the plaintiffs in
the ERISA Class Actions, which were dismissed on July 31, 2017,
filed a new ERISA Class Action (the "Second ERISA Class Action")
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, which, like the prior ERISA Class Actions, alleges
violations of Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the
Canada Disclosure. The Second ERISA Class Action is captioned
Dormani, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:17-cv-
04049-JNE-BRT. Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven
present or former officers are named as defendants in the Second
ERISA Class Action Complaint.

On November 13, 2017, Target and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second ERISA Class Action. A hearing on
that motion was held on February 22, 2018, but it has not yet
been decided.

Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902. The
company offers its customers everyday essentials and fashionable,
differentiated merchandise at discounted prices.


TENNIS CHANNEL: Deceptively Markets TC Plus, Wilson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX WILSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE TENNIS CHANNEL, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03473 (C.D. Cal., April 25, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's false and misleading advertising
relating to the sale of TC Plus, and to obtain redress for those
who have purchased TC Plus across the United States pursuant to
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et
seq., and False Advertising Law, and California Business and
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class, for the benefit and protection of all
current and former purchasers of Defendant's Tennis Channel Plus
live content and video streaming service. As alleged, the
Defendant deceptively markets and advertises TC Plus as providing
access to live content when, in fact, it does not, or only
provides access to select live content in a manner that is
directly contrary to Defendant's advertisements.

Tennis Channel is an American sports-oriented digital cable and
satellite television network that is owned by the Sinclair
Television Group subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          11755 Wilshire Blvd, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 510 4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Odeh Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omar Odeh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. United Collection Service, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60919-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 23,
2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant,
dispatching thousands unlawful collection letters to Florida
consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has dispatched
thousands of unlawful collection letters to consumers in an
attempt to collect debt, and in each such letter, Defendant has
failed to clearly and adequately disclose the name of the
creditor to whom the debt is owed, in violation of section
1692g(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of the putative
class, seeks statutory damages under FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907 1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Physical Therapy, 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's motion to
dismiss a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is pending.

On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company,
chief executive officer Christopher J. Reading, chief financial
officer Lawrance C. McAfee and corporate controller Jon C. Bates,
alleging, inter alia, that the defendants misstated or omitted to
state material information concerning the Company's historical
accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired
partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks a declaration that the
action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, unspecified compensatory damages in an
amount to be determined at trial and interest, costs and
expenses.

U.S. Physical Therapy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 26, 2017,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the matter. On July 31,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging
substantially the same violations and seeking substantially the
same unspecified damages.  The amended complaint also names Glenn
McDowell, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, as an additional
defendant.

In its recent disclosure, the Company said that on December 1,
2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and subsequent
filings related to the Motion to Dismiss were completed on
February 7, 2018. The Motion to Dismiss is currently pending
before the Court.

U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
outpatient physical therapy clinics that provide pre-and post-
operative care and treatment for orthopedic-related disorders,
sports-related injuries, preventative care, rehabilitation of
injured workers and neurological-related injuries.


VIVINT INC: Underpays Staff, Linehan-Clodfelter Says
----------------------------------------------------
EZRA LINEHAN-CLODFELTER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIVINT, INC., a Utah
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. RG18902225 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy of compensating employees within the State of California,
including Plaintiff and Class Members, on a piece rate basis but
not compensating them separately from their piece rate
compensation for non-productive time or rest periods.

Vivint, Inc. is a private smart home services provider in the
United States and Canada. In 2012, The Blackstone Group acquired
Vivint for more than $2 billion. As of August 2016, Vivint had
more than one million customers in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251
          E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  ssmith@aegislawfinn.com


VIVUS INC: Deadline for Rehearing in "Jasin" Suit Expired
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, 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 deadline for the plaintiffs in the
case, Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., to seek rehearing in the Ninth
Circuit has now expired.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc.,
Case No. 114 cv 261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under
California's securities and consumer protection securities
statutes.

Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the
prospects for the company's success, including with respect to
the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for
personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8
million, and sought damages and other relief.

On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14 cv
03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged
in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to
an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their state court action with prejudice.

Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action and moved to
dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their complaint to include
additional factual allegations and to add seven new claims under
California law. The court granted the latter motion on June 18,
2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and
dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint as well.

On April 19, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of
defendants.

Vivus said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 2016.  Briefing on
the appeal has now been completed, and the Ninth Circuit has set
the matter for oral argument on November 13, 2017.

In its recent disclosure, the Company said the Ninth Circuit
issued a decision on January 16, 2018, affirming the district
court's dismissal of the action. The deadline for Plaintiffs to
seek rehearing in the Ninth Circuit has now expired, and unless
Plaintiffs elect to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme
Court, the matter is concluded.

Vivus, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing innovative, next-generation therapies to address
unmet medical needs in human health. The company is based in
Campbell, California.


WATTS GUERRA LLP: Faces "Kellogg" Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watts Guerra, LLP.
The case is styled as Kenneth P. Kellogg, Rachel Kellogg, Kellogg
Farms, Inc., Roland B. Bromley and Bromley Ranch, LLC,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Watts Guerra, LLP, Daniel M. Homolka P.A., Yira Law
Office LTD, Hovland and Rasmus, PLLC, DewaldDeaver, P.C., LLO,
Givens Law, LLC, Mauro, Archer & Associates, LLC, Johnson Law
Group, Wagner Reese, LLP, VanDerGinst Law, P.C., Patton Hoversten
& Berg, P.A., Cross Law Firm, LLC, Law Office of Michael Miller,
PagelWeikum, PLLP, Wojtalewicz Law Firm, Ltd., Mikal C. Watts,
Francisco Guerra and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-
cv-01082 (D. Minn., April 24, 2018).

Watts Guerra LLP is a true nationwide litigation practice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas J Nill, Esq.
   Douglas J. Nill, P.L.L.C.
   120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2050
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801
   Tel: (612) 573-3669
   Email: dnill@farmlaw.com


WILLIAM PENN: TVPX ARS Sues over Excessive Cost of Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
TVPX ARS INC., as securities intermediary for GRANITE FINANCIAL,
INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02428 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2018),
is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated owners of life insurance policies issued by William Penn
NY.  The Plaintiff contends that the increase of William Penn
NY's cost of insurance (COI) violates the plain terms of
Plaintiff's and all putative class members' insurance policies,
and William Penn NY's purported justification for the COI
increase establishes that William Penn NY has knowingly made
numerous, material misrepresentations in violation of New York
Insurance Law Section 4226 and General Business Law Section 349.

The policies at issue are all flexible-premium, universal life
policies issued by William Penn NY between the years of 2001 and
2008 under the product names Longevity UL 100, William Penn NY
UL, Life Umbrella UL 120, and Advantra. The principal benefit of
UL policies is that they permit policyholders flexibility in the
amount and timing of premiums necessary to keep the policies in-
force.

Unlike other kinds of whole life insurance that require fixed
monthly premium payments, the premiums required for UL policies
need only be sufficient to cover the COI charges and certain
other specified expenses. The COI charge is typically the highest
expense that a policyholder pays. This structure allows
policyholders choice; they can elect to minimize their premium
payments and generate greater rates of return through other
investments or alternatively pay more premium than required to
keep the policy in force and use the UL policy as a tax-
advantaged savings vehicle.  Generally, any premiums paid in
excess of COI charges and expense components are applied to a
policy's "Policy Account," sometimes known as "policy account
value" or "cash value." These excess premiums earn interest.

In July 2015, William Penn NY announced massive increases to COI
rates on certain universal life policies. For some William Penn
NY product versions, the increase was over 390%. For Plaintiff's
policy, the increase was 70%. In dollar terms, this equates to
approximately $14,500 a year. These amounts are unprecedented and
impossible to justify under the terms of the policies. Under the
terms of the Subject Policies, COI rates can only be adjusted
based on changes in expectations for certain enumerated factors,
and William Penn NY must review its rates at least every five
years. This means that William Penn NY last reviewed its rates no
earlier than July 2010. There is nothing that could justify a 70%
increase in COI rates from July 2010 to July 2015, let alone a
390% increase. Instead, the COI increase is a blatant unlawful
profit grab premised on an improper methodology and consideration
of prohibited factors.

By increasing COI rates, William Penn NY seeks to force Plaintiff
and other William Penn NY policyholders to either (a) pay
exorbitant premiums that William Penn NY knows would no longer
justify the ultimate death benefits, or (b) lapse, surrender, or
partially-surrender (e.g., lower the face amount) and forfeit the
premiums policyholders have previously paid. William Penn NY, in
turn, will make a huge profit - either through higher premium
payments or by eliminating policies (through lapses, surrenders
or partial-surrenders) and keeping the premiums paid to date.

William Penn Life Insurance Co. Of New York, Inc. provides life
insurance products in New York. It offers its products through
independent insurance agencies. William Penn Life Insurance Co.
Of New York, Inc. was formerly known as Penn Life Insurance
Company of New York and it changed its name to William Penn
Life.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Halley W. Josephs, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019 6023
          Telephone: (212) 336 8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336 8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789 3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789 3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com



                            *********


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  * * *