CAR_Public/180522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, May 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 102



                            Headlines


ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits over Improper Fees Still Pending
AKAL SECURITY: Security/Detention Officers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Brower Piven Commences Class Action Lawsuit
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Files Class Action

ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
ALTERYX INC: 4 Putative Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in N.Y.
AMP LIMITED: Shine Lawyers Eye Shareholder Class Action
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Circuit to Decide on Arbitration Ruling

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action in NY
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Okays Settlement Pact for "Moses" Suit
APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wilchfort" Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
AQUATECH INT'L: Ferguson Seeks Damages Over Retaliatory Discharge
ATLAS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits by Vana and Stone

AVIACODE INC: Seeks Approval of Class Notice in "Hazel" Suit
AVIACODE INC: Class of Medical Coders Certified in "Hazel" Suit
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalization of "Mohanty" Settlement Underway
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Putative Class Action Trial Set for Oct. 21
BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Class Cert. Granted Preliminary Approval

BIRD ELECTRIC: Class of Electricians Certified in "Guajardo" Suit
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway in D. Mass.
BRAMBLES: Slaters, IMF Launch Class Action
BRAVO BRIO: Dagenbach to Withdraw Preliminary Injunction Motion
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Wins Prelim. OK of $1.475-Mil. "Haas" Deal

CANADA: Class Action Over Faulty Phoenix Pay System Can Proceed
CAPITAL FITNESS: Gooden Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
CAPITALA FINANCE: "Paskowitz" Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. N.C.
CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Case Management Dates in "Gudger" Suit Stayed

CENTURYLINK INC: "Tomasulo" Pact Still Subject to Court Approval
CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices & Securities Suit Underway
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Donelson" Suit
CHIASMA INC: Amended Complaint in "Gerneth" Lawsuit Underway
CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending

CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: 2 Potential Class Suits Pending at March 31
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
COLONY NORTHSTAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
COMMERCEHUB INC: Injunction Bid in "Gordon" Suit Dropped
COMSCORE INC: Oregon Section 11 Suit Stayed

COMSCORE INC: June 7 Approval Hearing on Securities Suit Accord
COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Defends "Bass" Lawsuit
CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Workers Class Certified in "Boutell" Suit
CVB FINANCIAL: Says Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Completed

CYAN INC: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
DEPOMED INC: July 23 Deadline to Oppose Bid to Nix "Huang" Suit
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
EIGER BIOPHARMA: Awaits 9th Cir. to Schedule Oral Arguments

EL POLLO LOCO: Settlement Talks Fail in "Olvera" Labor Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: June 25 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Medina Files Reply Brief Backing Class Cert.
EXTREME NETWORKS: Court Narrows Scope of Securities Lawsuit
FACEBOOK INC: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Misuse of Data

FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
FITBIT INC: Settlement of Sleep Tracking Class Lawsuit Underway
FITBIT INC: May 31 Hearing in Heart Rate Tracking Suit
FITBIT INC: Court Okays US$33.3MM Settlement of Securities Suits
FOOT LOCKER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces $10MM Fine Over Transmission Complaints
FUTUREDONTICS INC: Suit over Wage and Hour Violations Underway
GENERAL CABLE: "Stanfield" and "Rosenblatt" Lawsuits Dismissed
GENERAL CABLE: Still Defends Kentucky Suit over ERISA Breach
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit

GRIDSUM HOLDING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HANSEN & ADKINS: Standalone Document Class Certified in "Luna"
HASHFLARE LP: Baylog Sues Over Voided Cryptocurrency Mining Deals
HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending

HEWLETT PACKARD: Asks Court to Transfer & Dismiss "Jackson"
HEWLETT PACKARD: Preliminary Agreement Reached in "Wall" Suit
HINES REIT: Settlement Hearing in "Gamberg" Set for June 6
HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery in "Airquip" Suit Still Underway
IPC INC: Asks Court to Deny Physicians Healthsource's Cert. Bid

JPMORGAN CHASE: Scott Gets Prelim. Nod of $618,837 Settlement
KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Carruth" Suit Challenges No-Poach Agreements
KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmonston" Suit Certified as FLSA Class Action
LA QUINTA: Appeal from Stockholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending
LIPOCINE INC: Records $4.3-Mil. Settlement Liability at March 31

LIPOCINE INC: Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement Set for July 2
LOUISIANA, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Shabazz" Suit Denied
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action
MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Class of Facilities Certified in "Malvern"
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Berger" Suit Now Moot

MASIMO CORP: Still Defends PHI Suit over Fax Advertising
MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Keeps Alabama Court Ruling in Class Suit
MDL 2804: Chicopee Working to Join Class-Action Lawsuit
MEAT SHOP AT PINE HAVEN: Faces $15MM Suit Over E. Coli Outbreak
MICHIGAN, USA: JV Seeks to Certify HCV Medicaid Enrollees Class

MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Wheeler" Suit
MONITRONICS INT'L: Accord in Telemarketing Suit Awaits Court OK
NANTKWEST INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Set for "Sudunagunta" Complaint
NEW YORK: Lawsuit Challenges NYPD's Use of Sealed Arrest Records
NORTHERN OIL: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Fries" Lawsuit Underway

NVR INC: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in "Smith" Suit
O'CHARLEYS LLC: "Otis" Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending S.C. Ruling
OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Circuit Affirms Transfer of Lipozene Suit
OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Ross Moves to Certify Technicians Class
OLYMPIC FLAMES: Blake's Bid to Certify Nixed; July 17 Hearing Set

ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cert. of Two Classes Sought in Toll Roads Suit
ORANGE COUNTRY: California Motorists Seek Class Action Status
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Class Action Suit Underway
PACIFIC COAST: May 22 Hearing in "Welch" Case
PAY CAR MINING: Certification of Class Sought in "Lester" Suit

PBF HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in "Goldstein" Class Suit
PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
PBF HOLDING: Mini-Trial Scheduled in "Thomas" Suit
PJ OPS IDAHO: Edwards Moves to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Receives $4.5MM in Haverhill Litigation

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial Date in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 6
QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Suit Over Troubled Phoenix Pay System
QUINCY PROPERTY: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brashier" Suit
R1 RCM INC: "Anger" Suit Settled for $1.3 Million
RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Seeks to Cert. 6 Classes of Workers

RESOLUTE FOREST: Reynolds Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
SAL'S ITALIAN: Elorza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Still Ongoing
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Melville" Suit
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Veilleux" Class Action

SPARK ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Gillis" Suit
SEMPRA ENERGY: 381 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Court at May 3
SEMPRA ENERGY: Property and Business Class Actions Still Ongoing
SEMPRA ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Revive Securities Suit
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: 8th Cir. Appeal in Royalty Suit Underway

SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
SNEAKER VILLA: Tucker Moves to Certify Class of Key Holders
STONE ENERGY: Faces 3 Potential Class Actions over Talos Merger
SYNGENTA CORP: Farmers File Fraud Suit vs Own Lawyers in GMO Case
TESLA INC: Securities Suit over SolarCity Reports Concluded

TESLA INC: To Seek Dismissal of Suit over Model 3 Production
TIGER BRANDS: Law Firms Join Forces in Listeriosis Lawsuit
TORCHMARK CORP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Bruce" Lawsuit
TRANSNET: Must Respond to Pensioners' Case
TROTT LAW: Martin Seeks Prelim. Approval of $7.5-Mil. Settlement

TYSON FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Huser" Dismissal Order
UBS GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
UBS GROUP: Foreign Currency-Related Suits Awaits Final OK
UBS GROUP: Government Bonds-Related Suit Still Ongoing
UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC: Kotov May Refile Bid for Class Cert.

US BANK: Moseman Moves to Cert. Two Classes of Workers Under FLSA
US STEEL: Athan Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
VERDE ENERGY: "Jurich" Class Suit Underway
VERDE ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Class Suit Concluded Following Settlement

VIRGINIA, USA: Riggleman's Bid for Class Certification Denied
WARNER MUSIC: Reaches Settlement for Download Pricing Class Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Schechner Seeks to Certify 5 Classes of Buyers
WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter Moves to Certify Sales Clerks Class
WISCONSIN, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Schroeder" Suit

WODONGA, VIC: Class Suit Possible Over Toxic Culture
XPO LOGISTICS: 170 Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending at March 31
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Still Awaits Ct. Approval on TCPA Case Settlement
YAHOO INC: New Terms of Service No Impact on Class Action Ruling

* Law Firms Urge Apartment Owners to Join Cladding Class Action




                            *********


ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Aceto Corporation ("Aceto" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ACET) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-02437, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Aceto securities between February 1, 2018, through April 18,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aceto securities between
February 1, 2018, and April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until June 25, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

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.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) 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.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. [GN]


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits over Improper Fees Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. continues to defend itself
against class actions lawsuits over improper fees, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama.  Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania.  The 2013 Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed.  The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper charges (fuel,
administrative and environmental charges) that were in breach of
the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.

The Company said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown
size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in
dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a
range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid
waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States.


AKAL SECURITY: Security/Detention Officers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Smith, Juan J. Aguilar, Thomas Airington II, Curtis Baughman,
Wendell R. Bell, Shelly M. Bentley, Donald L. Bergeron, Thomas
Boyd, Edmond E. Breshears, Yanai Castillo, David Crotchett, James
B. Curtis, Christy Escapule, Greg Flores, Greg E. Gurley, Anthony
Kelsh, Dennis J. Kenniker, Tamiko Kuniyuki, Paul T. Lee, David
Lopez, Alma D. Mata, Tim McGrady, Joseph McMurdy, Edward G.
Paprocki, James Piekarz, Danny J. Rice, Sr., Timothy R. Rice,
Bernabe A. Rodriguez, Jr., William L. Rudd, Randy Salinas,
Cynthia R. Sanchez, Aurelio Sanchez-Cepeda, Eugene L. Shimerdla,
William M. Strong, Lorraine Varela, Aniano Vega, Joseph Vella,
William C. Webster, Robert A. White, Karen Willis v. Akal
Security, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01117-DGC (D. Ariz., April 11,
2018), is brought as a collective action arising from alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pursuant to the FLSA and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the
Plaintiffs also seek to represent all other similarly situated
employees, who have worked for the Defendant and who have not
been paid the requisite overtime compensation.  Throughout their
employment, the Plaintiffs worked as Aviation Security Officers
("ASOs") and Aviation Detention Officers ("ADOs") who were
responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights back
to their home country.

Akal is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of
business in New Mexico.  Akal maintains an operations facility in
Mesa, Arizona, where the Plaintiffs worked.  Akal is a government
contractor and is a subcontractor to CSI Aviation, Inc.  CSI's
contract with the federal government requires it and its
subcontractors, including Akal, to comply with all federal, state
and local laws and regulations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq.
          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami, FL 33131-3076
          Telephone: (305) 330-6090
          Facsimile: (305) 531-2405
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Brower Piven Commences Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Allegiant Travel Company (Nasdaq:ALGT) ("Allegiant" or the
"Company") securities during the period between June 8, 2015
through April 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until June 25, 2018 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Allegiant securities during the Class Period.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff
and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Allegiant lacked
adequate systems to ensure its aircraft were being properly
maintained and was not providing safe working conditions for its
employees.

According to the complaint, following an April 13, 2018
announcement by CBS News that it would air a segment criticizing
the Company's safety and maintenance record, and the April 15,
2018 airing of the segment, the value of Allegiant shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Allegiant securities purchased on or after June 8, 2015 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

         Contact:
         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                 piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed
that an investor class action lawsuit has been filed against
Allegiant Travel Company (NASDAQ: ALGT) ("Allegiant") on behalf
of purchasers of Allegiant publicly traded securities between
June 8, 2015 and April 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the complaint, Allegiant focuses on the provision of
travel services and products to residents of under-served cities
in the United States. The company offers scheduled air
transportation on limited frequency nonstop flights between
under-served cities and leisure destinations.

The Class Period commences on June 8, 2015, when The Enquirer
reported that the company issued a statement in connection with
an Allegiant plane that was forced to make an emergency landing
in Florida after smoke was detected in the cabin shortly after
takeoff. The company stated afterward that the safety of its
passengers and crew were its "number one priority."

According to the complaint, on April 13, 2018, CBS News announced
it would air a 60 Minutes segment on April 15, 2018, criticizing
the company's safety and maintenance record. Following this news,
shares of Allegiant fell $14.20 per share or over 8.59% to close
at $151.05 per share on April 13, 2018.

Then, on April 15, 2018, CBS News aired a 60 Minutes report
revealing that: (i) Allegiant aircraft had a high number of
serious mechanical incidents from mid-2015 through October 2017;
(ii) Allegiant lacks the infrastructure and personnel to
adequately maintain their aircraft; and (iii) Allegiant has
discouraged pilots from reporting safety and maintenance issues.
Following this news, shares of Allegiant fell $4.65 per share or
over 3% to close at $146.40 per share on April 16, 2018.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Allegiant lacked adequate systems to ensure
its aircraft were being properly maintained; (2) consequently,
Allegiant was not operating responsibly and ethically, and
providing safe working conditions for its employees; and (3) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Allegiant investors may, no later than June 25, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Contact:
         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone:(888) 299-7706
                   (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: info@ktmc.com
                 jmaro@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com [GN]


ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the court has entered a scheduling
order setting deadlines for briefing of defendants' joint motion
for summary disposition in a consolidated securities litigation,
which have been consolidated for discovery in Wayne County
Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No. 16-013616-CB).

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

In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was
filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of
Michigan (Case No. 16-013616-CZ).  This matter was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016.  The complaint alleges material misstatements
and omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering
in April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the
severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates,
deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of
subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low-
income borrowers.  The request for relief includes an
indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and costs and other
remedies.

In January 2017, another purported class action -- National
Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed
in the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan
(Case No. 2017-156719-CB).  This matter was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January
30, 2017.

In March 2017, a third purported class action -- James McIntire
v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court
for Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 17-003811-
CZ).  This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on March 15, 2017.

The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen
Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially
similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.  All three matters were remanded from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to
the state circuit courts on May 26, 2017, and have been
consolidated for discovery in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re
Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-
CB).

In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

In April 2018, the court entered a scheduling order setting
deadlines for briefing of defendants' joint motion for summary
disposition.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each of
these actions."

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada.  The Company
operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations,
Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations
segments.  It was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed its
name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010.  Ally Financial Inc. was
founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


ALTERYX INC: 4 Putative Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that it faces four putative consumer class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company in U.S. federal
courts relating to Amazon Web Services.

These cases are: (1) Kacur v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-
2222 (CD Cal) (asserting claims for putative national class and
Ohio subclass); (2) Jackson v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
02021 (D. Or.) (asserting claims for putative Oregon class); (3)
Foskaris v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03088 (D.  Nev.)
(asserting claims for putative national class and Nevada
subclass); and (4) Ruderman et al. v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No.
8:18-cv-00022 (C.D.  Cal.) (asserting claims for putative
national class and Florida, New Jersey, and New York subclasses).
Three actions were filed on December 20, 2017 (Kacur, Jackson,
Foskaris), and the fourth was filed on January 8, 2018
(Ruderman).

On December 19, 2017, the Company disclosed that individuals with
an Amazon Web Services, or AWS, login could have had access to a
third-party marketing dataset that provided consumer marketing
information intended to help marketing professionals advertise
and sell their products, or the AWS Matter.  This dataset is
commercially available and provides some location information,
contact information and other estimated information that is used
for marketing purposes.  It does not include names, credit card
numbers, social security numbers, bank account information or
passwords.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to
represent various classes of individuals whose information was
contained within the dataset, claim to have been harmed or to be
facing harm as a result of the exposure of their personal
information.  The complaints assert claims for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1681 et seq. and state
consumer-protection statutes, as well as claims for common-law
negligence.  Additional actions alleging similar claims could be
brought in the future.  These proceedings all remain in the early
stages.  We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
Because of the early stages of these matters, we are unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may
result for these matters."

Alteryx, Inc. provides self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. It offers
Alteryx Designer for data preparation, blending, and analytics
that could be deployable in the cloud and on premise; Alteryx
Server, a secure and scalable product for sharing and running
analytic applications in a Web-based environment; and Alteryx
Analytics Gallery, a cloud-based collaboration offering that
allows users to share workflows in a centralized repository. The
company serves clients in business and financial services,
consumer goods, healthcare, retail, technology, and travel and
hospitality industry.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. still defends two putative
federal securities class actions are pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The first action, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension
Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00299-AJN, was filed on January 12, 2018 and asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, the underwriters for the
Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering.  The Hawaii
action alleges, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus for the secondary public offering and
certain other public disclosures contained material misstatements
and omissions.

The second action, Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN, was filed on January 19, 2018
and asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The Nichols action similarly alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement and prospectus for the
secondary public offering and certain other public disclosures
contained material misstatements and omissions.

AMC Entertainment said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
all claims asserted.  Given the early stage of the actions, a
loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time."

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. owns and operates a theatrical
exhibition company in the United States and Europe.


AMP LIMITED: Shine Lawyers Eye Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Shine Lawyers
has announced it is investigating a class action on behalf of AMP
Limited shareholders, following damning revelations at the Royal
Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and
Financial Services Industry.

The Australian law firm says its investigation into the financial
giant will centre around claims that AMP engaged in misleading
and deceptive conduct and made false representations by lying to
ASIC on multiple occasions about the manner in which its clients
were charged for services that were not provided.

A statement from the law firm confirmed it will also be examining
allegations that AMP failed to disclose to the market material
information in relation to its dealings with the corporate
watchdog, and failed to disclose material information about its
risk management processes.

"Shine Lawyers are of the view that AMP has breached a number of
provisions of the Corporations Act and ASX Listing Rules. AMP
executives gave evidence at the royal commission that their
conduct fell far short of the standards expected by shareholders,
investors, policy holders and community expectations generally,"
said Shine Lawyers class actions expert Jan Saddler, Esq.

"The integrity of the Australian financial markets depend upon
all stakeholders engaging in conduct that is consistent with the
law.

"What we are seeing coming out of the royal commission is that
certain stakeholders, namely the financial institutions, seem to
think that they are the exception to the rule. The matters we are
investigating in relation to AMP would certainly suggest that
that is the position AMP took when they became aware of these
issues."

Slater and Gordon announced it too is considering a shareholder
class action against AMP, in partnership with litigation funder
Therium Capital Management Limited (Therium).

Los Angeles-based litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, along with Guernsey-headquartered litigation funder
Burford Capital, also announced they are circling AMP for a
potential shareholder class action. [GN]


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Circuit to Decide on Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit by retired former employees of Akers
National Roll Company against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, among
other defendants, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will next
consider whether the District Court erred in compelling
arbitration, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs
(currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll
Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants
breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the
benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and
similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs
petitioned the court to compel arbitration.

On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot.  Defendants
appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on
June 21, 2017.  Defendants also filed a motion to stay
arbitration pending the resolution of the appeal, and that motion
was granted on September 5, 2017.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals will next consider whether the
District Court erred in compelling arbitration.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, the Corporation believes that the final resolution
of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources," the Company said.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its subsidiaries (the
"Corporation") manufacture and sell highly engineered, high
performance specialty metal products and customized equipment
utilized by industry throughout the world.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in New
York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are also
defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits
filed in March and April of 2017 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Another putative class
action, filed in February 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, was voluntarily dismissed (Miller
v. AmTrust, Zyskind, and Pipoly).  The three cases in the
Southern District of New York have been consolidated under the
case name In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  Plaintiffs in this proceeding filed a consolidated,
amended complaint on August 21, 2017.

Plaintiffs assert in the consolidated, amended complaint claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The consolidated, amended
complaint adds as defendants BDO USA LLP, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

AmTrust Financial said, "The Company believes the allegations are
unfounded and is vigorously pursuing its defenses; however, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss, if
any, due to the early stage of the proceeding."

AmTrust provides insurance coverage for small businesses and
products with high volumes of insureds and loss profiles that the
Company believes are predictable.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Okays Settlement Pact for "Moses" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. has received court approval of an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation captioned, Moses,
et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On April 22, 2014, a purported shareholder of Apple REIT Seven,
Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"),
filed a class action against the Company and several individual
directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former
shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased
additional shares under the Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP")
of Apple Seven, Apple Eight and the Company between July 17, 2007
and February 12, 2014 (the "2014 DRIP litigation").

The Company said, "In January 2017, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation which the court
approved by order dated March 27, 2018."

In January 2018, the Company funded the settlement amount of
US$5.5 million, which was included in accounts payable and other
liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2017, and in transaction and litigation costs
(reimbursements) in the Company's consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be
treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  The Company
is self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate,
primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wilchfort" Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on May 1, 2018, all
of the Apple REIT Defendants in the "Wilchfort" class action were
dismissed from the complaint without prejudice by the plaintiff.

The case was captioned Wilchfort, et al. v. Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., et al.

On February 24, 2017, a purported shareholder of Apple REIT Six,
Inc. ("Apple Six"), Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and
Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed a class action
against, among others, the Company and the former individual
directors of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, including
Mr.  Glade Knight ("the Apple REIT Defendants"), on behalf of all
then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Six,
Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares
under Apple Six's, Apple Seven's and Apple Eight's DRIP between
July 17, 2007 and December 2012 (in the case of Apple Six
shareholders) or June 30, 2013 (in the case of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight shareholders).

The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be
treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  The Company
is self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate,
primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States.


AQUATECH INT'L: Ferguson Seeks Damages Over Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JILL FERGUSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. AQUATECH INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00470-
JFC (W.D. Pa., April 11, 2018), is an individual and collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, an individual
and class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage, and an
individual action under the FLSA (retaliation) to recover damages
for unpaid overtime compensation and for retaliatory discharge.

Aquatech International, LLC, is a privately held company and a
leading global provider of industrial and infrastructure water
treatment solutions and services.  The Defendant maintains its
North America Corporate Headquarters in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          First & Market Building, Suite 650
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


ATLAS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits by Vana and Stone
---------------------------------------------------
Susana Vana and David Stone have filed class action lawsuits
against Atlas Holdings, Inc., the 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.

On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana
and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against the Company alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging
that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the
Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal,
and New Amneal; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation analyses and
Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal; potential
conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's financial
advisors and the proposed business combination with Amneal; and
background information of the proposed business combination,
including confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in
connection with the proposed business combination. No schedule
has been set.

Atlas Holdings, Inc. was formed along with its wholly owned
subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of
facilitating the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal").


AVIACODE INC: Seeks Approval of Class Notice in "Hazel" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AVIACODE, INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), jointly ask the Court to
approve their stipulated form of Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit to certain Medical Coders that worked for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brought this case as a collective action to recover
alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
as a class action to recover alleged unpaid wages, unreimbursed
business expenses, and statutory damages under Utah's Payment of
Wages Act.  The Plaintiff and the members of the classes he seeks
to represent are medical coders, who were classified by the
Defendant as independent contractors to review patient
documentation and determine appropriate diagnostic and/or
procedural codes that correspond to the services rendered, as
described in the medical records.

The parties agreed to jointly move for a Court Order
conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under
the FLSA, consisting of current and former Medical Coders, who
received payments from Defendant suggesting they worked at least
25 hours in one or more workweeks in the last three years (the
"Putative Opt-In Medical Coders").  The threshold of 25 hours in
any given workweek is intended by the parties to exclude Medical
Coders who, even assuming the addition of 15 hours of alleged
uncompensated time worked in any workweek (which the Defendant
denies), would not have reached the FLSA's threshold of 40 hours
per workweek.

The parties also agree, among other things, that the Defendant
will produce an Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last known
addresses, date of birth, Social Security number, contractor ID
number, dates of service, and last known e-mail addresses for all
Putative Opt-In Medical Coders.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6pKhV8nP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
          Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
          REAVEY LAW
          1600 Gennessee St., Suite 303
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 474-6300
          Facsimile: (816) 474-6302
          E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com
                  kkoc@reaveylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew W. Bagley, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2672
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: abagley@crowell.com

               - and -

          Cheylynn Hayman, Esq.
          Austin J. Riter, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
          101 South 200 East, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          Facsimile: (801) 532-7750
          E-mail: chayman@parrbrown.com
                  ariter@parrbrown.com


AVIACODE INC: Class of Medical Coders Certified in "Hazel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins grants the joint motion to approve
stipulated form of notice of collective action filed by the
parties in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AVIACODE, INC., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah).

The parties have agreed and stipulated to sending notice of
conditional certification of the Plaintiff's FLSA collective
action claims to current and former Medical Coders, who received
payment from the Defendant suggesting they worked at least 25
hours in one or more workweeks in the period at issue (starting
three years prior to notice and ending December 26, 2017) (the
"Putative Opt-In Medical Coders").

The Notice and Consent to Join Form as set forth in Exhibits 1
and 2 in the parties' Amended Joint Motion are approved.  Docs.
42 and 45 are denied as moot, according to the order.

Within seven days of entry of this Order, the Defendant shall
provide to Simpluris, Inc., a third-party administrator jointly
chosen (and jointly paid) by the parties, with an Excel
spreadsheet listing the Putative Opt-In Medical Coders.
Simpluris shall, among other things, mail and e-mail the Notices
and Consent Forms within 14 days after receipt of the Excel
spreadsheet.

The Putative Opt-In Medical Coders shall have 75 days after
mailing of the Notices to submit a Consent Fann to join this
action.  All Consent Forms must be postmarked no later than 75
days from the original mailing date.

The Plaintiff retains his right to move for class certification
of his separate claims under the Utah Payment of Wages Act for
all Medical Coders under Rule 23.  The Defendant retains the
right to oppose such a motion and/or file any motion of its own.

The Defendant's consent to conditional certification of
Plaintiff's FLSA claim as a collective action shall not be
construed as an admission of liability.  The Defendant retains
the right to oppose the Plaintiff's motions for final collective
action certification and/or move for decertification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nKlN2NpY


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalization of "Mohanty" Settlement Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the finalization of the settlement in
the "Mohanty" case is subject to execution of definitive
documentation and approval by the court, among other conditions.

The Company states, "In November 2016, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et
al., No. 16-cv-12336) against us and certain of our executive
officers seeking unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between
August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive.  The complaint
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint's allegations relate generally to our disclosure
surrounding the level of implementation of our Avid NEXIS
solution product offerings.  On February 7, 2017, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the matter.  On June
14, 2017, we moved to dismiss the action.  On July 31, 2017, the
lead plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss, and
on August 21, 2017, we filed our reply brief.  On October 13,
2017, after a mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation.  We expect the majority of
the settlement to be funded by our insurers.  Finalization of the
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
execution of definitive documentation and approval by the court."

Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware
for digital media content production, management and
distribution.


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Putative Class Action Trial Set for Oct. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated putative class action against Banc of
California, Inc., is currently set for October 21, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action
lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-
00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J.  McKinney,
Ronald J.  Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc
of California, James J.  McKinney, and Steven A. Sugarman, and
(2) Cardona v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00621
(January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California,
James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A.
Sugarman.  Those actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was
appointed, and the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint against Banc of California, Steve A. Sugarman and James
J. McKinney on May 31, 2017 alleging that the defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In general, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the
purported concealment of the defendants' alleged relationship
with Jason Galanis caused various statements made by the
defendants to be false and misleading.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The plaintiff
thereafter dismissed Mr. McKinney, leaving the Company and Mr.
Sugarman as the remaining defendants.

On September 18, 2017, the district court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.  Specifically,
the court denied the defendants' motions as to the Company's
April 15, 2016 Proxy Statement which listed Mr. Sugarman's
positions with COR Securities Holdings Inc., COR Clearing LLC,
and COR Capital LLC while omitting their alleged connections with
Jason Galanis.  The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased stock in the Company between varying
dates, inclusive of August 15, 2016 through January 23, 2017.

The lawsuits seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.  Trial is currently set
for October 21, 2019.

The Company said it believes that the consolidated action is
without merit and intends to vigorously contest it.

Banc of California, Inc. is a financial holding company under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, headquartered in
Santa Ana, California and incorporated under the laws of
Maryland.


BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Class Cert. Granted Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 a court has accepted the
recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class
certification, in a suit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited,
Inc.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a
lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain employees of
BVU (collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to establish a
class action of former and current employees of BVU and alleging
violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of contract.

The lawsuit also claims that the Defendants terminated plaintiff
Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about alleged
violations of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount
of the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs.

During July 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation that the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential
class members be granted with respect to certain employees and
denied as to others. During September 2017, the judge accepted
the recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class
certification. Management believes that the lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based diversified holding
company with investments in Bluegreen Vacations Corporation
("Bluegreen Vacations" or "Bluegreen"), real estate and real
estate joint ventures, and middle market operating businesses.


BIRD ELECTRIC: Class of Electricians Certified in "Guajardo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Counts granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Conditional Certification and
Judicially-Supervised Notice Under Section 216(b) in the lawsuit
titled JASON GUAJARDO, Individually And On Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Persons v. BIRD ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Case No. 7:18-cv-00025-DC (W.D. Tex.).

Judge Counts rules that the case will conditionally proceed at
this time as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Judge Counts authorizes the issuance of the
agreed notice and consent forms that the Parties submitted with
their Stipulation for Conditional Certification to all current
and former Electricians, who worked for the Defendant in
Department 16 at any time from April 10, 2015, to the present
(the individuals in this group being referred to herein as,
"Potential Class Member(s)").

Within 10 days of the date of this Order, Judge Counts directs
the Defendant's Counsel to, among other things, provide to the
Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel format information regarding each
Potential Class Member, including full name, last known address
and telephone number(s).  Within 30 days of the date of this
Order, the Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
approved notice and consent forms to the Potential Class Members.

The Plaintiff's Counsel may maintain a Web site dedicated to
posting the notice and consent forms, which shall contain only
the Court-approved forms.  During the Opt-In Period and other
than as described in the Order, the Plaintiff's Counsel may not
send any information other than notice and consent forms, or
otherwise communicate with Potential Class Members except to
verify physical and e-mail addresses and to respond to inquiries
initiated by Potential Class Members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AfcX9cCr


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway in D. Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. continues to face a potential class
action lawsuit in Massachusetts filed by an individual Berkshire
Bank depositor, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

On April 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served
with a complaint filed in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division.  The complaint
was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims
to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of
Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.  On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended
to add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.  The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory,
consequential, statutory, and punitive damages.  Berkshire Hills
and Berkshire Bank deny the allegations contained in the
complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. Berkshire is a Delaware corporation and the
holding company for Berkshire Bank and Berkshire Insurance Group,
Inc.


BRAMBLES: Slaters, IMF Launch Class Action
------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that
National firm Slater and Gordon and global litigation funder IMF
Bentham announced on April 23 a new class action following
'cannibalised' growth by a listed Australian company.

The action is being taken against Brambles, an ASX 20 company,
that operates the CHEP and IFCO brands with a supply of reusable
pallets, crates and containers across more than 60 countries.

It is alleged by Slaters and IMF that Brambles "cannibalised" its
fiscal year 2017 growth and allegedly misled investors about its
future profits.

The class action will be open to investors who suffered loss
after acquiring shares in Brambles between 18 August 2016 and 17
February 2017.

The proposed allegations are as follows: that Brambles did not
have reasonable grounds to issues its FY17 Guidance in August
2016, thus made misleading and deceptive representations to the
market, and breached its obligations of continuous disclosure.

Slaters senior associate Andrew Paull, Esq., said investors lost
"millions of dollars" after Brambles revised its profit guidance
in the first two months of 2017.

"Brambles had been enjoying a steady rate of growth for a number
of years, but in FY16 its revenue and earnings grew at double the
historic rate," he said.

"This growth occurred after Brambles allowed a large number of
its pallets to be used to transport goods to companies outside
its regular distribution channels."

"Brambles could charge a premium for this, which increased
revenue, but they also list visibility over the whereabouts of
their pallets, which significantly increased collection and
repair costs," he noted.

The costs associated with Brambles' "exceptional" FY16 growth
effectively "cannibalised" the company's FY17 growth, he argued.

"This is not the kind of case where a company has failed to
foresee risks that would negatively impact future growth," he
said.

"Brambles was telling the market that its FY16 sales growth of
eight per cent and profit growth of nine per cent was the 'new
normal' and could be expected into the future."

As such, Slaters and IMF are alleging that Brambles knew its
increased costs would make future growth at the FY16 rate
impossible, and they failed to account for that in their FY17
forecast.

"The company has provided a variety of inconsistent reasons for
its surprising guidance miscalculation but, in our view, these
excuses just don't stack up," Mr Paull concluded.

This class action marks the latest collaboration between the two
entities, following their action against milk supplier Murray
Goulburn and a subsidiary in early April. [GN]


BRAVO BRIO: Dagenbach to Withdraw Preliminary Injunction Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2018, that Jon Dagenbach has filed a notice withdrawing his
motion for a preliminary injunction against the Company's merger
agreement with Bugatti Parent, Inc.  The intention to withdraw is
based upon the representation that the Company would file the
Form 8-K provide additional information to its shareholders.

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

On March 7, 2018, Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., an Ohio
corporation (the "Company"), announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Bugatti Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and
Bugatti Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").  Parent and Merger Sub are
investment affiliates of GP Investments, Ltd. ("GP"), a leading
private equity and alternative investment firm and Spice Private
Equity Ltd. ("Spice"), a Swiss investment company focused on
private equity investments and an affiliate of GP.  The Merger
Agreement provides that, among other things, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company (the "Merger") effective as of the effective time of the
Merger (the "Effective Time").  As a result of the Merger, Merger
Sub will cease to exist, and the Company will survive as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.

On April 23, 2018, Mr. Jon Dagenbach filed a putative shareholder
class action against the Company and the individual members of
the Company's Board of Directors (collectively, the "Company
Board") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The case is captioned Jon Dagenbach v. Bravo
Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., No.  2:18-cv-00375-ALM (the
"Merger Litigation").  Mr. Dagenbach's lawsuit alleges violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement.  Mr. Dagenbach alleges that the Company's
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2018 (the "Proxy
Statement") contains certain material omissions and
misstatements.  He seeks to enjoin or rescind the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and requests attorneys' fees
and damages in an unspecified amount.  On April 24, 2018, Mr.
Dagenbach filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent
the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.  On April 25, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach filed a motion to
expedite proceedings relating to his motion for a preliminary
injunction.  The Court granted the motion to expedite by Order
entered on April 26, 2018, and scheduled a hearing on the
preliminary injunction motion for May 11, 2018.  On May 4, 2018,
the Company and the Company Board filed a memorandum in
opposition to Mr. Dagenbach's motion for a preliminary injunction
and moved to dismiss his complaint.  As of the date of this
Current Report on Form 8-K, the Court has not issued a ruling on
Mr. Dagenbach's motion for a preliminary injunction or the
Company and the Company Board's motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "The defendants believe these claims are
without merit and are vigorously defending against these claims.
However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its
shareholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement as described in this Current
Report on Form
8-K.  Based upon the representation that the Company would file
this Current Report on Form 8-K, on May 8, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach
filed a notice withdrawing his motion for a preliminary
injunction.  Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.  To
the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in
the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is
required."

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. is the owner and operator of
two distinct Italian restaurant brands, BRAVO! Cucina Italiana
("BRAVO!") and BRIO Tuscan Grille ("BRIO"). The company had
positioned its brands as multifaceted culinary destinations that
deliver the ambiance, design elements and food quality
reminiscent of fine dining restaurants at a value typically
offered by casual dining establishments, a combination known as
the upscale affordable dining segment. The company is based in
Columbus, Ohio.


BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Wins Prelim. OK of $1.475-Mil. "Haas" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Noel L. Hillman granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement, as outlined in
the parties' Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit entitled TAMMY
MARIE HAAS and CONRAD SCZCPANIAK, Individually and on behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, ET
AL., Case No. 1:08-cv-01102-NLH-JS (D.N.J.).

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons who were placed into custody at the Burlington
     County Correctional Facility after being charged with non
    -indictable offenses, and were strip searched upon their
     entry into the Burlington County Correctional Facility
     pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the County of
     Burlington during the period of February 26, 2006 to
     February 28, 2013.

Plaintiffs Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szczpaniak are appointed
to serve as co-class representatives.  Strategic Claims Services
is appointed to serve as Settlement Administrator.  Carl D.
Poplar, Esq., and David Novack, Esq., are appointed as Co-Class
Counsel.

The costs of administering the settlement shall be paid by the
Settling Defendant, County of Burlington's Insurer, State
National, not to exceed $300,000 as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settling Plaintiffs shall cause the initial notice and claim
form to be mailed to all appropriate parties no later than June
15, 2018.  All claims shall be received no later than October 15,
2018.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants shall pay
$1,475,000 to the Settlement Fund.  The amount paid to the
Plaintiffs shall be capped at $400 per claim.  The Defendants
have agreed to pay up to $80,000 as an incentive fee to the Co-
Class Representatives, Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szczpaniak.
Defendant Burlington County shall pay attorneys' fees up to
$675,000 and costs up to $25,000.

The Court will commence a Final Fairness Hearing on December 15,
2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the Settlement
Agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KReh3sz5

Plaintiff Tammy Marie Haas is represented by:

          David J. Novack, Esq.
          BUDD LARNER, P.C.
          150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN1000
          Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999
          Telephone: (973) 379-4800
          E-mail: dnovack@budd-larner.com

Plaintiff Conrad Szcapaniak is represented by:

          Carl D. Poplar, Esq.
          CARL D. POPLAR, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1010 Kings Highway South, Building One
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 216-9979
          E-mail: cpoplar@poplarlaw.com


CANADA: Class Action Over Faulty Phoenix Pay System Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duffy, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that a Quebec
judge has given the green light to a potentially costly class-
action lawsuit launched by disgruntled public servants whose
lives have been turned upside down by the faulty Phoenix pay
system.

In a judgment released in March, Quebec Superior Court Justice
Jean-Francois Emond authorized the class action to proceed to
trial.

Court documents suggest between 40,000 to 70,000 occasional and
casual federal employees from across Canada could be eligible to
join the suit, many of them students.

"This judgment means that we will be able to bring this case to
trial, and hopefully, prove to the court that people . . .  have
suffered damages," said lawyer Julien Fortier, one member of the
Quebec City legal team that launched the case in April 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal government failed to fulfil
obligations toward its casual employees during the problem-
plagued implementation of the Phoenix pay system.  It seeks
different kinds of compensation, including interest on unpaid
wages, and damages for emotional and financial fallout.

The suit alleges some employees were paid too much before having
to reimburse the government, while others were paid the wrong
amounts, or not at all.  The Phoenix pay system, it alleges, also
introduced errors to parental leave, sick leave, health insurance
and overtime payments.

Lawyers are seeking a base amount of $500 for all members of the
class action, and additional amounts for individual cases.
They've asked the court to award $1,000 to all employees whose
pay contained errors regardless of whether they were overpaid or
underpaid.  Further damages are being sought for employees who
did not receive at least half their pay during two consecutive
pay periods, and for those who suffered other pay problems.

The lead plaintiff is Ezmie Bouchard, who worked at Passport
Canada between January and August 2016.  She alleges that several
mistakes were made on her cheques, which left her $4,800 short of
what she should have received.  After a series of adjustments,
Bouchard was overpaid.  At the end of a process that caused her
uncertainty and stress, the lawsuit claims, Ms. Bouchard had to
repay $1,000.

But the class-action lawsuit does not encompass the majority of
employees affected by the Phoenix fiasco.

Robyn Benson, national president of the Public Service Alliance
of Canada, said the lawsuit will cover student workers and casual
workers, but not public service union members who have access to
an existing grievance process.

"It is only for those who are not covered by a union," Ms. Benson
said.  "We are a class in and of ourselves, and have the ability
to negotiate for our members."

PSAC has been negotiating for a compensation package for its
180,000 members, but has not come to any agreement with the
government.

A survey of PSAC members found that about three-quarters of
respondents had been overpaid or underpaid, and many others were
worried about being affected in the future.  "This has been a
complete debacle from the get-go," Benson said.  "We expect that
this government should make amends."

While the students and casual workers caught in the Phoenix mess
need some avenue to pursue compensation, a class-action lawsuit
may be a time-consuming, arduous process, Ms. Benson said. She
warned they "could be waiting for years."

Mr. Fortier, however, said he doesn't believe the case will be
overly complex.

"There's a flagrant situation here that needs to be addressed,"
he said.  "I think that what makes our case a bit easier is that
no one can say that everything is going well.  No one is saying
that, not even the government."

Damages, he said, cannot yet be estimated, but could run into the
tens of millions.

Ms. Fortier said the class-action is open to anyone who does not
have access to the public service grievance process, and could
potentially include casual employees, students, retirees and
those who have quit their civil service jobs.

Federal employees who believe they should be included in the
class-action lawsuit can contact the law firm through its
dedicated website.

"In speaking to people, we realized that the simple fact of
working in the public service during this time was a hardship,"
Ms. Fortier said.  "This class-action won't work miracles and
can't fix software issues.  It's meant to compensate people for
the hardship they've experienced.  We think it's essential, but
it's only one piece of the Phoenix puzzle."

Carla Qualtrough, the minister of public services and
procurement, and Parliamentary secretary Steven MacKinnon would
not comment on the lawsuit.

Scores of federal employees have experienced problems with their
paycheques since the Phoenix pay system was introduced in early
2016 before it was ready to handle the massive task.  The system
administers pay for more than 290,000 employees across 98 federal
organizations.

Joanne Laucius and Olivia Robinson contributed to this report.
With files from Presse Canadienne [GN]


CAPITAL FITNESS: Gooden Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the case
titled LUNDON GOODEN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CAPITAL FITNESS, INC. d/b/a XSPORT FITNESS,
INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02200 (N.D. Ill.), as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lundon Gooden, et al., are a group of current and former
employees, who are allegedly owed substantial overtime pay and
commissions from the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendant routinely required them to work in excess of 40 hours
per week, but the Defendant did not pay them additional wages for
the extra work.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   (a) authorize their counsel to send judicial notice and the
       reminders to the putative collective class, and requires
       the posting of the notice at the various workplaces;

   (b) approve their proposed notice and reminder notice;

   (c) compel the Defendant to produce a list of the putative
       collective class members;

   (d) bar the Defendant from engaging in any and all forms of
       communication to prospective class members concerning the
       merits and issues of their FLSA claims and bar the
       Defendant from securing any waivers or releases of the
       putative plaintiffs' FLSA claims; and

   (e) authorize a 90-day notice period for the putative class
       members to opt-in.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FgzCWEN5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard R. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 332-5200
          Facsimile: (312) 236-7727
          E-mail: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com

               - and -

          Kristen E. Prinz, Esq.
          Amit Bindra, Esq.
          THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 212-4450
          Facsimile: (312) 284-4822
          E-mail: kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com
                  abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com


CAPITALA FINANCE: "Paskowitz" Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capitala Finance Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the "Paskowitz" class action lawsuit
has been transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina (case number 3:18-cv-00096-
RJC-DSC), on stipulation of the parties.

On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance
Corp., et al., in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS)
(the "Paskowitz Action"), against the Company and certain of its
current officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 4,
2016 and August 7, 2017.

The complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws,
including, inter alia, that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

On March 1, 2018, the Paskowitz Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina (case number 3:18-cv-
00096-RJC-DSC).

Capitala Finance said, "While the Company intends to vigorously
defend itself in this litigation, the outcome of these legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty."


CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the "Sandifer" class action complaint has
been voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018.

On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et
al., in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer
Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the
same putative class and against the same defendants as those in a
putative class action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala
Finance Corp., et al.

The Paskowitz suit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (case number 2:17-cv-
09251-MWF-AS), against the Company and certain of its current
officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and
August 7, 2017.

The complaint in the Sandifer Action allege certain violations of
the securities laws, including, inter alia, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina.  The Sandifer Action
was voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Case Management Dates in "Gudger" Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose E. Martinez granted in part the parties' joint
motion to stay case management deadlines contained in the Court's
Scheduling Order in the lawsuit captioned JODY GUDGER and RHONDA
KING, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-14281-
JEM (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Martinez ruled that the previous calendar call and trial
dates are cancelled.  All unexpired, pretrial deadlines contained
in the Court's Scheduling Order are stayed.

The parties shall confer and file updated proposed deadlines for
all unexpired pretrial deadlines, as well as a new trial date,
within 14 days following entry of an Order on Plaintiff's Motion
to Conditionally Certify Collective Action, Judge Martinez
stated.

Once the parties have submitted an updated proposed pretrial
schedule and trial date, the Court will enter a revised
scheduling order.

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


CENTURYLINK INC: "Tomasulo" Pact Still Subject to Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the proposed settlement of Jeffery
Tomasulo's putative shareholder class action lawsuit is subject
to court approval, among other conditions.

The Company said, "CenturyLink and certain members of the
CenturyLink Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11,
2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v.
CenturyLink, Inc., et al.  The complaint asserts, among other
things, that the members of CenturyLink's Board allegedly
breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders
in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly,
that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3
stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the
CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in
negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures
set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly
fail to contain material information concerning the transaction.
The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary
duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and
equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction.  On
February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit.  The
proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other
conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to
our consolidated financial statements."

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to residential and
business customers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices & Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. still defends in the case captioned, In Re:
CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company said, "In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a
putative consumer class action, was filed against us in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that we charged some of our retail customers for products and
services they did not authorize.  A number of other complaints
asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal courts,
as well.  The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair
competition, and unjust enrichment.

"Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a
putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
that we failed to disclose material information regarding
improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law
claims.  A number of other cases asserting similar claims have
also been filed.

"Both the putative consumer class actions and the putative
securities investor class actions have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation."

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to residential and
business customers.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Donelson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of the case captioned Martha Donelson and John Friend,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., according to Chaparral
Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action
was filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage
County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners
and surface lessees.  The plaintiffs challenged leases and
drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without
the environmental studies allegedly required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The plaintiffs assert claims
seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment.  Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas
leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a
prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties
owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

"On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all
defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act.  On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate
the judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies which the court found in the dismissed complaint.

"On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, and as a result has not responded to the plaintiffs'
motions.  After plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
denied, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6, 2016.  Oral argument
regarding the appeal was held on November 14, 2017, and on April
5, 2018, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.  The time to
appeal the Tenth Circuit's ruling has not lapsed.

"We anticipate any monetary liability related to this claim will
be discharged.  We dispute plaintiffs' allegations and dispute
that the case meets the requirements for a class action."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and
natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production
business in the United States since 1988.


CHIASMA INC: Amended Complaint in "Gerneth" Lawsuit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
After the court denied Chiasma, Inc.'s request to dismiss the
case, the Company has responded to the amended complaint filed in
the case captioned Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. on March 30,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of
our current and former officers were named as defendants in a
federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled
Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al.  This lawsuit challenges our
public statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial
methodology for octreotide capsules and our ability to obtain FDA
approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules.

"In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case.
An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February
10, 2017 similarly challenging our statements regarding the Phase
3 clinical trial methodology and results, and our ability to
obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, purportedly in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

"The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former
members of our board of directors, as well as the investment
banks that underwrote our initial public offering ("IPO") on July
15, 2015.  The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
purchasers of our stock in our IPO.  The plaintiff is seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of himself
and members of a putative shareholder class, including interest
and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating the
action, and any other relief the court determines is appropriate.

"The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on March 27, 2017, and on February 15, 2018, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint on March 30, 2018.

"We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously
defend against it.  At this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us."

Chiasma, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused
on improving the lives of patients who face challenges associated
with their existing treatments for rare and serious chronic
disease. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.


CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal from the District Court's rulings in the
"Amey" case remains pending, according to Cinemark USA, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The case is captioned Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc.,
Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Bloomberg News recounts that the plaintiff asked the court to
certify the Class defined as:

     All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for
     Defendants in California at any time from December 3, 2011
     through the present, and were paid overtime compensation
     during at least one pay period.

The Company said, "The case presents putative class action claims
for damages and attorney's fees arising from employee wage and
hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest
break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination,
and wage statements violations.  The claims are also asserted as
a representative action under the California Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").  The Company denies the claims, denies that
class certification is appropriate and denies that a PAGA
representative action is appropriate, and is vigorously defending
against the claims.  The Company denies any violation of law and
plans to vigorously defend against all claims.  The Court
recently determined that class certification is not appropriate
and determined that a PAGA representative action is not
appropriate.  The plaintiff has appealed these rulings.  The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or
the range of potential loss."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com [BN]

Cinemark is a supplier of products and solutions that conserve
water and manage the flow of fluids and energy into, through and
out of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the
Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa
("APMEA").


CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: 2 Potential Class Suits Pending at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Civitas Solutions, Inc. continues to face two complaints in
California state court that allege certain wage and hour
violations of California labor laws and seek to be designated as
class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "For our employment practices liability, we are
fully self insured.  We currently have two pending complaints in
California state court that allege certain wage and hour
violations of California labor laws and seek to be designated as
class-actions.  Two additional wage and hour class action claims
have been settled; one of which was settled and approved by the
court on January 31, 2018 and the other has been submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  These actions increased our
expenses, particularly during the three and six months ended
March 31, 2017, as we are self-insured for employment-practices
liability related claims.  For the three and six months ended
March 31, 2018, we incurred employment practices liability
expenses of US$0.8 million and US$1.8 million, respectively.  For
the three and six months ended March 31, 2017, we incurred
employment practices liability expenses of US$3.8 million and
US$4.1 million, respectively."

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

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


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation remains a defendant in
a consolidated securities class action pending in New Jersey,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and November 18, 2016,
three putative securities class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
naming us and certain of our current and former officers as
defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the
three putative securities class actions into a single action and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders
who purchased our common stock during the period between February
27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming us and certain of our
current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, our
business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our
internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure
controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of
compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Under a stipulation filed by the parties on February 23, 2017,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief
on July 21, 2017 responding to defendants' motions to dismiss,
and defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their
motions to dismiss on September 5, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, defendants also filed a motion to strike
certain allegations in the consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to strike on October
2, 2017, and, on October 10, 2017, the Company filed a reply
brief in further support of the motion to strike.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is one of the world's
professional services companies, transforming customers'
business, operating and technology models for the digital era.


COLONY NORTHSTAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CLNS) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District
of California, and docketed under 18-cv-03520, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Colony NorthStar securities between February 28, 2017 through
March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff 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 "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Colony NorthStar
securities between February 28, 2017, and March 1, 2018, both
dates inclusive, you have until June 5, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-
free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number
of shares purchased.

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 Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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.

         Contact:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


COMMERCEHUB INC: Injunction Bid in "Gordon" Suit Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gordon v. CommerceHub, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-
cv-00512 (N.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), Senior Judge Frederick J.
Scullin, Jr., on May 7, 2018, entered an Order granting
Plaintiff's request to withdraw the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.  The motion hearing scheduled for May 17 was
cancelled.

CommerceHub, Inc. provided supplemental disclosures, through its
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 7, 2018, to its definitive proxy statement filed by
CommerceHub with the SEC on April 18, 2018 (Proxy Statement) in
connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Company's
board of directors for the Special Meeting of Stockholders to be
held on May 18, 2018 and any adjournment or postponement thereof
("Special Meeting").

The Company filed the disclosure in order to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties resulting from the pending
"Gordon" litigation and without admitting any wrongdoing or that
these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be
made.

On April 27, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported stockholder of CommerceHub in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York: Gordon v.
CommerceHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00512-FJS-DJS.  The
complaint names as defendants CommerceHub and members of
CommerceHub's board of directors.  The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and
alleges that CommerceHub and the members of CommerceHub's board
of directors caused a proxy statement that allegedly omitted
material information to be filed in connection with the merger,
which allegedly rendered the proxy statement false and
misleading.  In particular, the complaint alleges that
CommerceHub omitted material information from the disclosures
made in the Proxy Statement regarding the merger proposal.

Among other relief, the complaint seeks a declaration certifying
a class, an injunction to prevent CommerceHub from holding the
Special Meeting to vote on the merger agreement and from
consummating the merger unless and until CommerceHub discloses
the material information allegedly omitted from the Proxy
Statement, unspecified damages, and unspecified costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "CommerceHub believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws.  However,
in order to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
resulting from the pending litigation and without admitting any
wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material or
required to be made, on May 7, 2018, CommerceHub agreed to
supplement the disclosures in the Proxy Statement.  Consequently,
the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the lawsuit with prejudice."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2KhE1jA


COMSCORE INC: Oregon Section 11 Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Oregon Section 11 Litigation has been
stayed pending the final approval hearing in the Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Association case scheduled for June 7,
2018.

In October 2016, a class action complaint, Ira S. Nathan v. Serge
Matta et al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in
Oregon against certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and Ernst & Young LLP ("EY").  The
complaint alleged that the defendants provided untrue statements
of material fact in the Company's registration statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC and declared effective on December 23,
2015.  The complaint sought a determination of the propriety of
the class, a finding that the defendants are liable and an award
of attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 17, 2017, a separate action, John Hulme v. Serge Matta
et al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon
alleging materially similar claims as the Nathan complaint
against the same defendants.

On April 18, 2017, the Nathan and Hulme cases were consolidated
by order of the court.  On February 14, 2018, following a
hearing, the Court granted class certification only as to EY.

On April 23, 2018, the Court issued an order staying the case
pending the final approval hearing in the Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Association case scheduled for June 7,
2018.

comScore said, "The outcome of this matter is unknown, but the
Company does not believe that a material loss was probable or
estimable as of March 31, 2018."

comScore, Inc. is a cross-platform measurement company that
precisely measures audiences, brands and consumer behavior
everywhere.  comScore completed its merger with Rentrak
Corporation in January 2016, to create the new model for a
dynamic, cross-platform world.


COMSCORE INC: June 7 Approval Hearing on Securities Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing for the Court's final approval of the settlement of the
class action complaint by the Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association is scheduled for June 7, 2018, according to comScore,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

In October 2016, a consolidated class action complaint, Fresno
County Employees' Retirement Association et al. v. comScore, Inc.
et al., was filed in the District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, certain of the Company's current
and former directors and officers, Rentrak and certain former
directors and officers of Rentrak.  On January 13, 2017, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the
defendants provided materially false and misleading information
regarding the Company and its financial performance, including in
the Company and Rentrak's joint proxy statement/prospectus, and
failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made not misleading.  The complaint sought a
determination of the propriety of the class, compensatory damages
and the award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On September 10, 2017, the parties reached a proposed settlement,
subject to court approval, pursuant to the terms of which the
settlement class will receive a total of US$27.2 million in cash
and US$82.8 million in Common Stock to be issued and contributed
by comScore to a settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted
against the Company.  All of the US$27.2 million in cash would be
funded by the Company's insurers.  The Company has the option to
fund all or a portion of the US$82.8 million with cash in lieu of
Common Stock.  The proposed settlement further provides that
comScore denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.

On January 29, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.  The settlement remains subject to final approval
by the Court, with a hearing scheduled for June 7, 2018.  As of
December 31, 2017, the Company reserved US$110.0 million in
accrued litigation settlements for the gross settlement amount,
and recorded US$27.2 million in insurance recoverable on
litigation settlements for the insurance proceeds expected from
the Company's insurers.

The Company said, "There were no changes to the accrued
settlement and insurance recoverable amounts as of March 31,
2018."

comScore, Inc. is a cross-platform measurement company that
precisely measures audiences, brands and consumer behavior
everywhere.  comScore completed its merger with Rentrak
Corporation in January 2016, to create the new model for a
dynamic, cross-platform world.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
while the board that reviews and fires Cook County sheriff's
officers accused of misconduct was illegally constituted, Cook
County's sheriff has asked a federal judge to shy away from
allowing about 230 former sheriff's deputies and correctional
officers to continue with a lawsuit over the issue, warning
granting the reinstatement "with back pay" sought by the fired
officers would place the public at risk.

On April 24, attorneys for Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart filed a
brief in Chicago federal court, asking U.S. District Judge Andrea
Wood to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit brought by
named plaintiffs Martenia Shyne and Antoinette Garnett-Williams.

The class action, the sheriff's attorneys argued, is based on a
"misreading" of a state law. And if the plaintiffs prevail, Dart
asserted, an "absurd result" would create a "moral hazard and
risk to the public of terminating scores of pending disciplinary
complaints against violent, dishonest or otherwise unfit
Sheriff's police officers and restoring them to a position of
public trust."

The case landed in federal court in February, one of the latest
among more than two dozen cases now pending in Chicago state and
federal courts against Dart and his office over employee
discipline and terminations handed down by the Cook County
Sheriff's Merit Board.

The legal actions were launched in the wake of a May 2017 state
appellate court's ruling, finding the Merit Board had been
improperly constituted since at least 2011, when Dart appointed
John Rosales to the board to replace an outgoing board member,
with a term to expire in March 2012. Rosales served until early
2015.

The appeals court held merit board members must be appointed to
staggered, six-year terms.

Some of the lawsuits have been lodged by Cook County sheriff's
officers fired or hit with accusations over a range of alleged
misconduct, including some who faced criminal charges.

In the April 24 brief, for instance, Dart notes the plaintiffs in
the case at bar were also among those accused of misconduct. Dart
noted neither of the plaintiffs had yet faced an "evidentiary
hearing," nor had they yet been formally disciplined. However,
according to the sheriff's brief, Shyne had "fraternized with
known gang members" and Garrett-Williams had "stalked and made
off-duty threats to kill a woman."

However, despite the accusations of misconduct against them and
against other sheriff's officers either fired or facing pending
complaints, the class action assert not just the final decisions,
but all proceedings before the "sham" Merit Board were
illegitimate.

They asserted the illegitimacy of the proceedings against the
previously fired officers and others facing pending actions
remained even after Illinois lawmakers instituted a "fix" of the
problems under legislation approved in late 2017.

So, too, they argued, Dart's decision to simply refile the old
complaints before the newly constituted Merit Board also should
be considered illegal, as the old board's constitutional problems
rendered void all actions introduced before it.

". . . Because the old Board was illegal and unable to take
jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs' cases any time prior to Dec. 13,
2017, there never was an earlier case which could make for an
amended filing," the plaintiffs argued.

To allow the disciplinary cases to continue would violate the
fired officers' constitutional rights, they asserted.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the county to reinstate
all of the fired officers with back pay, and award them at least
$100,000 each in compensatory damages.

Dart, however, has moved to dismiss the federal class action,
noting none of the plaintiffs in this case have suffered
violation of their due process rights, as they have not yet
exhausted their legal options, including hearings before the
Merit Board and review of those decisions in circuit court.

And the sheriff asserted a court order reinstating the fired and
suspended officers would produce a result Illinois lawmakers
would have never intended, granting a "free pass" to officers
disciplined "for violations of the public trust.

But "worse," the sheriff said, allowing the class action to
continue could lead to a "windfall result" for suspended and
terminated officers "who the Sheriff has determined to be
dishonest, incompetent, dangerous or otherwise unqualified for
their jobs -- before the new Merit Board has a chance to decide
whether the Sheriff's determination is correct."

"Such a windfall result to suspended officers would inevitably
harm the people of Cook County and this District, other Sheriff's
employees, and detainees at the County Jail and County
courthouses."

The sheriff asked the court to agree with his position, that the
"best solution is for currently suspended officers to proceed
before the current Merit Board on a case-by-case basis, rather
than for the Court to grant plaintiffs' demand for a catch-all
order 'reinstating' all suspended officers."

Dart and his office are represented in the matter by attorneys
Stephanie A. Scharf, Sarah R. Marmor, Deirdre A. Fox and George
D. Sax, of the firm of Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, of Chicago.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Christopher Cooper
and Cass Casper, of Chicago. [GN]


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Defends "Bass" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s SRT subsidiary continues to
defend a class action lawsuit by David Bass, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.  After
transferring venue of the case several times, the case is now
heard in the U.S. District court in the Western District of
Arkansas.

The Company said, "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit
filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of David Bass (a California resident and former driver), who is
seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action case
wherein he alleges violation of multiple California wage and hour
statutes over a four year period of time, including failure to
pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods
and paid rest breaks, failure to pay for rest and recovery
periods, failure to reimburse certain business expenses, failure
to pay vested vacation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to
timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair and unlawful competition as well as
various state claims.

"The case was removed from state court in February, 2017 to the
U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and
subsequently, SRT moved the District Court to transfer venue of
the case to the U.S. District Court sitting in the Western
District of Arkansas.  The motion to transfer was approved by the
California District Court in July, 2017, and the case will now be
heard in the U.S. District court in the Western District of
Arkansas."

Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as
freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party
logistics providers that require a high level of service to
support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload
customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage
shippers.


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Workers Class Certified in "Boutell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barbara B. Crabb entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit entitled ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT, SHANE MORN and
ROGER ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00317-bbc
(W.D. Wisc.):

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to allow opt-in of Jennifer
      Przybyla;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   3. certifying this class:

      "All hourly employees of Craftmaster Painting, LLC who
       worked on jobsites for Craftmaster on or after April 28,
       2015;"

   4. appointing The Previant Law Firm, S.C., as class counsel;

   5. appointing Anthony Boutell, Esq., and Brian Stout, Esq., as
      class representatives; and

   6. ruling that the Plaintiffs had until April 25, 2018,
      to file a proposed class notice.  The Defendant had
      until May 2, 2018, to file a response.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Craftmaster.  They contend
that the Defendant failed to pay them in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state law.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HKRljiz9


CVB FINANCIAL: Says Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the distribution process related to the
Court-approved US$1.5-million settlement of a consolidated
putative class action has been "substantially completed" as of
March 31, 2018.

The Company was involved in several related actions entitled
Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, and
Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County,
alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company's "exempt"
and "non-exempt" hourly employees.  These cases, which were
consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2015,
were styled as putative class action lawsuits and allege, among
other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain
employees and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the Company
violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and
rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not
receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not
maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the
Company engaged in unfair business practices.  Subsequently,
related cases were filed by the same law firm representing Morgan
and Osuna in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County,
alleging (1) violations of the California Labor Code and seeking
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act of
2004 and (2) seeking a declaratory judgment that certain releases
and arbitration agreements previously signed by CBB employees
were invalid.

On November 28, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle all of the related wage and hour class action
lawsuits ("Wage-Hour Settlement").  Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
all their lawsuits with prejudice in exchange for the payment of
US$1.5 million to the putative class members, including
attorneys' fees and costs, but not including credit for monies
previously paid to certain employees in exchange for releases and
arbitration agreements in favor of the Company.  Accordingly, as
of the reporting period ending on December 31, 2017, the Company
maintained a litigation accrual of US$1.5 million in connection
with this matter, and the Wage-Hour Settlement received final
Court approval at a hearing on March 6, 2018.  Following the
Court's final approval of the Wage-Hour Settlement, the
settlement administrator appointed by the Court proceeded to
disburse the agreed-upon settlement funds to the class members
according to the respective calculation formulas set forth in the
settlement agreement for exempt and non-exempt employees, and, as
of the end of this reporting period on March 31, 2018, this
distribution process has been substantially completed.

CVB Financial Corp. operates as a bank holding company for
Citizens Business Bank that provides banking, lending, and
investment services.  It operates in two segments, Banking
Centers; and Dairy & Livestock and Agribusiness.  The Company was
founded in 1974 and is headquartered in Ontario, California.


CYAN INC: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Harris, Esq. -- mharris@proskauer.com -- and Margaret A.
Dale, Esq. -- mdale@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose, in an
article for New York Law Journal, wrote that a recent decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court has important implications for certain
securities class actions filed in state courts. In Cyan v. Beaver
County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 (March 20, 2018),
the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding split among state and
federal courts, unanimously holding that the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not strip state
courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of
only the Securities Act of 1933 and did not empower defendants to
remove those federal-law cases from state to federal court.

The first part of this article will discuss the history of the
federal securities laws, the background to the Cyan case, and the
decision.  The second part will discuss the potential
implications of Cyan for plaintiffs, defendants, state and
federal courts, and Congress.

History of Federal Securities Laws
Following the 1929 stock-market crash, Congress enacted the
Securities Act of 1933 (which applies to public securities
offerings) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which
regulates aftermarket transactions).  The Securities Act provides
for concurrent federal- and state-court jurisdiction and bars
removal of Securities Act claims from state to federal court,
whereas the Exchange Act provides for exclusive federal
jurisdiction.

In the 1990s, Congress passed two statutes that amended the
securities laws to prevent perceived abuses in securities class-
action litigation.  In 1995, Congress enacted the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which amended both the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act.  It made substantive changes
(such as heightened pleading requirements and protections for
forward-looking statements) that apply to federal-law actions
regardless of forum and procedural changes (such as a process for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in class actions)
that apply only to federal-court class actions.

The PSLRA's passage resulted in an increase in federal Securities
Act claims and state-law claims filed in state courts. In
response, Congress enacted SLUSA in 1998 to amend the Securities
Act in several ways. With respect to state-law claims, Sec.
77p(b) of the Securities Act now prohibits in both state and
federal courts "covered class actions" (defined in Sec. 77p(f)(2)
as class actions in which damages are sought on behalf of more
than 50 persons) alleging securities claims based on state law in
connection with the purchase or sale of a "covered security"
(defined in Sec. 77p(f)(3) as a security listed on a national
stock exchange).  In addition, SLUSA added a new Sec.77p(c) to
the Securities Act, which permits the removal of state-law class
actions to federal court so that the actions can be dismissed.

SLUSA also amended the Securities Act with respect to federal-law
claims.  These amendments were at issue in Cyan.  In particular,
SLUSA's "conforming amendments" added two new phrases to the
Securities Act's jurisdictional provision in Sec. 77v(a).

   * The first amendment -- and the key provision in Cyan --
added an exception to the Securities Act's concurrent-
jurisdiction provision in Sec. 77v(a), which is commonly known as
the "except clause": "The district courts of the United States .
. . shall have jurisdiction of offenses and violations under this
subchapter . . . and, concurrent with State and Territorial
courts, except as provided in section 77p of this title with
respect to covered class actions, of all suits in equity and
actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created
by this subchapter."

    * The second amendment amended the Securities Act's anti-
removal provision in Sec.77v(a) by adding the following
exception: "Except as provided in section 77p(c) of this title,
no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State
court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of
the United States."

Procedural History of 'Cyan'
The plaintiffs in Cyan were three pension funds and an individual
(the Investors) who had purchased shares of Cyan, a
telecommunications company, in an initial public offering.
Following a decline in Cyan's stock value, the Investors filed a
class action against Cyan in California Superior Court.  The
Investors alleged that Cyan's offering documents had contained
material misstatements in violation of the Securities Act, but
the Investors did not assert any state-law claims.

Cyan moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
arguing that SLUSA's "except clause" stripped state courts of
power to adjudicate Securities Act claims in "covered class
actions." The California Superior Court denied Cyan's motion, and
the state appellate courts denied review; but the U.S. Supreme
Court granted Cyan's petition for certiorari to decide whether
SLUSA deprived state courts of jurisdiction over covered class
actions asserting only Securities Act claims.

The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that Sec. 77p bars certain securities
class actions based on state law (Sec. 77p(b)) and authorizes the
removal of those suits so that a federal court can dismiss them
(Sec. 77p(c)), but Sec. 77p does not deprive state courts of
concurrent jurisdiction over class actions based on federal law.
The court disagreed with Cyan's argument that the except clause's
reference to "covered class actions" refers only to Sec.
77p(f)(2)'s definition of that term. Instead, the court noted
that the plain language of the except clause (in Sec. 77v(a))
points to Sec. 77p as a whole, and not only to the definition
found in Sec. 77p(f)(2). The court also explained that a
definition like Sec. 77p(f)(2) provides meaning to a term, rather
than an exception to the rule of concurrent jurisdiction.  The
court further observed that Congress was highly unlikely to have
used such a convoluted reference to reverse the 65-year practice
of state courts' adjudicating "all manner of [Securities] Act
claims, including class actions."

The court also rejected Cyan's argument that SLUSA was intended
to serve the PSLRA's objectives by divesting state courts of
jurisdiction over all sizable Securities Act class actions.  The
court noted that meeting the objective of SLUSA's preamble --
which states that the statute is designed "to limit the conduct
of securities class actions under State law" -- does not depend
on stripping state courts of jurisdiction over Securities Act
claims, whatever the size of the class.

The court further held that SLUSA does not permit defendants to
remove class actions alleging only Securities Act claims from
state to federal court.  According to the court, Sec. 77p(c)
allows for removal to federal court of covered class actions
alleging securities misconduct under state law, but federal-law
suits alleging only Securities Act claims "remain subject to the
[Securities] Act's removal ban."

Potential Implications of 'Cyan'
The Cyan decision is just about a month old, but already the
potential implications of the decision for plaintiffs,
defendants, state and federal courts, and Congress are coming
into focus.

Plaintiffs. The Cyan decision might cause plaintiffs to file more
state-court class actions asserting only Securities Act claims.
Securities Act class actions filed in state court are not subject
to the PSLRA's procedural provisions, including in particular the
PSLRA's lead-plaintiff appointment process, which tries to avoid
duplicative class actions.  Accordingly, the plaintiffs' bar
might seek to prosecute multiple related actions by using state-
court forums.

Defendants. Defendants are likely assessing the potential
ramifications of Cyan because of a perception that state courts
are more favorable forums for Securities Act claims than federal
courts -- and that dismissals are therefore less frequent and
settlements are larger.  The potential for defendants having to
litigate Securities Act class-action claims in multiple
jurisdictions might also affect the premiums companies planning a
public offering of securities must pay for liability insurance.

State and Federal Courts. The Cyan decision raises the prospect
of multiple related class actions challenging securities
offerings in federal and state courts.  The existence of both
federal and state forums poses difficulties in consolidating or
transferring the actions to a single forum.  Federal and state
courts will therefore need to coordinate with each other to
resolve these procedural inefficiencies.  For example, one court
might stay or adjourn its proceedings pending disposition of
proceedings in another court, a decision in which the first-filed
rule might have some influence.  Forum non conveniens
considerations might also be used to determine which is the more
appropriate forum.

Courts might also focus on which action presents the case most
comprehensively. For example, many federal securities class
actions plead Exchange Act claims as well as Securities Act
claims. The Exchange Act claims must be filed in federal court,
but the Securities Act claims can be brought in federal or state
court.  Accordingly, if the federal case has both Exchange Act
and Securities Act claims, that case is the more comprehensive
one, and a state court might be willing to defer to it.

Cyan involved only Securities Act claims, so it did not address
cases that plead both Securities Act claims and state-law claims.
Thus, courts might also see litigation over the removability of
such "mixed" cases.  In addition, litigation might arise about
forum-selection bylaws or charter provisions that attempt to
channel securities cases into federal courts, and perhaps into
federal courts in a particular forum.

Congress. The Supreme Court acknowledged the anomalous result of
requiring the dismissal or removal to federal court of state-law
claims, while prohibiting the removal of federal claims and
requiring them to remain in state court.  The court noted: "We do
not know why Congress declined to require as well that
[Securities] Act class actions be brought in federal court." But
the court declined to give the except clause "a broader reading
that its language can bear," and concluded that, "[i]f further
steps are needed, they are up to Congress."  It remains to be
seen whether Congress will take up that invitation. [GN]


DEPOMED INC: July 23 Deadline to Oppose Bid to Nix "Huang" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the "Huang" securities class action lawsuit
against Depomed, Inc., among others, has until June 8, 2018, to
oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its current chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Huang v. Depomed et al., No.  3:17-cv-
04830-JST, N.D.  Cal.).  The action alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures
of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational
policies; and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its
opioid products.  The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between
February 26, 2015 and August 7, 2017, contends that the conduct
supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company
common stock and is seeking damages and other relief.  On
December 8, 2017, the "Depomed Investor Group" was appointed lead
plaintiff.

On February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that asserted the same claims arising out of the same
and similar disclosures against the Company and the same
individuals as were involved in the original complaint.  The
Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 9, 2018.  The lead plaintiff must oppose the
motion by June 8, 2018.  The Company and the individuals must
then file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss by July
23, 2018.  The Company believes that the action is without merit
and intends to contest it vigorously.

Depomed, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
pain and other central nervous system (CNS) conditions.  The
Company is headquartered in Newark, California.


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Edge Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Edge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EDGE)and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Edge securities between December 29, 2017 and March 27,
2018,both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/edge.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's lead
product candidate EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis
in connection with the NEWTON 2 study; and, (2) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Edge's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Edge's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 28, 2018, Edge revealed, "that a pre-specified interim
analysis on data from the Day 90 visit of the first 210 subjects
randomized and treated in the Phase 3 NEWTON 2 study of EG-1962
demonstrated a low probability of achieving a statistically-
significant difference compared to the standard of care in the
study's primary endpoint, if the study is fully enrolled." The
Data Monitoring Committee also "recommended that the study be
stopped based on its conclusion that the study has a low
probability of meeting its primary endpoint." Based on the DMC
recommendation, Edge stated that it has decided to end the Phase
3 NEWTON 2 study. Following this news, Edge stock dropped $14.28
per share, or roughly 92%, to close at $1.31 per share on March
28, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/edgeor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Edge you have until June 25, 2018 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com
                 peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 23, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Edge Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:EDGE).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is December 29, 2017 through
March 27, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Edge
Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above.  You may move the Court no later than June 22,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights;

         Contact:
         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website:  www.federmanlaw.com
         E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


EIGER BIOPHARMA: Awaits 9th Cir. to Schedule Oral Arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eiger 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 company is waiting for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to schedule oral
arguments in a class action-related appeal.

In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative
CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and
development activities and the subsequent declines of the price
of its common stock, three putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Celladon and certain of its current and former officers.

The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the clinical trial program for
MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's
common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages
and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2015, the district court consolidated the three
putative securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff
to represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, the district court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted leave
to amend within 60 days from the date of the district court's
order. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of intent
not to amend the consolidated amended complaint and instead
indicated that it intended to appeal the district court's
decision. On December 9, 2016, the district court closed the
case.

On December 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing
the district court's order dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint. On May 5, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opening
brief. On July 5, 2017, the defendants filed their appellate
brief response. The Plaintiff subsequently filed their response
to the Company's July 5, 2017 filing on August 19, 2017. Upon
these filings, the next step in the process would be to wait for
oral arguments to be scheduled by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals said "It is possible that additional
suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with
respect to these same or other matters and also naming the
Company and/or Celladon's former officers and directors as
defendants. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company is
not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome
or possible losses relating to these claims."

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing various products
for the treatment of orphan diseases in the United States. Its
product candidate pipeline includes Lonafarnib for the treatment
of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection; PEG-interferon Lambda-
1a (Lambda) for HDV infection; Exendin 9-39 for post-bariatric
hypoglycemia; and Ubenimex for the treatment of pulmonary
arterial hypertension and lymphedema, which are under Phase II
clinical trials. The company is based in Palo Alto, California.


EL POLLO LOCO: Settlement Talks Fail in "Olvera" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 28, 2018, that the class action initiated by
Elliott Olvera in California is "moving forward" after
unsuccessful settlement discussions.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo
Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf
of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to
the present) alleging certain violations of California labor
laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide
itemized wage statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.  No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and
Release which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it
did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class
members.  Further settlement discussions were not successful, and
the litigation is moving forward with the filing deadline for
plaintiff's class certification motion postponed until May 4,
2018.

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

The Company said, "Purported class actions alleging wage and hour
violations are commonly filed against California employers.  The
Company has similar cases pending that overlap in part with the
Olvera action and fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future."

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EL POLLO LOCO: June 25 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification is set for hearing on June 25,
2018 in the consolidated case of Daniel Turocy, Ron Huston, et
al. against El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2018.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC., Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the
"Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a US$5 value option from the Company's
menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-
conscious consumers.  Plaintiffs further allege that during the
Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a
series of materially false and misleading statements that
concealed the effect that these factors were having on store
sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded
at artificially inflated prices.  As a result, Plaintiffs and
other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in
connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the
Class Period.  In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual
Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct
involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of
Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the
power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the
alleged securities law violations.  In both cases, Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs were granted leave to
amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August
22, 2016.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March
20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.

El Pollo Loco said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 27, 2017, that Plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
August 4, 2017. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification, and Defendants' opposition was filed on
March 8, 2018.

In its current report, the Company said the motion for class
certification is currently set for hearing on June 25, 2018.
Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims
asserted.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Medina Files Reply Brief Backing Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled SHERRYL MEDINA, DANNY ALLEN,
JOHN CARTER WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC dba ERC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-14342-JEM
(S.D. Fla.), file with the Court their reply brief in support of
class certification.

In its untimely opposition to class certification, ERC raises red
herrings, downplays their key arguments, offers much speculation,
and engages in improper gamesmanship by attempting to abandon
prior admissions and offering evidence not produced in discovery,
the Plaintiffs contend.  Notably, the Plaintiffs assert, ERC does
not dispute their ability to locate the calls at issue, nor does
ERC dispute numerosity, adequacy of the class representatives and
class counsel under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or the superiority requirement under Rule 23(b)(3).

Instead, ERC mainly challenges ascertainability and predominance,
yet each class certification requirement is satisfied, the
Plaintiffs tell the Court.

The Plaintiffs contend that ERC dismisses their proposal to
locate class members through means, such as a reverse lookup
subpoenas to cell phone carriers, yet provides no legal support
to challenge the sufficiency of such methods.  Instead, the
Plaintiffs argue, ERC urges denial of certification because it
does not have records of the actual names of the persons it
called using automated technology for debt collection purposes,
which cannot be a reason to deny class certification.

ERC cites no cases to support its position that a subpoena to
cell phone carriers or a reverse lookup could not produce
historical data showing the subscriber of the phone number at the
time of the call made, the Plaintiffs assert.  They add, among
other things, that ERC cannot escape class certification by
virtue of the mere possibility that some of the numbers for the
class members might have been reassigned after the calls.

A copy of the Reply Brief is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a5ibmXBM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross A. Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
          4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          Jason Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, #780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Stephen Gallagher, Esq.
          Richard Dean Rivera, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL AND RUSSELL
          50 N. Laura St., Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6111
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6211
          E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com
                  rrivera@sgrlaw.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Court Narrows Scope of Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated March 21, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has narrowed the scope of the
case captioned In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation
and allowed certain claims to proceed, according to Extreme
Networks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

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

On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss.

In a March 21, 2018 Order (the "March 2018 Order"), the Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion.  The
March 2018 Order narrowed the scope of the case, but allowed
certain claims to proceed.  The Company believes plaintiffs'
claims are without merit, and intends to defend them vigorously.

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


FACEBOOK INC: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Misuse of Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on April 25 disclosed that it has commenced a
$2 billion global class action against Facebook, Inc. for misuse
of its users' personal information.

The claim alleges that Facebook was aware that its platform could
easily and readily be used by third parties to steal users'
personal information.  Facebook's failure to monitor the
activities of third-party application developers to whom it has
granted access to its platform has resulted in the misuse of
personal information of millions of Facebook users.

The claim is brought on behalf of all persons anywhere in the
world who registered for Facebook accounts wherever they may
live, who did not utilize, download, or otherwise access
applications created by third parties and whose personal
information was obtained from Facebook by third parties, either
directly or indirectly, without authorization or in excess of
authorization.

"The world is witnessing the consequences of the misuse of
Facebook user's private information," says Kirk Baert counsel at
Koskie Minsky LLP, "Facebook failed its over 2.2 billion users by
not taking steps to prevent third parties from stealing users'
personal information.  The breaches involving Cambridge Analytica
are just the beginning of the story."

A Notice of Action was issued in this case on April 25, 2018.

If you are a class member:

Website:  https://kmlaw.ca/cases/facebook-misuse-user-data/

For further information: Toll-Free: 1-800-656-1119, Email:
facebookclassaction@kmlaw.ca; For all media inquiries, please
contact Robert Gain at 416.595.2072. [GN]


FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that additional
supplemental disclosures have been filed related to the alleged
class action complaint entitled, Parshall v. First BancTrust
Corporation.

On March 20, 2018, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an order
approving a Stipulation and Order to Voluntarily Dismiss filed by
Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC, First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc.

As previously reported on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 13,
2018, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported
stockholder of First BancTrust Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("First Bank") in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware captioned Parshall v. First
BancTrust Corporation (Case No. 1:18-cv-00218) against the
Company, Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC, a newly formed Delaware
limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company ("Merger Sub"), First Bank and members of First Bank's
board of directors (the "Lawsuit").

The Lawsuit relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of December 11, 2017 (as amended by the First Amendment to
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of January 18, 2018)
among the Company, Merger Sub and First Bank, pursuant to which,
among other things, the Company agreed to acquire 100% of the
issued and outstanding shares of First Bank pursuant to a
business combination whereby First Bank will merge with and into
Merger Sub, with Merger Sub as the surviving entity and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").

Among other things, the Lawsuit alleges that the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by the Company on
January 22, 2018, failed to disclose allegedly material
information relating to the Company's and First Bank's financial
projections, the analyses performed by First Bank's financial
advisor, and alleged potential conflicts of interest of First
Bank's officers, directors and financial advisor. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger from proceeding.

The Company and First Bank believe that the factual allegations
in the Lawsuit are without merit.

On March 9, 2018, in order to moot plaintiff's disclosure claims,
reduce the expenses, burdens, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger, the parties to the Lawsuit agreed that, in exchange
for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the Lawsuit and dismiss
his claims with prejudice, the Company and First Bank would make
the additional supplemental disclosures to the proxy
statement/prospectus related to the Merger that was first mailed
to stockholders of First Bank on or about February 9, 2018 (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus") described in this
Current Report on Form 8-K. The agreement between the parties
does not release or otherwise prejudice any potential claims of
any member of the putative class other than the plaintiff and
does not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to
the merits of any claims. In addition, in connection with the
mootness of the disclosure claims, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. The agreement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that First Bank's stockholders are entitled to
receive in the Merger.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/8bbPrn.

First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides community banking products and services to commercial,
retail, and agricultural customers in the United States.


FITBIT INC: Settlement of Sleep Tracking Class Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. is working on finalizing the terms and scope of a
settlement in principle for a purported class action lawsuit
related to sleep tracking function, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function
available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised.
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017.

On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  The Company's motion for summary judgment was denied
on December 8, 2017.

During the three months ended May 31, 2018, the parties have
agreed to a settlement in principle, and are working on
finalizing the terms and scope.

Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name,
which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology
devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked,
heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal
metrics involved in fitness.


FITBIT INC: May 31 Hearing in Heart Rate Tracking Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Hearing for the motion to dismiss a purported class action
against Fitbit, Inc. related to heart rate tracking and to strike
the plaintiffs' class allegations has been scheduled for May 31,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
that the PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not
consistently and accurately record users' heart rates.
Plaintiffs allege common law claims, as well as violations of
various states' false advertising, unfair competition, and
consumer protection statutes, and seek class certification,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint.  On January 9, 2017,
the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration.  On October 11,
2017, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and that motion
was denied on January 24, 2018.

On or around February 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint ("SAC") on behalf of
plaintiff Rob Dunn, the only plaintiff not ordered to
arbitration, as a purported class action.  The SAC alleges the
same common law claims, as well as violations of false
advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes
of California and Arizona, and also seeks class certification,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike
plaintiffs' class allegations as violating the class waiver in
Fitbit's Terms of Service.  The hearing is scheduled for May 31,
2018.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name,
which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology
devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked,
heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal
metrics involved in fitness.


FITBIT INC: Court Okays US$33.3MM Settlement of Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has granted final approval of a US$33.3-million
settlement of putative securities federal and state class actions
initially filed against Fitbit, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering (the "IPO").  On May 10, 2016, the Court
appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five
individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint
was filed on July 1, 2016.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open
market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii)
pursuant to or traceable to the IPO.  Plaintiffs seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.  On July 29, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
The court denied the motion on October 26, 2016.  On April 26,
2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is
still pending.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters
of the IPO, and a number of its investors.  Plaintiffs allege
that the IPO registration statement contained material
misstatements about the Company's products.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and/or the November 2015
follow-on public offering (the "Secondary Offering").  Plaintiffs
seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.  On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.  The cases have now been consolidated in the County of
San Francisco.  On April 7, 2017, the Court granted a motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and
stayed the cases.

On January 8, 2018, the plaintiffs in the federal and class
action cases filed their motion for preliminary approval of
settlement of the putative federal and state class actions for
US$33.3 million, which the Company accrued for as of December 31,
2017.  On January 19, 2018, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and on April 20,
2018, the court approved the final settlement.

Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name,
which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology
devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked,
heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal
metrics involved in fitness.


FOOT LOCKER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Foot Locker, Inc. ("Foot Locker" or
the "Company") (NYSE: FL) between August 19, 2016 and August 17,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Foot Locker investors have
until May 8, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

To obtain information or actively participate in the class
action, please visit Foot Locker page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/foot-locker-inc. Investors that suffered
losses on their Foot Locker investments are encouraged to contact
Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class
action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On August 18, 2017, Foot Locker announced poor second quarter
2017 financial results, including a 6% decline in quarterly same-
store sales year-over-year. In addition, Foot Locker disclosed
that it would close approximately 130 stores, which was up from
100 it had previously stated it would close. Finally, on its Q2
2017 conference call with investors and analysts, Foot Locker
revealed that it expected weaker sales for the remainder of
fiscal year 2017.

On this news, shares of Foot Locker fell nearly 28%, to close at
$34.38 on August 18, 2017, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Foot
Locker's vendors were transitioning to selling through various
online retailers, diminishing the utility of Foot Locker's large
number of brick and mortar stores and the once-high value of its
exclusivity relationships with those vendors; (ii) competition
with online retailers had increased the pricing competition Foot
Locker faced while concomitantly lowering demand at its stores;
and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about Foot Locker's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of Foot Locker during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than May 8, 2018 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased

         Contact:
         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         Los Angeles
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces $10MM Fine Over Transmission Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Berry, writing for carsguide, reports that the Federal
Court has fined Ford Australia $10 million and endorsed a
settlement between the carmaker and the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over its handling of customer
complaints about transmission issues in Fiesta, Focus and
EcoSport models.

Known as a 'PowerShift' transmission, the a six-speed (dry) dual-
clutch automatic and was used in the three models made between
2010 and 2016 -- amounting to approximately 75,000 vehicles.

The faulty transmission resulted in delayed or harsh gear shifts
and a deterioration in clutch performance.

Carsguide has been inundated for years with letters from readers
who have had issues with the transmission ranging from "slipping"
and "shuddering" to the vehicle becoming immobile.

While Ford found a solution to the transmission fault, which
involved new clutch materials and software calibration, it was
the company's handling of customer requests from 2015 to 2016
which resulted in the fine and settlement.

"As we said from the outset of this action -- we took too long to
identify the issues," Ford CEO Graeme Whickman said.

"And we acknowledge that PowerShift customers did not have
complaints handled appropriately between May 2015 and February
2016.

"We were overwhelmed with the volume of complaints and, while it
was not intended, over a 10-month period our processes were
inadequate, and information provided was either inaccurate or
incomplete.  We let our customers down and for that we are sorry.

"This process has identified the challenges our customers faced
and the lack of appropriate processes to effectively handle
these.

"Accepting the $10 million fine is the first action on our
commitment to make right," he said.

The settlement will ensure an independent review of cases where
owners of Focus, Fiesta and EcoSport models with the PowerShift
transmission requested, but did not receive, a refund or no-cost
replacement vehicle.  Ford has pledged to provide compensation
based on the reviewer's decision.

Ford has also agreed to implement a customer service charter and
make information more accessible, while upgrading the way it
handles customer complaints through employee dealer and customer
service training.

The PowerShift transmission was fitted in the MY 2010-2016 Focus,
Fiesta and EcoSport models.  From 2016 Ford ditched the
Powershift in favour of a regular six-speed (torque converter)
automatic in Focus, Fiesta and EcoSport models. [GN]


FUTUREDONTICS INC: Suit over Wage and Hour Violations Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc.'s subsidiary is defending itself in a
purported class action lawsuit in California over alleged wage
and hour violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On January 19, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, brought by a former
employee, Henry Olivares, on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals.  The plaintiff alleges several wage and hour
violations under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and
meal break periods and the failure to pay overtime.  The Company
has filed its answer to the complaint and it intends to
vigorously defend against this matter.

Dentsply Sirona is the world's largest manufacturer of
professional dental products and technologies, with a 130-year
history of innovation and service to the dental industry and
patients worldwide. Dentsply Sirona develops, manufactures, and
markets a comprehensive solutions offering including dental and
oral health products as well as other consumable medical devices
under a strong portfolio of world class brands.


GENERAL CABLE: "Stanfield" and "Rosenblatt" Lawsuits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2018, that the "Stanfield" and the
"Rosenblatt" purported class action lawsuits have been dismissed.

On December 3, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), among the Company,
Prysmian S.p.A., a company organized under the laws of the
Republic of Italy ("Parent"), and Alisea Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

The Company said, "On January 2, 2018, a purported stockholder of
the Company filed an action against the Company and the members
of the Company's board of directors on behalf of a putative class
of stockholders of the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stanfield v.
General Cable Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00006-UNA (D. Del.), and on
January 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
substantively similar action against the Company, Parent, Merger
Sub and the members of the Company's board of directors in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, captioned Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp., No. 2:18-
cv-00010-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), in each case seeking, among other
things, to enjoin the completion of the Merger.  Both of these
cases have been dismissed."

General Cable is a global leader in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.


GENERAL CABLE: Still Defends Kentucky Suit over ERISA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation continues to defend itself against a
purported class action litigation related to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On March 15, 2017, litigation was initiated
against us and certain of our current and former directors,
executive officers and employees by a former employee on behalf
of a purported class of employees who invested in the common
stock of General Cable through our 401(k) plan.  The Plaintiff
alleges that we should have not retained the General Cable stock
fund as an investment option in our 401(k) plan during the period
2003-2016, when they claim the price of the Company stock was
artificially inflated.  The suit alleges various violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky.  At this time, we cannot determine the
likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any
possible loss."

General Cable is a global leader in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum Holding Inc.
(NASDAQ:GSUM) securities between April 27, 2016 and February 20,
2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 25, 2018 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial
reporting; (2) 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 (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Gridsum's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum securities during
the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased prior to
the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-
4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

         Contacts:
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 25, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Gridsum Holding, Inc.
(NASDAQ:GSUM).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is April 27, 2017 through
April 20, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Gridsum
Holding, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than June 25, 2018, to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights:

         Contact:
         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Gridsum Holding, Inc. ("Gridsum" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:GSUM) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-03655, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Gridsum securities between April 27, 2017 through April 20, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Gridsum securities between
April 27, 2017, and April 20, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until June 25, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Gridsum 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.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 American Depositary Receipt price fell
$1.17, or 16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,
known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm
pioneered the field of securities class actions.  Today, more
than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the
tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims
of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar
damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]


HANSEN & ADKINS: Standalone Document Class Certified in "Luna"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David O. Carter granted the motion for class
certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
LEONARD LUNA, and IAN HALL on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. HANSEN & ADKINS AUTO TRANSPORT, Inc., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:17-
cv-00990-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.).

The STANDALONE DOCUMENT CLASS consists of:

     All natural persons residing in the United States (including
     all territories and other political subdivisions of the
     United States) who were the subject of a consumer report or
     investigation that was procured by Defendant (or that
     Defendant caused to be procured) within five years of the
     filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment
     in this action under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p.

Excluded from the class and subclass are all Defendants, their
officers, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entities in which
Defendants have a controlling interest.

The class action arises out of a single claim that Hansen &
Adkins violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring (or
causing to be procured) consumer reports about Class Members for
employment purposes without first providing Class Members with a
clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a document that
consists solely of the disclosure.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
claim that the Defendant routinely conducts background checks on
all of its job applicants as part of a standard screening
process, without providing those applicants with a stand-alone
written disclosure that clearly and conspicuously states that the
Defendant may obtain a consumer report for employment purposes,
as is required by the FCRA.

Judge Carter also rules that:

   1. members of the class shall be permitted to exclude
      themselves from participation in this action -- i.e., to
      "opt-out" of the case;

   2. Desai Law Firm, P.C. and Aashish Y. Desai, Esq., as counsel
      for Plaintiffs, are appointed as lead counsel for all of
      the class members;

   3. the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendant's counsel shall
      meet and confer concerning the language of the class notice
      and the method of dissemination of the notice; and

   4. the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a
      list, in hard copy and in a mutually agreed upon electric
      computer format, containing the name, social security
      number, and last-known residence address of all class
      members within seven days.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com


HASHFLARE LP: Baylog Sues Over Voided Cryptocurrency Mining Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristopher Baylog and Misael Marrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HashFlare LP, Case No. 2:18-
cv-03043-DDP-PLA (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2018), asserts claims for
unjust enrichment/restitution and anticipatory breach of contract
pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair
Competition Law and the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief under
California and federal law due to the Defendant's alleged
fraudulent and self-serving cancellation of their cryptocurrency
mining contracts and unregistered sale of securities.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's contracts are securities
under the Securities Act of 1933; however, the Defendant has not
registered these securities with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

HashFlare LP is a Scottish company with its principal office
located in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.  The Defendant utilizes the
Web site http://www.hashflare.io/and its related webpages, to
market and sell contracts directly to consumers in California.

The Defendant sells contracts to consumers under which the
consumer pays an up-front fee (plus a daily fee deducted from
coins mined) in exchange for "a part of the mining power of
hardware hosted and owned" by the Defendant.  The Defendant uses
specialized computer hardware to "mine" cryptocurrency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Lindgren, Esq.
          Leslie Lindgren, Esq.
          LINDGREN, LINDGREN, OEHM & YOU, LLP
          4199 Campus Drive, Fifth Floor
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 509-6577
          Facsimile: (949) 509-6599
          E-mail: alexander@lloylaw.com
                  leslie@lloylaw.com

               - and -

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  mthomson@nka.com


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is expected to
rule on an appeal from the dismissed fourth amended complaint in
the purported shareholder class action filed by Pedro Ramirez,
Jr. against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The case is captioned In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr.  v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey naming Old Hertz Holdings (as defined in the Company's
2017 Form 10-K) and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its
public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013
through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint sought an unspecified
amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and
an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss.  After a hearing in
October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The dismissal was without prejudice and
plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
which shortened the putative class period such that it was not
alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations
that were not substantively very different than the allegations
in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to
the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.

On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a
third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
The third amended complaint included additional allegations,
named additional current and former officers as defendants and
expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to
span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to
dismiss.  Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new
plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was
filed on March 1, 2016.

Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on
March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May
6, 2016.

On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual
defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions
to dismiss.  The matter is now fully briefed.

On April 28, 2017, the court issued an order wherein Old Hertz
Holdings' and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted and the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint to add a new
plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice (the "Order").

On May 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The plaintiffs
filed their Initial Brief in November 2017 and Hertz's Opposition
Brief was filed in January 2018.  The plaintiffs' Reply Brief was
filed in February 2018 so all of the briefing is concluded.  Oral
arguments have been requested.  It is expected that the Third
Circuit will rule on this appeal before the end of 2018.

Hertz operates a vehicle rental business globally through the
Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from approximately 9,700
corporate and franchisee locations in North America, Europe,
Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, The Caribbean, the Middle
East and New Zealand.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Asks Court to Transfer & Dismiss "Jackson"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2018, that the defendants in
the case entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise have moved to transfer the case to the Northern
District of Georgia and also moved to dismiss the suit.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017
in federal district court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to
bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and
promotions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
29, 2017. On January 12, 2018, Defendants moved to transfer the
matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of
Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various
grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class
definition.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions
to business and public sector enterprises. It operates through
Enterprise Group, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments
segments. The company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Preliminary Agreement Reached in "Wall" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2018, that the parties in the
case captioned as, Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and
HP Inc., had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the
dispute.

This certified California class action and Private Attorney
General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on
January 17, 2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint
was filed against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June
28, 2016. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned
incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without
prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class
certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22,
2018 trial date was vacated following the parties' notification
to the court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to
resolve the dispute. No settlement agreement has yet been
finalized.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions
to business and public sector enterprises. It operates through
Enterprise Group, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments
segments. The company is based in Palo Alto, California.


HINES REIT: Settlement Hearing in "Gamberg" Set for June 6
----------------------------------------------------------
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
court has scheduled a settlement hearing, in the case entitled,
Gamberg v. Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, et al., No. 24-C-
16-004496 , on June 6, 2018, to make a final determination
whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Company as
nominal defendant and of the class members.

On August 11, 2016, a purported class of stockholders filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City (the
"Court") alleging both derivative and direct claims against Hines
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company"), Hines
Advisors Limited Partnership (the "Advisor") and its owners,
certain affiliated entities and current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors. See Gamberg v. Hines Real Estate
Investment Trust, et al., No. 24-C-16-004496 (the "Action").

The Action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary,
contractual and other duties, caused the waste of corporate
assets, and misappropriated corporate assets in connection with
certain payments related to the participation interest held by
HALP Associates Limited Partnership ("HALP") in Hines REIT
Properties, L.P., that have been, or will be, made to certain
affiliated entities in connection with the Company's Plan of
Liquidation and in connection with other payments that have
previously been made to such affiliated entities. The complaint
seeks monetary damages from the Hines affiliated entities and
individual defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and certain
other remedies.

The Company and the other defendants continue to believe that the
purported claims against them are wholly without merit and
expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied
with their fiduciary and other legal duties. However, the Company
and the defendants recognize the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in further litigation of the Action, which
has delayed the issuance of a final liquidating distribution to
the stockholders and the completion of the wind up of the
Company.

As such, on January 19, 2018, counsel for the plaintiffs and the
defendants reached an agreement in principle to resolve this
litigation. On March 2, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved
the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of this litigation as
provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
dated February 28, 2018 (the "Settlement Agreement") agreed to by
the parties and filed with the Court, which releases all claims
against the defendants without any liability or wrongdoing
attributed to them. The Settlement Agreement requires the
defendants (or their insurers) to pay a total of $3,250,000 (the
"Gross Settlement Amount"), minus any award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel and any awards to the nominal
plaintiffs ("Net Settlement Amount") to the Company for
distribution to the Company's stockholders (with no amount of the
Net Settlement Amount proceeds to be distributed to HALP). There
is no proof of claim process. Stockholders of record as of March
2, 2018, will receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement
Amount. To facilitate the Settlement, the Company has stopped
accepting transfers of shares of the Company (except for
transfers to effect a change of custodian that do not result in a
change in beneficial ownership of such shares) as of March 2,
2018, so that it can comply with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

No distribution of the Net Settlement Amount will be made unless
and until the Settlement is approved by the Court and becomes
final. The Court has scheduled a settlement hearing on June 6,
2018, to make a final determination whether the Settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the Company as nominal defendant and of the
class members.

Hines said "Accordingly, there can be no guarantee that the Court
will approve the Settlement so that it can be concluded, in which
event the litigation could continue for an indefinite period of
time which could delay the winding up of the Company and
potentially result in the reduction or elimination of the amount
actually distributed to the stockholders in any final liquidating
distribution."

If the Court approves the Settlement on June 6, 2018, then the
Company expects to make a final liquidating distribution shortly
thereafter to all stockholders, which will complete the winding
up of the Company's operations. The Company presently estimates
the amount would be in the range of $0.05 - $0.07 per share.

Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a real estate
investment trust (REIT), engages in investing in and owning
interests in real estate, primarily of office properties in the
United States and Canada.


HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery in "Airquip" Suit Still Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is under way in the putative
class action, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
l:16-cv-1849.

In July 2016, the class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.  The complaint, as amended,
alleges that HomeAdvisor 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.  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.

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).


IPC INC: Asks Court to Deny Physicians Healthsource's Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. IPC, INC., d/b/a Platinum Code, Case No. 1:16-cv-00301-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to deny certification of PHI's claims
brought under Rules 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff filed the case claiming that IPC's May 26, 2015 fax
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even though in
2015, the Plaintiff neither used the fax number nor the fax
machine to which the fax was sent, IPC contends.  Rather, IPC
argues, the fax was directed to PHI's tenant, and PHI alone
appears to have a complaint with IPC's fax.

IPC contends that many in the putative class previously provided
IPC permission (i.e., consent) to send fax advertisements.  IPC
adds that it has substantial evidence that it had long-existing
relationships with the putative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xe2OXw04

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wilbert Victor Farrell IV, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: wfarrell@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          Karen L. Helgeson, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: wfarrell@hjlawfirm.com
                  aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                  khelgeson@hjlawfirm.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Scott Gets Prelim. Nod of $618,837 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled WILLIAM MARK SCOTT and
RONALD MORIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-00249-APM
(D.D.C.), asked the Court to enter an order:

   (1) preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the
       parties' settlement agreement;

   (2) certifying this Settlement Class:

       All persons who, up to and including the date of
       preliminary approval, were either (1) paid for jury
       service by means of a Juror Debit Card or for fact witness
       service by means of a Fact Witness Debit Card as part of
       the U.S. Debit Card program operated by JPMorgan Chase
       Bank, N.A. for the United States Department of the
       Treasury, in the jurisdiction of Washington, DC; or (2)
       paid for jury service by means of a Juror Debit Card as
       part of the programs operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank,
       N.A., in the jurisdictions of Gwinnett County, GA;
       Livingston County, MI; and Fort Bend County, TX;

   (3) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   (4) authorizing the sending of Class Notice to the Settlement
       Class pursuant to the submitted Notice Plan;

   (5) appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Levi & Korsinsky LLP
       as Settlement Class Counsel;

   (6) appointing Epiq as the Settlement Administrator
       responsible for Class Notice and Administration; and

   (7) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing in this matter.

The Settlement Agreement provides that each Settlement Class
Member will be entitled to receive a check reflecting a full
refund of any Chase fees and third-party surcharges charged in
connection with Chase's Juror and Fact Witness Debit Cards (a
total of $97,819), as well as any outstanding balances that
remain on Settlement Class Members' Juror or Fact Witness Debit
Cards at the time of distribution (a total of $521,018)
(together, $618,837).

The Settlement Agreement provides relief to all jurors in the
U.S., who were paid for their jury service with a Chase debit
card, as well as any fact witnesses paid for their service by the
D.C. Courts with a Chase debit card.  Chase issued Juror Debit
Cards to persons, who served on juries in the D.C. Courts, as
well as in Gwinnett County, GA; Livingston County, MI; and Fort
Bend County, TX.  Chase also issued debit cards for payment to
persons for service as fact witnesses in Washington, D.C.

Chase will not oppose Class Counsel's request for reimbursement
of attorneys' fees and costs up to a total of $335,000.  In
addition, Chase will not oppose the Plaintiffs' request for a
service award of $5,000 to each Plaintiff ($10,000 total).

                         *     *    *

The Honorable Amit P. Mehta grants preliminary approval to the
class action settlement of the parties, and provisionally
certifies this class for settlement purposes only:

     All persons who, up to and including the date of preliminary
     approval, were either (1) paid for jury service by means of
     a Juror Debit Card or for fact witness service by means of a
     Fact Witness Debit Card as part of the U.S. Debit Card
     program operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for the United
     States Department of the Treasury, in the jurisdiction of
     Washington, DC; or (2) paid for jury service by means of a
     Juror Debit Card as part of the programs operated by
     JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in the jurisdictions of Gwinnett
     County, GA; Livingston County, MI; and Fort Bend County, TX.

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel to represent the
Settlement Class.  The Court further appoints Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on August 17, 2018, at
10:30 a.m., to determine whether the Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Quentin A. Robert, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
                  qroberts@zlk.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Noah Levine, Esq.
          Jamie Dycus, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
                  jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com


KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Carruth" Suit Challenges No-Poach Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS CARRUTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY; NEW
YORK AIR BRAKE COMPANY; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC.; and RAILROAD
CONTROLS L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00469-CRE (W.D. Pa., April 11,
2018), challenges alleged unlawful agreements between two of the
world's largest rail equipment suppliers to restrain competition
in the labor markets in which they compete for employees.

Without the knowledge and consent of their employees, the
Defendants collectively agreed not to solicit each other's
employees, recruit each other's employees, hire each other's
employees without prior approval, or otherwise compete for
employees (collectively, "no-poach agreements"), the Plaintiff
alleges.

Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation, and their respective subsidiaries, are each other's
top competitors for rail equipment used in freight and passenger
rail applications.

Knorr is a privately owned German company with its headquarters
in Munich, Germany.  Knorr is a global leader in the development,
manufacture, and sale of rail and commercial vehicle equipment.
Knorr Brake Company is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Westminster, Maryland, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG.  Knorr Brake manufactures train
control, braking, and door equipment used on passenger rail
vehicles.

New York Air Brake Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Watertown, New York, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG.  New York Air Brake manufactures
railway air brakes and other rail equipment used on freight
trains.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Wilmerding,
Pennsylvania -- located in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania.
Wabtec is a publicly held company, listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.  With over 100 subsidiaries globally, Wabtec is the
world's largest provider of rail equipment and services with
global sales of $3.9 billion in 2017.

Faiveley Transport North America, formerly a subsidiary of
Faiveley Transport S.A., is now a wholly owned subsidiary of
Wabtec, and is a New York corporation headquartered in
Greenville, South Carolina.  On November 30, 2016, Wabtec
acquired Faiveley, which had been a French societe anonyme based
in Gennevilliers, France.  Prior to the acquisition, Faiveley was
the world's third-largest rail equipment supplier behind Wabtec
and Knorr.  Faiveley developed, manufactured, and sold passenger
and freight rail equipment to customers in Europe, Asia, and
North America, including the United States.

Railroad Controls, L.P., was acquired by Wabtec in February 4,
2015, and now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of Wabtec.
Railroad Controls, L.P. is based in Benbrook, Texas, and is a
leading provider of railway signal construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Spear, Esq.
          MINTO LAW GROUP, LLC
          Two Gateway Center
          603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-5525
          E-mail: dspear@mintolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Brian A. Ratner, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  bratner@hausfeld.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeld.com
                  mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          Irving Scher, Esq.
          Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, Floor 14
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                  ischer@hausfeld.com
                  jbayoumi@hausfeld.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market St., Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmonston" Suit Certified as FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert H. Cleland granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Order for Notice to the Class
in the lawsuit captioned JIMMIE EDMONSTON, JUSTIN ALEXANDER, and
OTIS SMITH, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated v. KSJC ENTERPRISES INC., d/b/a/, SWEET WATER TAVERN,
and JEFFREY CAIN, Case No. 2:17-cv-12789-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.),

Judge Cleland directed the parties to meet and confer to develop
a jointly acceptable proposed notice to putative plaintiffs and
to submit said notice to the court by May 4, 2018.  The
Defendants are directed to provide the Plaintiffs with employee
names and addresses as necessary to facilitate the notice
procedure.

Plaintiffs Jimmie Edmonston, Justin Alexander, and Otis Smith are
former employees of Defendant KSJC Enterprises, doing business as
Sweetwater Tavern, a restaurant in Detroit owned by Defendant
Jeffrey Cain.  They allege the Defendants failed to pay them, and
a class of similarly situated employees, for all hours worked
and/or for overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single week.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions amount to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iq8dMCyp


LA QUINTA: Appeal from Stockholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of a purported
stockholder class lawsuit against La Quinta Holdings Inc. remains
pending, according to a Preliminary Information Statement, dated
May 7, 2018, attached as an exhibit to CorePoint Lodging Inc.'s
Amendment No. 5 to Form 10 filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2018.  Appellate briefing is
scheduled to be completed in May 2018.

On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On July 21, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff
("plaintiff"), and, on December 30, 2016, plaintiff filed the
operative complaint on behalf of purchasers of La Quinta Parent's
common stock from November 19, 2014 through February 24, 2016
(the "Class Period") and on behalf of a subclass who purchased La
Quinta Parent's common stock pursuant to La Quinta Parent's March
24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary
Offering").  The operative complaint names as defendants La
Quinta Parent and certain of its current and former officers and
members of its board of directors, among others.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of
the federal securities laws, the registration statement and
prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering
contained materially false and misleading information or
omissions and that La Quinta Parent as well as certain current
and former officers made false and misleading statements in
earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On February 10, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.  On August 24, 2017, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Subsequently, on September 20, 2017, the plaintiff filed an
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
December 29, 2017, the plaintiff submitted its appellant brief.
Appellate briefing is scheduled to be completed in May 2018.

LQH Parent believes that the putative class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, including appeals.

The Company is an owner, operator and franchisor of select-
service hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-midscale
segments under the La Quinta brand.


LIPOCINE INC: Records $4.3-Mil. Settlement Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that in connection with the purported securities
class action litigation in Utah, the Company has recorded a
litigation settlement liability for US$4.3 million as of March
31, 2018.

On February 15, 2018, the Company and the other defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
purported securities class action litigation captioned In re
Lipocine Inc.  Securities Litigation, 2:17CV00182 DB (D. Utah)
which was originally filed against the Company on July 1, 2016.
The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a settlement agreement, which, if entered into,
will be subject to customary conditions including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders, and a hearing at
which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of the settlement.  If a settlement is finally
approved by the court, it will resolve all of the claims that
were or could have been brought in the action being settled.

Lipocine Inc. stated, "The Company continues to believe that the
claims in the lawsuits are without merit and, to the extent the
parties do not enter into a settlement agreement or the court
does not approve a settlement, the Company will defend against
them vigorously.  The Company maintains insurance for claims of
this nature.  As a result of signing the memorandum of
understanding and the potential liability becoming probable and
estimable, the Company has recorded a litigation settlement
liability for US$4.3 million as of March 31, 2018.  Additionally,
the Company has recorded a litigation insurance settlement
recovery receivable of US$3.6 million as of March 31, 2018 which
represents the estimated insurance claims proceeds from our
insurance carrier in excess of the Company's retention."

Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.


LIPOCINE INC: Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement Set for July 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing is currently set for July 2, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at which
time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of a memorandum of understanding to settle a purported
securities class action litigation, according to Lipocine Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company stated, "On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of
its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., 3:16-
cv-04009-BRM-LHG, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  This initial action was followed by
additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey.  On
December 2, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the various lawsuits and appointed Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel and Lipocine Investor Group as lead plaintiff.  The
court also stated that all filings shall bear the caption In re
Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On March 14, 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the
action to the United States District Court for the District of
Utah.  On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
This is a purported class action seeking relief for violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that our filing of the NDA
for TLANDO to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the
defendants' statements about our business and operations were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in
violation of federal securities laws.  Plaintiff seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages of an
unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and unspecified other
costs, as well as any further relief the court deems just and
proper.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 12,
2017, in compliance with the scheduling order entered by the
court on December 20, 2016.  Oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss were held on October 24, 2017, and the judge denied our
motion to dismiss.

"On February 15, 2018 we and the other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the purported securities
class action litigation.  On March 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement along with a
copy of the parties' stipulation of settlement.  On March 21,
2018, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement and amended the order on March 28, 2018.  As set
for the in the preliminary approval order, the settlement is
subject to customary conditions including court approval
following notice to our stockholders, and a hearing currently set
for July 2, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at which time the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.

"If a settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the action being settled.  We continue to believe that the claims
in the lawsuits are without merit and, to the extent the court
does not approve a settlement, will defend against them
vigorously.  We maintain insurance for claims of this nature,
which management believes is adequate.  Moreover, we believe,
based on information currently available, that the filing and
ultimate outcome of the lawsuits will not have a material impact
on our financial position, although we will have to pay up to the
insurance retention amount in connection with the lawsuit."

Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.


LOUISIANA, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Shabazz" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry A. Doughty denied the motion for class certification
and motion for temporary restraining order filed by the Plaintiff
in the lawsuit captioned MALIK SHABAZZ v. KEVIN WYLES, ET AL.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00124-TAD-KLH (W.D. La.).

A copy of the Judgment is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Rw1VeLZ


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (NYSE: MIC)
have filed a class action complaint against the company's
officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 between February 22, 2016 and February 21,
2018. Macquarie's International-Matex Tank Terminals ("IMTT")
business provides bulk liquid storage and handling services at 12
marine terminals in the U.S. and Canada.

According to the complaint, Macquarie repeatedly assured
investors that its IMTT business, the company's most important
segment, experienced stable performance and high utilization
rates. Macquarie further noted that any declines in IMTT's
storage utilization were temporary and due to routine
maintenance, while assuring utilization would remain high into
2018. However, Macquarie never disclosed to investors that it
depended on heavy residual oils -- which had been in decline due
to environmental concerns and the development of alternative fuel
sources -- and downplayed its exposure to fluctuations in the use
of petroleum products. On February 21, 2018, Macquarie surprised
the market when it announced disappointing fourth quarter
earnings of $0.43 per share, well short of analysts' estimate of
$0.51 per share, and that the company would be slashing its
dividend by 31%. Macquarie cited the loss of "half a dozen"
contracts at its Louisiana storage facility due to a decline in
heavy residual oils. On this news, Macquarie's stock fell over
41% to close at $37.41 per share on February 22, 2018.

Macquarie Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.


         Contact:
         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Class of Facilities Certified in "Malvern"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Curtis Joyner grants the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR
PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC STUDIES, INC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC.,
MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC,
MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 2:16-cv-04772-JCJ (E.D. Pa.).

The Court certifies a Class of persons defined as:

     All inpatient non-hospital (residential) addiction treatment
     facilities in Pennsylvania that (a) provided or sought to
     provide residential addiction treatment to Federal Blue
     Cross Plan members whose behavioral health benefits were or
     are managed by Magellan and/or (b) were unable to obtain
     preauthorization or reimbursement for residential addiction
     treatment to Federal Blue Cross Plan members whose
     behavioral health benefits were or are managed by Magellan.

Judge Joyner appoints David S. Senoff, Esq., of Anapol Weiss and
Greg Heller, Esq., of Young Ricchiuti Caldwell & Heller, LLC, as
Class counsel.

Judge Joyner also rules that within 30 days of the date of this
Order, the Plaintiff shall file a motion for approval of its
proposed forms of class notice and their notice program.  If the
Notice Motion is opposed by any party, that party shall file a
brief in opposition to the Notice Motion no later than 14 days
after the filing of the Notice Motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XwD44FlY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq.
          Clayton P. Flaherty, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1130
          Facsimile: (215) 875-7733
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com
                  hweinstein@anapolweiss.com
                  cflaherty@anapolweiss.com

               - and -

          Gregory B. Heller, Esq.
          YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 546-1004
          E-mail: gheller@yrchlaw.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Berger" Suit Now Moot
------------------------------------------
Marvel Technology Group Ltd. said in a Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Paul Berger has
acknowledged that the lawsuit entitled, Berger v. Cavium et al.,
Case No. 18-cv-000376 (Cal. Super.), has become moot.

On February 5, 2018, Marvell filed a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in
connection with the Proposed Merger. As has previously been
described in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, five putative
class actions 11challenging the Proposed Merger have been filed
on behalf of Cavium's stockholders.

Four of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal
Complaints"). The fifth putative class action was filed by Paul
Berger, a stockholder of Cavium (the "Plaintiff"), on behalf of
himself and a putative class of stockholders of Cavium, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Monterey against Cavium and Cavium's directors (collectively, the
"Defendants") challenging the Proposed Merger (the "Lawsuit").

The Lawsuit, which is captioned Berger v. Cavium et al., Case No.
18-cv-000376 (Cal. Super.), alleges that Cavium's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger and that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by
Marvell with the SEC on December 21, 2017 omits material
information.

On March 5, 2018, the Defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. In
the MOU, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the Lawsuit has become
moot because the Defendants disclosed additional information
sought by Plaintiff in his complaint in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. The Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his
previously filed application for a temporary restraining order
seeking to enjoin the Proposed Merger and to dismiss the Lawsuit.

On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a stipulation with the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Monterey (i) withdrawing his application for a temporary
restraining order and (ii) dismissing the claims asserted on his
behalf with prejudice and on behalf of the purported class of
Cavium stockholders without prejudice.

As set forth in the stipulation, counsel for the Plaintiff has
reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses based on the creation of a benefit to
Cavium shareholders through the disclosure of additional
information prompted by the pendency and prosecution of the
Lawsuit. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest the
amount of any fee and expense petition that the Plaintiff may
pursue.

If the parties cannot agree on a fee award for the Plaintiff's
counsel, the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Monterey will ultimately determine the amount of fee
award for the Plaintiff's counsel, if any. The fee award for the
Plaintiff's counsel will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid by Marvell in connection with the
Proposed Merger.

On March 16, 2018, Marvell (NASDAQ: MRVL) said its shareholders
have voted to approve the issuance of Marvell common shares in
connection with the previously announced proposed acquisition of
Cavium, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAVM). In a preliminary count of the voting
results from the meeting of shareholders, more than 99 percent of
votes represented in person or by proxy were voted in favor of
approving the issuance of Marvell common shares in connection
with the proposed acquisition. At a meeting held today prior to
the Marvell shareholder vote, Cavium shareholders voted to
approve the merger with Marvell. Marvell expects the transaction
to close mid-calendar year 2018, subject to customary closing
conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals.

Marvel Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor provider
of high-performance, application-specific standard products. The
company's core strength of expertise is the development of
complex System-on-a-Chip ("SoC") devices, leveraging the
company's technology portfolio of intellectual property in the
areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and
embedded and standalone integrated circuits.


MASIMO CORP: Still Defends PHI Suit over Fax Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation is still defending itself against the putative
class action complaint filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
over alleged violations of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI).
The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of
2005 and related regulations.  The complaint seeks US$500 for
each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court
finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs
and injunctive relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  On May 22,
2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case
pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition.  On October 30,
2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the
relief requested in the Company's petition.  Both parties
appealed the FCC's decision on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal.

On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the applicable FCC rule
was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out notices on
solicited faxes.

On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition seeking rehearing by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the requested rehearing on June 6, 2017.  The plaintiffs
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court on September 5, 2017 seeking review of the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.  The Company and the FCC
filed oppositions to this petition on January 16, 2018.  On
February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

The District Court lifted the stay on April 9, 2018 and set a
scheduling conference for May 14, 2018.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims in the District Court litigation, but there is no
guarantee that the Company will prevail.  The Company is unable
to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to
estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has
been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed
consolidated financial statements.

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring
technologies.


MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Keeps Alabama Court Ruling in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
to grant summary judgment in favor of Masimo Corporation on all
claims in a putative class action complaint, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama.  On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant.  The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.  The
appellate hearing before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on December 13, 2016.

On March 3, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama.

Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in
the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring
technologies.


MDL 2804: Chicopee Working to Join Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette DeForge, writing for Mass Live, reports that Chicopee
faced with one of the highest per-capita overdose rates in the
state, city officials are considering joining a class-action
lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies to recoup costs
associated with the opioid crisis.

City Councilors Joel McAuliffe, Robert Zygarowski and William
Courchesne have sent a letter to Mayor Richard J. Kos asking him
to join the city in a class-action suit against the prescription
drug industry. At the same time, Kos said he and his legal team
have started the process.

For several weeks the city's law department and Marshall
Moriarty, Esq. -- mmoriarty@moriarty-lawfirm.com -- the lawyer
who heads the department, have been interviewing firms to hire to
take on the issue, Kos said.

"This is a tragedy which has affected us all," Kos said.

A state study shows 20 Chicopee residents died of opioid
overdoses in 2015 and 26 died in 2016 -- which is one of the
highest per-capita overdose rates in Western Massachusetts. Only
Ware and three towns with very small populations have higher per-
capita rates.

To compare, Springfield, whose population is three times greater,
had 41 overdoses each in 2015 and 2016. Holyoke, which has about
40,000 people, had seven overdoses in 2015 and 11 in 2016.
Chicopee has a population of about 55,000.

Chicopee's health, school, fire and police departments are all
working to battle the opioid crisis in different ways, but there
is not enough money to go around, said McAuliffe, who authored
the letter to Kos urging him to join the lawsuit.

"I think it is important that we hold these drug companies
accountable for a crisis they helped to create," he said. "We
have to treat it as the epidemic it is and destigmatize
addiction."

He thanked Kos for starting the process of joining a class-action
suit and said he hopes the City Council will also support the
effort.

"I'm grateful to the mayor for taking on this issue head-on and
providing the leadership for this," he said.

McAuliffe said any money recouped in a class action could be used
to help with prevention and education programs as well as
treatment.

Already several Western Massachusetts communities have joined
class action lawsuits or are considering filing their own.

Greenfield was the first in the area to sign onto a lawsuit,
hiring Sweeney Merrigan Law to sue three defendants, McKesson
Corp., Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen.

Springfield has hired the national law firm Scott+Scott, which is
also representing municipalities in Connecticut, New Jersey,
Florida and Pennsylvania in suits against companies such as
Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Insys Therapeutics.

Westifeld is also considering joining a class-action suit.[GN]


MEAT SHOP AT PINE HAVEN: Faces $15MM Suit Over E. Coli Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Smith, writing for Global News, reports that an Edmonton law
firm is suing the farm and slaughterhouse at the centre of a
recent E.coli outbreak for $15 million.

James H. Brown, Esq. -- jhb@jameshbrown.com -- has filed a multi-
million dollar class-action lawsuit against The Meat Shop at Pine
Haven, an abattoir and artisan sausage-making facility located at
the Pine Haven Hutterite community west of Wetaskiwin, Alta.

According to the statement of claim, the lawsuit is on behalf of
all people who suffered damages as a result of buying or
consuming pork products that may have been contaminated with E.
coli.

"It's our best estimate of what the losses might be for the class
at this point in time," Rick Mallett, head of the class-action
team at James H. Brown and Associates, said when asked about how
his team arrived at the $15-million figure. "It's a big class.
There's already 36 people that have been affected, including one
fatality which is incredibly tragic for that family.

We received a telephone call from someone who had become quite
ill from consuming these recalled pork products," Mallett said
when asked how the lawsuit came about. "They were sick, some of
their family members were sick."

On April 25, Alberta Health Services said it has a "fair degree
of confidence" that a recent outbreak of E. coli in the Edmonton
area is linked to certain raw and ready-to-eat pork products sold
and distributed by the Meat Shop at Pine Haven, south of
Wetaskiwin.

As of April 26, the number of lab-confirmed cases related to the
outbreak is at 36, including 11 patients who have needed hospital
care and one death that Alberta Health Services (AHS) said was
"likely" due to E. coli infection.

AHS confirmed that 21 E. coli cases were linked to Mama Nita's
Binalot restaurant in Edmonton.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) issued a food recall
warning for certain pork products sold and distributed by The
Meat Shop at Pine Haven between Feb. 19 and April 24, 2018.

The recall issued on April 25 was expanded on April 26 to include
certain products sold at K & K Foodliner and Irvings Farm Fresh
products. [GN]


MICHIGAN, USA: JV Seeks to Certify HCV Medicaid Enrollees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled J.V., on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. NICK LYON, in his official
capacity Only as Executive Director of the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), jointly ask the Court to:

   1. certify the class as described in the parties' settlement
      agreement and consists of:

      current and future Michigan Medicaid enrollees who have
      been or will be subject to the MDHHS Policy;

   2. appoint the law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC as class
      counsel;

   3. grant preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   4. approve notice to class members; and


   5. set a date and time for a fairness hearing during which
      time the Court can consider any objections to the proposed
      settlement.

On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff, a Michigan Medicaid enrollee living
with the hepatitis C virus ("HCV"), filed a complaint alleging
that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
unlawfully denied direct-acting antiviral medication to the
Plaintiff and thousands of other Medicaid patients until their
HCV progressed, and their livers were irreparably damaged.  The
complaint alleged that the Defendant's current prior-
authorization criteria for Hepatitis C treatment (the "MDHHS
Prior Authorization Criteria") violates provisions of the Medical
Assistance Program.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include:

   -- Defendant agrees to replace the MDDHS Prior Authorization
      Criteria and institute the Amended Prior Authorization
      Criteria to provide coverage for direct-acting antiviral
      treatment to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries
      diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C;

   -- Defendant agrees to expand direct-acting antiviral
      treatment coverage to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid
      beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C based on
      this schedule:

      * Defendant will provide coverage for all eligible
        beneficiaries with a metavir fibrosis score of F-1 and
        above on October 1, 2018; and

      * Defendant will provide coverage for all beneficiaries
        with a metarvir fibrosis score of F-0 an above on
        October 1, 2019;

   -- The Amended Prior Authorization Criteria will include these
      provisions:

      * The direct-acting antiviral medication must be prescribed
        by a gastroenterologist, hepatologist, liver transplant
        or infectious disease physician.  If the prescribing
        provider is not one of the identified specialists noted,
        the prescriber must submit documentation of
        consultation/collaboration of the specific case with one
        of the aforementioned specialists which reflects
        discussion of the history and agreement with the plan of
        care with the date noted in the progress note;

      * Documentation of the patient's use of Illegal Drugs or
        abuse of alcohol must be noted (i.e., current abuse of IV
        drugs or alcohol or abuse within the past 6 months).  The
        Michigan Department of Health and Human Services will
        consider this information for the sole purpose of
        optimizing treatment; and

      * Documentation of the patient's commitment to the planned
        course of treatment and monitoring (including SVR 12) as
        well as patient education addressing ways to reduce the
        risks for re-infection must be submitted;

   -- Defendant reserves the right to revise the Amended Prior
      Authorization Criteria and Claim Form to incorporate
      updated clinical recommendations or other best practices,
      consistent with this Agreement;

   -- Defendant agrees to provide coverage for direct-acting
      antiviral medications that are (i) approved by the U.S.
      Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic
      Hepatitis C; (ii) have a federal Medicaid rebate; and (iii)
      are listed on Defendant's Preferred Drug List as preferred
      at the time the beneficiary is approved for treatment; and

   -- If a direct-acting antiviral medication is no longer
      approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the
      treatment of chronic Hepatitis C or no longer on
      Defendant's Preferred Drug List, it will no longer be
      covered.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aK2eBQPo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron V. Burrell, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 223-3500
          E-mail: Aburrell@dickinsonwright.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua S. Smith, Esq.
          525 W Ottawa St., 3rd Floor
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-7700
          E-mail: Smithj46@michigan.gov


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Wheeler" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Kendall entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN WHEELER, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of others similarly situated v. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11152 (N.D. Ill.), ruling that the
Plaintiff satisfies all of the standards enunciated under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the class definition
will be defined, with minor adjustments by the Court, as:

     (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who accessed
     the MCM web site (c) and were offered a settlement or
     discount (d) on a credit card debt on which the last payment
     had been made more than five-years prior to the accessing
     (e) where the date of access was on or after a date one year
     prior to the filing of this action and on or before
     December 6, 2015.

Mr. Wheeler seeks to certify a class under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8YJXNEsc


MONITRONICS INT'L: Accord in Telemarketing Suit Awaits Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement between Monitronics International, Inc.
("MONI") and the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative class
actions related to telemarketing calls remains subject to court
approval and the court's entry of a final order dismissing the
actions, according to Ascent Capital Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

MONI was named as a defendant in multiple putative class actions
consolidated in U.S. District Court (Northern District of West
Virginia) on behalf of purported class(es) of persons who claim
to have received telemarketing calls in violation of various
state and federal laws.  The actions were brought by plaintiffs
seeking monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who received
telemarketing calls made by a Monitronics Authorized Dealer, or
any Authorized Dealer's lead generator or sub-dealer.  In the
second quarter of 2017, MONI and the plaintiffs agreed to settle
this litigation for US$28,000,000 ("the Settlement Amount").
MONI is actively seeking to recover the Settlement Amount under
its insurance policies.  The settlement agreement remains subject
to court approval and the court's entry of a final order
dismissing the actions.  In the third quarter of 2017, MONI paid
US$5,000,000 of the Settlement Amount pursuant to the settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs.


NANTKWEST INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Set for "Sudunagunta" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date for the third amended consolidated complaint in the
"Sudunagunta" suit against Nantkwest, Inc. has been set for
August 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No.  16-cv-
01947 was filed in federal district court for the Central
District of California related to the Company's restatement of
certain interim financial statements for the periods ended June
30, 2015 and September 30, 2015.

A number of similar putative class actions were filed in federal
and state court in California.  The actions originally filed in
state court were removed to federal court, and the various
related actions have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for alleged violations 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 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or
other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or acquired the Company's securities during various
time periods from July 28, 2015 through March 11, 2016.

In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint.  A trial date has been
set for August 2019.

The Company said, "Management intends to vigorously defend these
proceedings.  At this time, the Company cannot predict how the
Court will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of
the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome.
Therefore, based on the information available at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action.  Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the
liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations for the period or periods in which it is
incurred."

NantKwest is a pioneering clinical-stage immunotherapy company
focused on harnessing the power of the innate immune system by
using the natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious
diseases and inflammatory diseases.


NEW YORK: Lawsuit Challenges NYPD's Use of Sealed Arrest Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Southall, writing for The New York Times, reports that
when criminal charges against an adult who has been arrested in
New York are dismissed, state law generally requires the case to
be sealed, strictly limiting access, use and disclosure of its
details.

The state sealing statutes -- which also apply when a person is
acquitted, prosecutors decline to bring charges or charges are
downgraded to an infraction or violation -- are intended to
protect people who have not been convicted of a crime from the
stigma of an arrest.

But a lawsuit filed on April 24 in State Supreme Court in
Manhattan accuses the police in New York City of routinely
violating the statutes by keeping and sharing the contents of
sealed arrest records -- including charges, fingerprints, photos,
Social Security numbers and who people called while in custody.

The lawsuit, brought by the Bronx Defenders, a criminal-defense
nonprofit, and the firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, seeks
class-action status to challenge practices in the Police
Department that the complaint says infringe on the due-process
rights of mostly black and Latino people with unproven, mostly
low-level accusations.

Its main plaintiffs, three black men identified in the complaint
by their initials, are seeking a declaration that it is illegal
for the Police Department, without court approval, to access data
from sealed arrest records, use them in investigations or share
them with other law enforcement agencies and the media.

Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, the deputy director of impact litigation
for the Bronx Defenders, said that allowing the police to handle
sealed records unchecked undermines efforts in New York City to
promote fairness and limit unnecessary harm in the criminal
justice system. A court ruling, she said, is needed to remind the
Police Department of its obligation under state law.

"There's such a push in New York to get people disentangled from
the criminal justice system for crimes of poverty like jumping a
turnstile," she said, "and the N.Y.P.D. is overriding it based on
sealed arrests that, under longstanding privacy rules, are
supposed to not be used in any way, particularly in ways that
continue to harm people when they've already had their cases
dismissed."

The sealing statutes curtail access to official records of sealed
cases -- except for published court decisions or opinions, or
records and briefs on appeal -- for people other than the accused
and for public and private agencies. The laws also require
fingerprints and photos in the files to be destroyed or returned
to the accused.

But the statutes do not conceal the records completely and
forever: Lawmakers carved out several exceptions for access,
including for law enforcement agencies to get permission from a
court.

Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city Law Department, said the
agency would "review the lawsuit and respond in the litigation."
The city has 60 days to do so.

The Police Department declined to comment. But the case cites a
memorandum from a federal lawsuit over dismissed summonses that
the city settled for $75 million last year. In it, city lawyers
said the Police Department uses sealed arrest data for a variety
of reasons, including to solve crimes and apprehend suspects.

Jeffrey A. Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School who
testified against the city in litigation over its stop-and-frisk
tactics, said that claim appears to never have been challenged.
"Absent some showing of some statutory authorization to
contravene the statute, then the plaintiffs seem to have a pretty
strong claim," he said.

The outcome of the lawsuit could affect millions of case files.
Just between 2014 and 2016, as the police scaled back stop-and-
frisk, over 400,000 cases were supposed to be sealed, according
to the complaint. Almost 83 percent, or 330,000 cases, involved
black and Latino defendants, who are more likely to live in
communities where police activity is highest and for whom being
arrested can have a detrimental impact on their employment,
housing, immigration status and eligibility for public benefits.
[GN]


NORTHERN OIL: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Fries" Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. continues to face the "Fries"
securities lawsuit as a second amended complaint remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
Michael Reger (our former chief executive officer), and Thomas
Stoelk (our former chief financial officer and interim chief
executive officer) as defendants.  An amended complaint was filed
by plaintiffs in July 2017.  Defendants (including the Company)
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2017.
The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in January
2018, but permitted plaintiff the opportunity to further amend
the complaint.  A second amended complaint was filed by
plaintiffs in January 2018.

"The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's
securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks
to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter."

Northern Oil and Gas Inc. engages in the acquisition,
exploration, exploitation, development, and production of crude
oil and natural gas properties in the United States.  This
independent energy company primarily holds interests in the
Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North
Dakota and Montana.  The company is based in Minnetonka,
Minnesota.


NVR INC: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in "Smith" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled PAUL SMITH and DEBORAH SMITH
v. NVR, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court
to enter an order certifying the matter as a class action,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Rapier, Esq.
          Dario Dzananovic, Esq.
          RAPIER LAW FIRM
          1770 Park St., Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (815) 782-5478
          Facsimile: (815) 327-3449
          E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com
                  dario@rapierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Corey Ann Finn, Esq.
          Wade Yeoman, Esq.
          FINN AND YEOMAN
          231 South Fifth Street, 3rd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (520) 694-0565
          E-mail: corey@fyattorneys.com
                  wade@fyattorneys.com


O'CHARLEYS LLC: "Otis" Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending S.C. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The labor-related lawsuit filed against O'Charley's, LLC by the
company's servers and bartenders remains stayed until the Supreme
Court reaches a final decision on the merits in several Circuit
Courts of Appeals cases that address a similar matter, according
to Cannae Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

O'Charley's is the defendant in a lawsuit, Otis v. O'Charley's,
LLC, filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S. District Court, Central
District of Illinois.  The lawsuit purports to bring a national
class action on behalf of all O'Charley's servers and bartenders
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws.  The
complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the
applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped
employees to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time
performing non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food
preparation, cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house"
duties; and (b) perform "off the clock" work.

Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief.  The named
plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties to
employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia,
for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes.

On October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying
all proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States
Supreme Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari
filed in several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the
issue of whether agreements between employers and employees to
arbitrate disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under
the Federal Arbitration Act.  The Order provides that, if
certiorari is granted in any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals
cases, the stay of the Otis case will continue until the Supreme
Court reaches a final decision on the merits in the cases.

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
three of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the
enforceability of arbitration agreements.  Accordingly, the
proceedings in the Otis case are stayed until the Supreme Court
reaches a final decision on the merits in the three cases.

Cannae Holdings, Inc is a principal investment firm. The firm
primarily invests in restaurants, technology enabled healthcare
services, financial services and more. It takes both minority and
majority stakes. Cannae Holdings, Inc. is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Circuit Affirms Transfer of Lipozene Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
on April 25 denied an attempt by a purchaser of the weight loss
supplement Lipozene to block the transfer of her putative class
action between two California districts, with the panel saying
the transfer was a mistake but did not immediately affect the
woman's case alleging that the supplement's maker issued false
claims about its effectiveness. [GN]


OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Ross Moves to Certify Technicians Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned CASEY ROSS, individually and
for others similarly situated v. OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION, USA,
INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00312-OLG (W.D. Tex.), jointly seek
conditional certification of this class pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

     Current and former Service Technicians employed by OIUSA
     during the last three years who did not receive overtime
     pay.

The Parties agree that, by OIUSA's agreement to conditional
certification of the FLSA Class, OIUSA does not waive its right
to argue that the FLSA Class should be decertified and/or to
advance any defenses that it may have to the substantive claims
in this lawsuit.  The Defendant denies that it owes overtime
wages to the Plaintiff or any other current or former Service
Technician, further denies that it has violated the FLSA in any
respect, and has agreed to conditional certification in the
interest of judicial economy and solely to preserve costs and
fees.

In addition, the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff and the
putative class members are "similarly situated" under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and that this case is appropriate for collective
action treatment.  The Defendant specifically reserves its right
to seek decertification of the proposed class of Service
Technicians and dismissal of all claims in this lawsuit at a
later time.

The Parties have attached, for Court approval, their proposed
forms for notice to putative class members and consent to join
and e-mail notification.  The Parties have further agreed to and
propose this schedule:

   -- 14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members -- OIUSA is to provide to Ross's Counsel in Excel
      (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
      Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es)
      with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail
      address(es) (non-company address if applicable); beginning
      date(s) of employment; and ending date(s) of employment (if
      applicable);

   -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members -- Ross's Counsel shall send a copy of the
      Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
      Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by e-mail; and

   -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
      Potential Class Members -- The Putative Class Members shall
      have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to Ross's
      Counsel for filing with the Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xdMB4n5W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kindall C. James, Esq.
          Alma F. Gomez, Esq.
          LISKOW & LEWIS
          First City Tower
          1001 Fannin, Suite 1800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-2900
          Facsimile: (713) 651-2908
          E-mail: kjames@liskow.com
                  afgomez@liskow.com


OLYMPIC FLAMES: Blake's Bid to Certify Nixed; July 17 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 24, 2018, in the case
styled Katelynn Blake v. The Olympic Flame Inc., doing business
as Anastasia's, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09145 (N.D. Ill.),
relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John Robert
Blakey.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Plaintiff's Motion
      to Strike Answer to Amended Complaint are denied without
      prejudice;

   -- motion hearing set for April 26, 2018, is stricken and no
      appearance is necessary;

   -- this matter is referred to Judge Weisman for the purpose of
      conducting a settlement conference;

   -- the parties shall jointly contact Judge Weisman's courtroom
      deputy for available settlement conference dates; and

   -- status hearing is set for July 17, 2018, at 9:45 a.m., in
      Courtroom 1203.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aPkuIpYz


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cert. of Two Classes Sought in Toll Roads Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Penny Davidi Borsuk, David Coulter, Ebrahim E. Mahda,
Todd Carpenter, Todd Quarles, Lori Myers, Dan Golka and James
Watkins move the Court for an order certifying the action styled
IN RE: TOLL ROADS LITIGATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-00262-AG-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), to proceed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed classes are:

   -- Penalty Class (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh,
      Eighth Causes of Action):

      All consumers who, between February 16, 2011 and the
      present, were assessed and/or paid an excessive penalty
      amount in connection with the Toll Roads operated by
      Defendants; and a

   -- Privacy Class (Fifth, Sixth Causes of Action):

      All consumers who between February 16, 2011 and the
      present, had their privacy rights violated by the improper
      dissemination of their PII in connection with the Toll
      Roads operated by Defendants.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 16, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z72Y0Xj7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
          Ben Travis, Esq.
          COAST LAW GROUP LLP
          1140 S. Coast Highway 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 942-8505
          Facsimile: (760) 942-8515
          E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com
                  andy@coastlaw.com
                  ben@coastlaw.com

               - and -

          Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
          433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5269
          Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
          E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: amcglaze@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Gail J. Higgins, Esq.
          HIGGINS LAW FIRM
          9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 149
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (213) 999-2351
          Facsimile: (310) 388-1018
          E-mail: ghigginse@aol.com

               - and -

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: alreenh@zhlaw.com
                  aarono@zhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Dolgin, Esq.
          AARON DOLGIN LAW OFFICES
          19831 Redwing Street
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 515-0573
          E-mail: dolgin1@juno.com


ORANGE COUNTRY: California Motorists Seek Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line mag.com, reports that
motorists in California are seeking class action status in a
lawsuit against the Orange County Transportation Authority and
several toll operators in the county. The lawsuit alleges
personal information was illegally used to collect unpaid tolls,
fines were unconstitutionally high, and drivers were deceived by
the all-electric cashless toll system.

California Highways 73, 91, 133, 241 and 261 have collected tolls
at toll booths since 1995. Beginning in May 2014, those toll
booths were converted to all-electronic cashless tolls. According
to the lawsuit, the switch to cashless tolls unfairly penalizes
unsuspecting drivers who do not have FasTrak passes or
ExpressAccounts.

"The new system fails to provide drivers with proper notice (of
the toll, penalties, citation, or threatened vehicle registration
liens) and ambushes them with cryptic and confusing roadside
warnings that they hazardously and, impracticably or impossibly,
must respond to while driving," the suit claims.

Plaintiffs argued that when toll roads used manned and unmanned
toll booths, motorists were adequately warned with conspicuous
signs and with the toll booths themselves. Removing the signs and
booths and then replacing them with cameras and digital systems
eliminated any safeguards to avoid inadvertent tolls and
subsequent violations, plaintiffs claim.

Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that cashless tolls assume
everyone has a computer and understands "vague and confusing
roadside signage." This is in reference to signs with an internet
URL that motorist can access to pay tolls. The suit argues that
this assumes that motorists will notice the sign, interpret the
sign as a directive to take action, and then remember to write
down the URL while driving approximately 55 mph.

"If a driver does not have a computer, does not have an account
set up with the toll roads, or does not understand that they must
go online to pay the toll within a set period of time, or how to
do so, or does not have the precise time and address of their
entry on and exit from the toll roads, a notice of violation
would issue in 48 hours threatening a lien on the vehicle owner's
automobile registration, generally if not paid within 30 days,"
the lawsuit says.

According to the lawsuit, penalties would amount to tens to
hundreds of times the amount of the toll. Some class members of
the lawsuit had their vehicles impounded over insignificant toll
fees.

Many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were fined thousands of
dollars for tolls in Orange County. One plaintiff was billed
$1,700 for tolls of $100.63, a more than 1,000 percent increase.
Another plaintiff drove on toll roads from November 2004 through
2015 and accrued toll fees of more than $3,542.63. After
penalties were assessed, the man owed more than $55,000.

Class members are seeking damages and injunctive relief for the
"coercive extra-judicial collection procedures" by the toll
roads. The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the excessive
fines and due process clauses of the Constitution and similar
provisions in the California constitution.

A lawsuit arguing against Orange County toll collections was
originally filed in February 2016. Since then, many similar
lawsuits have poured in. On April 23, plaintiffs consolidated
their suits and asked a federal judge to grant the case class
action status. [GN]


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Class Action Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., remains pending, Orrstown said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24,
2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending
practices and financial results, including misleading statements
concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices
and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio,
and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March
2010 public offering of common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive
relief.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the
Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.
Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to
the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11,
2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the
case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to
dismiss.

The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the
Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013
all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss.

On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further
support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the
Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014.
Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended
complaint was held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within
30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint,
accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its
intention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second
amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the
proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or
similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint.
The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the
Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged
failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk
management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to
2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8,
2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and
SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.

Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in
accordance with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February
25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the
case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-
finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the
Commission.

As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27,
2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Commission resolving the investigation of
accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods
ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the
settlement of the Commission's administrative proceedings and
pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former
Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the
Commission.

The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000.
The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount
which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the
settlement agreement with the Commission, the Company also agreed
to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and
any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and
17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and
13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated
thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the
Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the
settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's
cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company
believed were the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-
deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to
the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the
SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to
dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the
motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all
defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R.
Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court
also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 20(a)
claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set
the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1,
2018, and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same
day; expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary
judgment motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial
and settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial
is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.

Document discovery has begun in the case and is ongoing. To date,
one deposition, of a non-party, has been concluded.
On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown
Defendants' opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due
April 23, 2018.

On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for
a Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018,
the Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the
Court with a summary of document discovery in the case to date.
On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a
continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status
conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order
continuing all case management deadlines until further order of
the Court.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this
time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of
reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.
The Company incurred indemnification costs totaling $645,000 for
the year ended December 31, 2017, with several professional
service providers in connection with the SEPTA litigation. These
costs are included in legal fees in the consolidated statements
of income.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown
Bank and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal
executive offices are located at 77 East King Street,
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and
administrative offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, 17111. The Parent Company was organized on November
17, 1987, for the purpose of acquiring the Bank and such other
banks and bank-related activities as are permitted by law and
desirable. The Company provides banking and bank-related services
through branches located in south central Pennsylvania,
principally in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster,
and Perry Counties and in Washington County, Maryland. Wheatland
was acquired in December 2016 and provides services as a
registered investment advisor through its office in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania.


PACIFIC COAST: May 22 Hearing in "Welch" Case
---------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil 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 an additional hearing date has been
set for May 22, 2018, to allow time for the claims administrator
to determine whether the remaining funds could be distributed to
class members.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and
the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement
that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence
and strict liability claims under the Securities Act and alleges
that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue
statements of material facts and omitted material facts.  The
plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific
Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC
(GP) LLC and others.  The Berliner complaint asserts the same
claims and makes the same allegations, against the same
defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014,
the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single
action.

On December 8, 2015, the above referenced parties agreed in
principle to settle the consolidation action. On June 12, 2017,
the Court entered a final judgment in the action approving the
settlement in the amount of $7.6 million. On February 28, 2018
the Court met regarding compliance with the approved settlement
and determined that amounts of the settlement had not yet been
distributed to class members. As a result, the Judge set an
additional hearing date of May 22, 2018 to allow time for the
claims administrator to determine whether the remaining funds
could be distributed to class members.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. The approved settlement does not require any
payment from the Trust.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed
in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant
to a Trust Agreement (as amended, the "Trust Agreement") among
Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of
New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"),
and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee
(the "Delaware Trustee"). The Trust was created to acquire and
hold net profits and royalty interests in certain oil and natural
gas properties located in California for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders.


PAY CAR MINING: Certification of Class Sought in "Lester" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DOUGIE LESTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAY CAR MINING,
INC., BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC., BLUESTONE COAL CORP., KEYSTONE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. and MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC., Case No.
5:17-cv-00740 (S.D.W. Va.), asks the Court to certify a class
consisting of all full-time employees of Bluestone Industries,
Inc., who were terminated from employment, or subject to a
reduction in force, at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex, including
at the Pay Car Mine, from September 2, 2012, through December 1,
2012.

At least eighty full-time employees of Bluestone were laid off at
the Burke Mountain site "subject to the WARN Act," the Plaintiff
contends.  The Plaintiff asserts that the miners at the Burke
Mountain Mine Complex did not receive the requisite notice under
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988
before being laid off.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to order notice to proposed
Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uL80xlEl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
          Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-3144
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3145
          E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org
                  bren@msjlaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Hussell, IV, Esq.
          Andrew L. Ellis, Esq.
          John D. (Jody) Wooten, Jr., Esq.
          WOOTON, WOOTON & DAVIS, PLLC
          105 Capital Street, Suite 200
          P O Box 3971
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Telephone: (304) 345-4611
          E-mail: john.hussell@wwdhe.com
                  drew.ellis@wwdhe.com
                  jody.wooton@wwdhe.com


PBF HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in "Goldstein" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 case entitled, Arnold
Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is in the
initial stages of discovery.

PBF Holding said "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF Energy Company
LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette
La Bella and others similarly situated."

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private
nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP")
explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and
operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the
PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs'
claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained
responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the
lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of
the Torrance Refinery.

PBF Holding "This matter is in the initial stages of discovery
and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations
or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent
petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation
fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and
other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells
its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and
West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of
the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to
other international destinations. The company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 suit entitled, Vincent Caruso, et al. v.
Chalmette Refining, L.L.C.

PBF Holding Company said "On September 2, 2011, prior to our
ownership of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent
Caruso, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on
behalf of himself and potentially several thousand other
Louisiana residents who live or own property in St. Bernard
Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly
contaminated and who allegedly suffered any property damages and
clean-up costs as a result of an emission of spent catalyst from
the Chalmette refinery on September 6, 2010."

Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries, symptoms, and
property damage as a result of the release, although the trial
court has limited recovery to property damages and clean-up
expenses. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages,
interest and costs. In 2016, there was a mini-trial for four
plaintiffs for property damage relating to home and vehicle
cleaning and the trial court rendered judgment awarding damages
related to the cost for home cleaning and vehicle cleaning to the
four plaintiffs. The trial court found Chalmette Refining and co-
defendant Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"), to be solidarily liable
for the damages.

Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of
the judgment on the mini-trial and on June 28, 2017, the
appellate court unanimously reversed the judgment awarding
damages to the plaintiffs. On July 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
for a rehearing of the appellate court judgment, which was denied
on July 31, 2017.

PBF Holding said "As a result of the appellate court's judgment,
the potential amount of the claims is not determinable. Depending
upon the ultimate class size and the nature of the claims, the
outcome may have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent
petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation
fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and
other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells
its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and
West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of
the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to
other international destinations. The company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: Mini-Trial Scheduled in "Thomas" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 state trial court in the case, Adam
Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Corporation and Chalmette Refining,
L.L.C., has scheduled a mini-trial of up to 10 plaintiffs in
2018, relating to 5 separate flaring events that occurred between
2002 and 2007.

PBF Holding Company said "On December 5, 1990, prior to our
ownership of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Adam
Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining,
L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself and potentially
thousands of other individuals in St. Bernard Parish and
Plaquemines Parish who were allegedly exposed to hydrogen sulfide
and sulfur dioxide as a result of more than 100 separate flaring
events that occurred between 1989 and 2007. This litigation is
proceeding as a mass action with individually named plaintiffs as
a result of a 2008 trial court decision, affirmed by the court of
appeals, that denied class certification."

The Plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries, property
damage, and other damages as a result of the releases. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, and costs. The state trial court has scheduled a mini-
trial of up to 10 plaintiffs in 2018, relating to 5 separate
flaring events that occurred between 2002 and 2007.

PBF Holding Company said "Because of the number of potential
claimants is unknown and the differing events underlying the
claims, the potential amount of the claims is not determinable.
It is possible that an adverse outcome may have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent
petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation
fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and
other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells
its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and
West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of
the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to
other international destinations. The company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.


PJ OPS IDAHO: Edwards Moves to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing them to send
notice of the action entitled Cory Edwards, On behalf of himself
and those similarly situated v. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho), to these similarly situated
individuals:

     All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who work or
     worked at the "PJ Ops Stores" Papa John's Pizza locations in
     Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New
     York, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia from July 5, 2014
     to present.

The moving parties are Plaintiffs Cory Edwards and James
Hollingsworth, and opt-in Plaintiffs Danny McNeese, Darrel
Corbisier, Brent Jensen, James Langham, Nicholas Hill and Enrique
Rocha.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=14J2GQZo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Jeff Hepworth, Esq.
          HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES
          2229 W. State St. Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 333-0702
          Facsimile: (208) 246-8655
          E-mail: jhepworth@idalawyer.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert White, Esq.
          Melodie McQuade, Esq.
          GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
          601 W Bannock St.
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 388-1200
          Facsimile: (208) 388-1300
          E-mail: rbw@givenspursley.com
                  melodiemcquade@givenspursley.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Receives $4.5MM in Haverhill Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service 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, as a
nominal defendant, in a suit captioned Haverhill Retirement
System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL, received a payment
of $5.4 million from the Settlement Amount.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL (the "Haverhill Litigation").

The complaint named Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren
S. Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants")
and Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum Capital
Management") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal
defendant. The complaint purported to allege that the dividend
rate increase term originally in the Company's outstanding
Preferred Stock was an impermissibly coercive measure that
impaired the voting rights of the Company's stockholders in
connection with the vote on the removal of certain voting and
conversion caps previously applicable to the Preferred Stock (the
"Caps"), and that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and
attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the
Company's Preferred Stock, and by failing to disclose all
material information necessary to allow the Company's
stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps.

The complaint also purported to allege derivative claims alleging
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby
agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and granting Coliseum
Capital Management certain stock options. The complaint further
alleged that Coliseum Capital Management aided and abetted the
Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase,
corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other
relief.

On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties
reached an agreement in principle and executed a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement of claims
concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote
and related disclosure. The MOU stated that the Defendants had
entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to
eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay
of further litigation involving claims that have been settled.

Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to
supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A (the "2015 Proxy Statement"), Coliseum Capital
Management and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered
into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock
Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P.,
Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest,
L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service
Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the 2015
Proxy Statement, and the Board agreed to adopt a policy related
to the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the
Company should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid
in the form of PIK dividends on the Preferred Stock, as further
described in the supplemental proxy disclosures.

On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures
through a supplement to the 2015 Proxy Statement. On September
16, 2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal of the
Caps. The Company provided notice of the proposed partial
settlement to Providence's stockholders by December 11, 2015. At
a hearing on February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the
settlement. The Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could
petition the Court for a mootness fee, and that defendants would
have the opportunity to oppose any such application.

On January 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified amended class
action and derivative complaint (the "first amended complaint").
In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the
first amended complaint named David Shackelton, Coliseum Capital
Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Blackwell
Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P. (collectively,
and together with Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, ("Coliseum")
and RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC Capital Markets") as
additional defendants.

The first amended complaint purported to allege direct and
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against some or
all of the Individual Defendants and David Shackelton
(collectively, the "Amended Individual Defendants") regarding the
approval of the subordinated note, the rights offering, the
standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and the grant
to Coliseum Capital Management of certain stock options. The
first amended complaint also purported to allege an additional
derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum and
further alleged that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided and
abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their
fiduciary duties.

The first amended complaint sought, among other things, revision
or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and Preferred
Stock, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and
other relief.

On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified second amended
class action and derivative complaint (the "second amended
complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier
complaint, the second amended complaint named Paul Hastings LLP
("Paul Hastings") and Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") as
additional defendants. In addition to previously asserted claims,
the second amended complaint purported to assert direct and
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties against Coliseum
Capital Management, in its capacity as the controlling
stockholder of the Company, in connection with the subordinated
note, the Company's rights offering of Preferred Stock and the
standby purchase agreement with Coliseum Capital Management (the
"Financing Transactions").

The second amended complaint also alleged that Paul Hastings
breached their fiduciary duties as counsel to the Company in
connection with the Financing Transactions and that BofA and Paul
Hastings aided and abetted certain of the Amended Individual
Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Financing Transactions. The second amended complaint sought,
among other things, revision or rescission of the terms of the
subordinated note and Preferred Stock, corporate governance
reforms, disgorgement of fees paid to RBC Capital Markets, Paul
Hastings and BofA for work relating to the Financing
Transactions, unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 20, 2016, the Court granted a six-month stay of the
proceeding (which was subsequently extended) to allow a special
litigation committee, created by the Board, sufficient time to
investigate, review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and
claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine the
Company's response thereto. On January 20, 2017, the special
litigation committee advised the Court that the parties to the
litigation and the special litigation committee had reached an
agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in the
litigation.

The parties then entered into a proposed settlement agreement
which was submitted to the Court for approval. On September 28,
2017, the Court approved the proposed settlement agreement among
the parties that provided for a settlement amount of $10 million
less plaintiff's legal fees and expenses (the "Settlement
Amount"), with 75% of the Settlement Amount to be paid to the
Company and 25% of the Settlement Amount to be paid to holders of
the Company's Common Stock other than certain excluded parties.
On November 16, 2017, the Company, as a nominal defendant,
received a payment of $5.4 million from the Settlement Amount.

The Providence Service Corporation owns subsidiaries and
investments primarily engaged in the provision of healthcare
services in the United States and workforce development services
internationally. The company is based in Stamford Connecticut.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial Date in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 a trial date is currently set for
November 6, 2018 in a class action suit.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu or the "plaintiff," individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against the company or "the defendants" and
certain of its executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Hsu vs. Puma
Biotechnology, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The
consolidated complaint alleges that the company and certain of
its executive officers made false or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.

On September 30, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 6, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that included new
claims about additional statements that plaintiff alleges are
false or misleading. On June 19, 2017, the defendants moved to
dismiss the new claims in the amended complaint. On July 25,
2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On December 8,
2017, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. A trial date is currently set for November 6,
2018.

Puma Biotechnology said "We intend to vigorously defend against
this matter."

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company with a
focus on the development and commercialization of innovative
products to enhance cancer care. The company is based in Los
Angeles, California.


QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Suit Over Troubled Phoenix Pay System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a class-
action lawsuit against the federal government related to the
troubled Phoenix pay system.

The suit alleges some employees were paid too much before being
forced to reimburse the difference, while some others were not
paid at all or did not receive the proper remuneration.

Lawyers are seeking a base amount of $500 for all those
admissible to join the lawsuit and additional sums for certain of
the workers.

The lead plaintiff is Ezmie Bouchard, who worked at Passport
Canada between January and August 2016.

She alleges several mistakes were made on her pay and that when
she left she was owed $4,800.

The court document states Bouchard ended up receiving $1,000 too
much and had to pay it back.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Francois Emond's ruling does
not apply to all employees affected by the Phoenix fiasco and a
lawyer who is acting on behalf of Bouchard says he believes
between 40,000 and 70,000 people could be eligible to join the
lawsuit. [GN]


QUINCY PROPERTY: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brashier" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sue E. Myerscough entered an opinion in the lawsuit
captioned APRIL R. BRASHIER, CHAD O. LEBOW, and RICHARD M.
ORENCIA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated as collective representative under and/or as members of
the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v.
QUINCY PROPERTY, LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn; VANDIVER
MOTEL, doing business as Welcome Inn Columbia; WELCOME INN
COLUMBIA; JEFFERSON PROPERTY, doing business as Extended Stay by
Welcome Inn; COUNTY LINE PROPERTIES I LLC, doing business as
Welcome Inn; AMERICAN MOTELS LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn;
B & W INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC, doing business as Holiday
Apartments; SPRINGFIELD WELCOME INN; and BRETT BURGE; KENNETH
LOGAN; QUENTIN KEARNEY; and JOE WIMBERLY, as individuals under
FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, Case No. 3:17-cv-03022-SEM-TSH (C.D.
Ill.), granting the parties' Joint Motion for Conditional
Certification of Collective Action and Court Guidance on Class
Notice.

The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to bring a claim
under the FLSA for unpaid overtime and minimum wages on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated employees of the
Defendants.

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action by the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated members of the class pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), defined as:

     All current and former employees of Defendants who were (1)
     classified as salaried/exempt during the Class Period who
     held the position or performed the duties of housekeeper,
     maintenance staff, front desk personnel, skilled trade
     construction employee, or placing advertising; or (2)
     classified as salaried/exempt and were not paid a minimum
     salary of $455 per week.

Judge Myerscough approves the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of
Pending Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs' Consent to Sue Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act form, and the Plaintiffs' Proposed Text
Notice, all as amended.  The Court authorizes the Plaintiffs to
send the approved notice to the class.

The Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiffs the names
and aliases, home and work addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone
numbers of every salaried/exempt employee, who held the title of
or performed the duties of housekeeper, housekeeper, maintenance
staff, front desk personnel, skilled trade construction employee,
and placing advertising after March 1, 2014, as well as all
salaried/exempt employees, who were paid less than $455 per week
who worked for the Defendants after March 1, 2014.

In light of the Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of
Collective Action, these motions are denied as moot with leave to
refile:

   * Plaintiffs' Motion to Certification of Collective Action;

   * Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Collective Action;

   * Defendant American Motels Motion to Dismiss; and

   * the Motion to transfer venue and for a more definite
     statement filed by Defendants B&W Investment Properties,
     LLC, Brett Burge, County Line Properties I LLC, Jefferson
     Property, Quentin Kearning, Kenneth Logan, Quincy Property
     LLC, Springfield Welcome Inn, Vandiver Motel, and Joe
     Wimberly.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E2WPysGL


R1 RCM INC: "Anger" Suit Settled for $1.3 Million
-------------------------------------------------
R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company paid a total $1.3 million
settlement in the case captioned as Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.

On July 22, 2014, the company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.), seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The primary allegations are that the company attempted to collect
debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA and
Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to abide
by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those same
statutes. On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement
in principle and filed the proposed class action settlement with
the Court, which conducted a Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")
hearing on whether to approve of the settlement. Members of the
putative class were notified of the settlement and were given an
opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement before the
CAFA hearing on October 4, 2017. No objections to the class
settlement were filed, and the Court approved the settlement by
Order dated October 11, 2017.

Accordingly, the Company paid a total $1.3 million settlement,
some of which was paid to a settlement fund to assist members of
the class Ascension Michigan ministry patients pay off healthcare
debt to Ascension ministries.

R1 is a provider of revenue cycle management ("RCM") services to
healthcare providers. The company's technology-enabled services
help healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in
their operating margins and cash flows while also enhancing
patient, physician and staff satisfaction for the company's
customers. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Seeks to Cert. 6 Classes of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KRISTINA MCCONVILLE, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. RENZENBERGER, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 2:17-cv-02972-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to
certify these Classes:

   * Straight Time Wages Class:

     All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012,
     to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class
     who were not paid wages while clocked out for an unpaid meal
     period;

   * Overtime Class:

     All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012,
     to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class
     who were not paid wages while clocked out for an unpaid meal
     period and who worked one or more work period in excess of
     eight (8) consecutive hours or one or more workweeks in
     excess of 40 hours;

   * Non-Duty-Free Meal Period Class:

     All current and former non- exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012,
     to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class
     who worked one or more work period in excess of five (5)
     consecutive hours;

   * Wage Statement Class:

     All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from April 12, 2015,
     to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class
     and who received a wage statement;

   * Waiting Time Penalties Class:

     All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from February 23,
     2014, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the
     Class whose employment with Renzenberger has ended; and

   * Unfair Competition Law Class:

     All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by
     Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012,
     who are also members of the Straight Time Wages or
     Non-Duty-Free Meal Period Classes.

Ms. McConville also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative and to appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oMBX3Rwg

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com


RESOLUTE FOREST: Reynolds Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DONALD REYNOLDS and NORMAN
YARBER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated and the UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC v. RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS,
INC., RESOLUTE FP US INC., RESOLUTE FP US HEALTH AND WELFARE
BENEFIT PLAN, and RESOLUTE FP US HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT
PLAN, Case No. 1:16-cv-00048-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), move for:

   (1) class certification of the Settlement Class (as defined in
       the parties' Settlement Agreement);

   (2) preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   (3) approval of the proposed Class Notice; and

   (4) entry of an order setting a date for a hearing on the
       fairness of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
       Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
       along with other pertinent dates.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law and Finance Building, 13th Floor
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          David Garrison, Esq.
          Scott Tift, Esq.
          Seth Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Pittsburgh North Office
          12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
          Pittsburgh, PA 15215
          Telephone: (412) 492-8797
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com


SAL'S ITALIAN: Elorza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ELORZA, and other similarly situated individuals v. SAL'S
ITALIAN RISTORANTE, INC.; GOLU DINING LLC; and LUIS GONZALEZ,
Case No. 0:18-cv-60774-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Sal's Italian Ristorante, Inc., doing business as Vingiano
Italian Restaurant II Inc., owns and operates a chain of
restaurants in South Florida.  Sal's offers pizza, pasta,
chicken, and veal products.  The Company was founded in 1990 and
is based in Coconut Creek, Florida.

Golu Dining LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company.  Luis
Gonzalez is an owner, officer, manager or agent of the Corporate
Defendants.  The Corporate Defendants are entities engaged in
related activities, which perform through a unified operation,
with a common ownership, with a common business purpose, under
the common control and administration of the same owners and
managers.  The Corporate Defendants share offices and
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit initiated by the
Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust,
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on
behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or
about April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based
on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among other defendants, including
the Trust are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the
only claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs'
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the
"Exchange Act Claims").

In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal
defendant only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the
Exchange Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their
Exchange Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants.

Subsequent to the filing of the Trust's Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed
counsel to the Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all
claims against SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining
claims in the litigation against the Trust are being asserted not
only by purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said "Regardless of the outcome
of the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the
litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust's
administrative expenses significantly. The Trust will estimate
and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin reserving funds
for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the
extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any
such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust may
ultimately be materially different than any estimates."

The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not
established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.
The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the
litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully
analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be
applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the
Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement,
as amended and restated, by and among SandRidge, as Trustor, The
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the
"Trustee"), and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware
Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee") (such amended and restated trust
agreement, as amended to date, the "trust agreement"). The
Trust's affairs are administered by the Trustee, which maintains
its offices at 601 Travis Street, 16th Floor, Houston, Texas
77002. The Trust does not have any employees.


SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Melville" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled, John
Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC,
have reached a confidential settlement.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas,
LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives
engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC
engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breached its contract
with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

On September 5, 2017, the parties reached a confidential
settlement in this matter, which the Company expensed and paid in
the fourth quarter of 2017.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Veilleux" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, 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 ongoing in the case
captioned as, Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity
Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean
and Emile Clavet.

Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC,
Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile
Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18,
2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that
Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC
in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers through
fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and other
communications prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs further
allege that some improper enrollment and re-enrollment practices
have continued to the present date.

Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all defendants:
violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of
RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the
purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees. By order
dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the claims for
violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust
enrichment. Discovery limited to issues relevant to class
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure has just begun. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously
defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein,
including the request to certify a class.

Spark Energy said "Given the early stages of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this
time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this
litigation matter, subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Gillis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the motion to dismiss filed by the
defendants in the case entitled, Gillis et al. v. Respond Power,
LLC, is fully briefed and submitted, and the parties are awaiting
a decision from the Court.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory
judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond
Power, LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers
limited the variable rate that could be charged to no more than
the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company.

The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached
its variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging
rates in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers'
local utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation
and fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises
of savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified.

By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's
denial of class certification to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of
class certification and remanded the matter to the district court
for further proceedings. The district court ordered briefing on
defendant's motion to dismiss. Respond Power LLC filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment and breach of
contract claims (the class claims) on June 30, 2017. The motion
is fully briefed and submitted, and the parties are awaiting a
decision from the Court.

Spark Energy said "The Company currently cannot predict the
outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company
believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter,
subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SEMPRA ENERGY: 381 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Court at May 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that as of May 3, 2018, 381 lawsuits, including
approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas), some of which have also named
Sempra Energy.

All of the cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney and the federal securities class action,
are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court
for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding).

Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the
individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition
65 claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance
(continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation,
strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium
and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain
causes also naming Sempra Energy.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits,
property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive
relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties
(including penalties associated with Proposition 65 claims
alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain
chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy
business worldwide.  It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Property and Business Class Actions Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy continues to face two consolidated class action
complaints in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company stated, "In January 2017, pursuant to the
Coordination Proceeding, two consolidated class action complaints
were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a
putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real
property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property
Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all
persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the
facility (the Business Class Action).  Both complaints assert
claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities,
negligence and violation of California Unfair Competition Law.
The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per
se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private
nuisance, and inverse condemnation.  The Business Class Action
also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage.  Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  In
December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the
Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law.  In
February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition
filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling."

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy
business worldwide.  It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Revive Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a federal securities class action has sought
reconsideration of a District Court's order dismissing the case,
according to Sempra Energy's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "A federal securities class action alleging
violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against
Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and certain of its
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.  In March 2018, the District Court
dismissed the action with prejudice, and in April 2018 the
plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order."

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy
business worldwide.  It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: 8th Cir. Appeal in Royalty Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
SouthWestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit has not yet determined whether to hear oral
argument relating to a notice of appeal in the Arkansas Royalty
Litigation.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company
on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., a class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.  The plaintiff had alleged that the Company had
underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royalty
payments costs for gathering, transportation and compression of
natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases
and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract,
fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of
certain Arkansas statutes.  Following the verdict, the court
entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims.  The
trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and
the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The court of appeals
has not yet determined whether to hear oral argument.

Independent of the plaintiff's appeal, several different parties
sought to intervene in the Smith case prior to or shortly after
trial, and have appealed the trial court's order denying their
request to intervene.  Briefing is complete in the intervenor's
appeal, and oral argument is expected to occur sometime in the
second quarter of 2018.

The plaintiff class in Smith comprises the vast majority of
lessors of lands in Arkansas for which leases permit deductions
for these types of costs.  Most of the remaining lessors are
named plaintiffs or members of classes in other pending lawsuits.
In particular, two actions on behalf of certified classes of only
Arkansas residents pending in state courts in Arkansas (one is
set for trial during the third quarter of 2018; the other does
not have a trial date) and three cases (all currently stayed)
that were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of
248 individually named plaintiffs, two of which have been removed
to federal court, have been assigned to the same court that held
the Smith trial.  Management believes that, as the Smith jury
concluded, the deductions from royalty payments were calculated
in accordance with the leases.  The Company currently does not
anticipate that these other cases are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position
or cash flows of the Company.


SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ward, Dawn Meeks, and Celestina Hernandez, Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit titled JOSEPH WARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SENIOR CARE CENTERS, LLC, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-00422-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), move for
conditional certification of a collective and notice to potential
plaintiffs, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jLaTluG9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
          302. N. Market Street, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 722-5990
          Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
          E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com

               - and -

          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SNEAKER VILLA: Tucker Moves to Certify Class of Key Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LAQUINTA TUCKER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
SNEAKER VILLA, INC., d/b/a RU VILLA, a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10086-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.), pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act moves for an order:

   1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective;

   2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed "Notice of Right to Join
      Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and
      authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the
      Proposed Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the
      proposed FLSA collective, defined as:

      All current and former hourly Key Holders and Sales
      Associates/Fashion Experts who worked for Defendant at any
      time during the last three years;

   3) requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
      dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
      days of the entry of the order; and

   4) allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
      circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4fLtZJY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


STONE ENERGY: Faces 3 Potential Class Actions over Talos Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that three lawsuits are in the preliminary
stages of defense and assessment.

On November 21, 2017, Stone and certain of its subsidiaries
entered into a series of related agreements pertaining to a
business combination with Talos Energy LLC ("Talos Energy") and
its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Talos Production LLC ("Talos
Production" and, together with Talos Energy, "Talos").  Talos
Energy is controlled indirectly by entities controlled by Apollo
Management VII, L.P. ("Apollo VII"), Apollo Commodities
Management, L.P., with respect to Series I (together with Apollo
VII, "Apollo Management") and Riverstone Energy Partners V, L.P.
("Riverstone").

Stone, Sailfish Energy Holdings Corporation ("New Talos"), a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Stone, and Sailfish Merger Sub
Corporation, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Talos,
entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction
Agreement") with Talos on November 21, 2017, which contemplates a
series of transactions (the "Transactions") occurring on the date
of closing of the Transaction Agreement (the "Closing") that will
result in such business combination.

Stone Energy said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that on each of January 4, February 2,
and February 8, 2018, separate lawsuits were filed against Stone,
the individual directors of the Board and other named co-
defendants by stockholders of Stone.  Two of the lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and the third
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District Louisiana.  The three lawsuits allege violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9
on the grounds that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed
on December 29, 2017 (which became effective on April 9, 2018)
was materially incomplete because it omitted material information
concerning the transactions contemplated by the Transaction
Agreement.  The three lawsuits also seek certification as class
actions.

The Company said the lawsuits are in the preliminary stages of
defense and assessment.  The defendants believe that the
allegations asserted in the three lawsuits are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised.

Stone Energy Corporation is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Lafayette,
Louisiana with additional offices in New Orleans, Houston and
Morgantown, West Virginia.  Stone is engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, development and production of properties in the Gulf
of Mexico basin.


SYNGENTA CORP: Farmers File Fraud Suit vs Own Lawyers in GMO Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that three North
Dakota farmers filed a class action on April 24 against the Texas
plaintiffs' firm Watts Guerra, alleging that Watts and a dozen
co-counsel duped nearly 60,000 farmers into signing 40 percent
contingency fee agreements in nationwide litigation against the
agricultural company Syngenta, then cut secret deals to preserve
the contingency fees by excluding Watts clients from state and
federal class actions against the company.  The Minnesota federal
court class action asserts racketeering, conspiracy, fraud and
state-law claims against Watts and the other defendants.  The
suit asks, among other things, for a declaration that the
contingency fee agreements are void.

Mikal Watts of Watts Guerra said in a phone interview on April 25
that the new class action is "frivolous and meritless," and that
the farmers' lawyer, Douglas Nill of FarmLaw, is uninformed about
the Syngenta litigation.

Last September, the agricultural giant agreed to a $1.5 billion
settlement to resolve nationwide claims by hundreds of thousands
of U.S. corn farmers who blamed Syngenta for pushing sales of
genetically modified seeds that produced a crop China refused to
import.  The settlement, structured as a class deal, resolves
claims by Watts Guerra clients as well as corn farmers not
represented by the firm.  It received preliminary approval in
March from U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum of Kansas City,
Kansas, who is overseeing consolidated litigation in federal
court.

"We have done a good job and we've done it ethically," Mr. Watts
said.  "Every dollar I'm going to earn in this case is a fee
earned."

In a press release issued after our interview, Mr. Watts added,
"My firm has spent tens of millions of dollars and invested tens
of thousands of hours, and worked over the past four years with
other fine law firms across the Corn Belt, who collectively
applied the herculean pressure required to force Syngenta to
settle this case brought on behalf of American corn farmers for
$1.5 billion . . . I worked diligently and ethically to achieve
the task I was appointed to undertake, and did so at the
direction of two excellent special masters operating under the
careful supervision of three judges, in both state and federal
courts."

Mr. Watts, as you may recall, has weathered far worse than fraud
allegations in a civil suit.  In 2016, he was acquitted by a
federal jury in Mississippi on charges that he orchestrated a
scheme to defraud the oil company BP by filing claims on behalf
of tens of thousands of "phantom clients."  Mr. Watts, who
represented himself at the criminal trial, blamed outside
investigators for supplying his firm with flawed information
about seafood workers who purportedly suffered economic injuries
after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Regardless of what happens in the new class action, this case --
like the Volkswagen clean diesel and NFL concussion cases --
raises tough questions about the obligations of lawyers who
represent individual clients in litigation resolved through
sweeping class action settlements.  As the complaint alleges,
U.S. corn farmers who never filed their own suits against
Syngenta will just have to pay court-awarded fees to class
counsel. But those who followed Watts Guerra's exhortations and
retained the firm to file individual suits are facing 40 percent
contingency fees on top of fees for class counsel.  Even if the
MDL judge awards class counsel only 10 percent of the settlement,
Watts Guerra clients will see nearly half of their recovery
consumed by legal fees, according to the complaint. That would be
"grotesque," the complaint said.

It's all the more galling, the new suit contends, because Watts
Guerra and the other defendants deceived their clients about the
relative merits and drawbacks of filing their own suits and then
supposedly made sure the farmers they represented would not be
notified about developments in the federal case in Kansas City or
a statewide class action in state court in Minnesota.  According
to the complaint, Watts Guerra and its co-counsel engineered a
media and advertising blitz to sign up clients across the Corn
Belt.  They held town halls, set up websites and ran television
and print ads targeting farmers.  The message was consistent,
according to the complaint: If farmers wanted to end up with more
than a coupon or a free bag of seed, they should not rely on a
class action but should instead protect their rights by filing
their own lawsuit.  Between 50,000 and 60,000 farmers ended up
signing contingency fee contracts with Watts Guerra and its
affiliates -- some of them after classes were certified in
Minnesota and in federal court and Syngenta entered global
settlement talks.

The complaint's most controversial allegations, in my mind,
involve supposed deals between Watts Guerra and class counsel to
keep Watts Guerra's clients in the dark about the class actions.
According to the suit, Watts Guerra signed joint prosecution
agreements in both the federal and Minnesota cases.  Class
counsel agreed to exclude Watts Guerra clients from class
certification motions, and in return Watts Guerra allegedly
agreed not to oppose class certification and to pay a big chunk
of assessed common benefit fees to class counsel.

The complaint contends that the judges who certified the
Minnesota and federal classes did not realize that Watts Guerra
was not providing class notices to its clients. (According to the
suit, Watts Guerra informed clients of the joint prosecution
agreements more than a year after they were signed, and then only
to let them know they didn't need to opt out of the class.)

"Defendants effectively opted farmers out of the class
proceedings without informing them of their options and rights,"
the complaint alleges.  "In short, the due process and equal
protection rights of 60,000 farmers were not protected; they were
not able to exercise their individual right to be part of the
class or opt-out of it; they were not given court-approved notice
that they were members of the class proceedings nor were they
able to make their own choice in deciding whether or not to opt-
out of the federal MDL and Minnesota classes."

Mr. Watts told Ms. Frankel there was nothing secret or improper
about the joint prosecution agreements, which simply reflected
the cooperation between his firm and lawyers for the class as
they squeezed Syngenta.  He said he obtained ethics opinions
okaying the agreements before he signed them.  His press release
said the complaint "is not worth the paper it is written on, nor
the ink it took to pollute the pages of (the) petition."

It's obviously within the bounds of ethics for a lawyer to advise
clients to opt out of a class action settlement if you think you
can get a better deal for them.  Mr. Watts may well have thought
he could use the leverage of his enormous inventory of cases to
obtain a premium for his clients.  But according to the
complaint, his clients will end up with the same terms as class
members who weren't represented by Watts Guerra -- except they'll
also have to pay contingency fees. (Mr. Watt declined to say
whether he would seek to enforce his private fee agreements but
did say the MDL lawyer has the inherent power to oversee his
fees.)

Lead counsel in the federal Syngenta MDL -- Don Downing of Gray
Ritter & Graham, Patrick Stueve of Stueve Siegel Hanson, Scott
Powell of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton and William Chaney of Gray
Reed & McGraw -- sent an email statement in response to Ms.
Frankel's e-mail asking about allegations that they colluded with
Watts to exclude his clients from the class. (They are not named
as defendants in the suit.)

"All joint prosecution agreements, including the one in question
in this lawsuit, were disclosed to the court," the statement
said.  "It included provisions concerning any potential future
payments of common benefit assessments that would be awarded by
the court for work done on the cases by lead counsel only if the
MDL class cases were ultimately not certified as a class action .
. . Because we reached a nationwide class settlement agreement,
such provisions for future payments of common benefit assessments
do not apply.  Mr. Watts' clients after fully informed consent
still have a right to opt out.  The fully disclosed JPA agreement
simply set up a mechanism for his clients who filed individual
actions to do so after being fully informed of their rights."
[GN]


TESLA INC: Securities Suit over SolarCity Reports Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. reports in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the securities litigation relating to
SolarCity Corporation's financial statements and guidance has
been concluded.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against SolarCity and two of its officers.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from
March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014.

The Company stated, "After a series of amendments to the original
complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and
entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.  On December 4, 2017,
the Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs' notice of appeal
from the dismissal.  On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the
District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in our favor.
The case is concluded."

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two
segments, Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The
Company was formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its
name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: To Seek Dismissal of Suit over Model 3 Production
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the purported
stockholder class action relating to the production of Model 3
vehicles, according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Tesla, Inc., two of its current officers, and
a former officer.  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017.

The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to
produce Model 3 vehicles.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 23, 2018, and defendants will file a motion to dismiss
on May 25, 2018.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.  We are
unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit."

Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China,
Norway, and internationally.  The Company operates in two
segments, Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage.  The
Company was formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its
name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TIGER BRANDS: Law Firms Join Forces in Listeriosis Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Enca.com reports that legal firms representing different parties
seeking a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands over the
deadly listeriosis outbreak are to join forces.

The total claim against Tiger Brands now stands at around R400
million.

In March, ten applicants approached the South Gauteng High Court
in Johannesburg to sue companies for the deaths and other damages
as a result of the deadly outbreak.

The ten applicants subsequently filed a class action lawsuit.

Earlier in April, Tiger Brands indicated it would oppose the two
applications where it and its subsidiary, Enterprise Foods, are
the respondents.

Tiger Brands on April 26 said an independent laboratory confirmed
the presence of the deadly listeria strain at its Polokwane
factory.

The company says it will continue to cooperate with government to
resolve issues around the outbreak.[GN]


TORCHMARK CORP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Bruce" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation is awaiting the court's decision on its
motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action filed in
Texas against it subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On February 1, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division (Bruce v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00258-G).  The plaintiff, a former
insurance sales agent of American Income who is suing on behalf
of all current and former American Income sales agents contracted
through State General Agent Stephen Jubrey's agency office at any
time since January 31, 2015 through the final disposition of this
matter, asserts that such agents are employees rather than
independent contractors as they are classified by American
Income.  He alleges failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages
and other applicable monies in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The plaintiff seeks, in a jury trial, actual and
punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees,
costs and other relief, including injunctive relief.  On February
27, 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of
this matter and is awaiting the court's decision as to the same.

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand.  It operates through four
segments: Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance,
Annuities, and Investments.  Torchmark Corporation was founded in
1900 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


TRANSNET: Must Respond to Pensioners' Case
------------------------------------------
Ernest Mabuza, writing for Sunday Times, reports that Transnet
and two pension funds have 20 court days within which to file a
plea in answer to the class action claim by about 60,000 Transnet
pensioners.

This follows a Constitutional Court judgment on April 25 which
dismissed exceptions to the claim raised by Transnet, the
Transport Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Pension Fund a
few years ago.

The pensioners' claim is based on a promise made to them in 1989
that they would receive the same pension benefits under a
commercial entity, Transnet, as they did under the state entity
that had employed them until then, the South African Transport
Services (SATS), and its two pension funds.

The pension funds kept the promise until 2002, when the funds
failed to grant any pension increases beyond the minimum of 2%
per year.

The pensioners had calculated that the debt owed to the two
pension funds stood at R80-billion by March 2013.  This figure is
now higher.

When the case was due to be heard by the high court in Pretoria
in 2013, Transnet and the pension funds raised an exception to
the claim by the pensioners.

Pretoria High Court Judge Francis Legodi upheld Transnet's
exceptions to the claim by the pensioners in a judgment in 2016.

He said the claim by the pensioners was vague and embarrassing as
it did not contain sufficient details particularity regarding who
would decide the rate of the pension increase and who would
benefit from the promise.

This meant Transnet did not have to file a plea to answer the
claim against it.

Following the Constitutional Court judgment on April 25, Geyser
and Coetzee Attorneys -- which represents the pensioners -- said
it was still hopeful for a speedy and favourable conclusion.

"The effect of this judgement is that Transnet and the Pension
Funds must file their Plea in answer to the Pensioners' claim
within 20 court days," the law firm said in a statement.

In its judgment on April 25, the Constitutional Court said the
pensioners -- in their particulars of claim -- pleaded that the
1989 promise was made orally by the general manager of SATS.

"The pleaded contract is simple and straightforward, but its
simplicity is elegant, rather than vague," Justice Johan Froneman
said in a unanimous judgment by the court.

He said the terms of the contract were expressly and clearly set
out and so were the parties bound by those terms.

"There is nothing vague and embarrassing that prevents [the
pension funds and Transnet] from knowing what case they have to
meet," Justice Froneman said. [GN]


TROTT LAW: Martin Seeks Prelim. Approval of $7.5-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Brian J. Martin, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Trott Law P.C., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-12838-DML-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), move the Court for entry of an order preliminarily
approving the parties' $7.5 million Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   * provisionally certify this Settlement Class:

     All individuals to whom Trott Law PC caused to be sent any
     version of the Trott PC Foreclosure Letter in connection
     with mortgages conveyed for residential real property
     located in Michigan, which was not returned as undeliverable
     by the U.S. Post Office, dated from August 11, 2009, through
     the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order;

   * provisionally appoint Brian Martin, Yahmi Nundley, and
     Kathleen Cadeau as representatives of the Settlement Class;

   * provisionally appoint Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq., and Andrew
     N. Friedman, Esq., as Class Counsel;

   * appoint Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as
     Claims Administrator;

   * authorize and approve the promulgation of Class Notice as
     detailed in the Settlement Agreement, including the
     Publication Notice; and

   * schedules a Final Fairness Hearing date and time no less
     than 100 days from the date of filing of this Motion.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the Defendants will pay $7.5 million
to establish a common fund for the benefit of the Class.
Approved Claimants will be mailed checks for a pro rata share of
the common fund after payment of claims administration expenses,
attorneys' fee, service awards, and litigation expenses.  The
estimated range of the payments is between $75 and $150.

Trott Law will also include in its fair debt letters for a period
of five years this text: "An attorney has reviewed information
supplied by our client in preparation of this letter."  If Trott
Law includes a reference to "reinstatement" in a fair debt
letter, the letter will include this additional text: "No timing
requirement relating to reinstatement alters your rights to
dispute the debt or seek validation within the timelines set
forth in this letter."

Class counsel will seek services awards of $5,000 for each of the
three named Plaintiffs.  Class counsel will apply to the Court by
motion for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the
Settlement Common Fund and for reimbursement of reasonable
expenses.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vB86bByh

The Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are represented by:

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          ANDREW J. MCGUINNESS, ESQ.
          122 S Main St, Suite 118
          P O Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107
          Telephone: (734) 274-9374
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS &TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W St Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

Defendant Trott Law, P.C., is represented by:

          Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq.
          Jesse P. Roth, Esq.
          MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER, PC.
          28400 Northwestern Hwy., 2nd Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 359-7520
          E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com
                  jroth@maddinhauser.com

               - and -

          Charity A. Olson, Esq.
          BROCK & SCOTT PLLC
          2723 S State St, Suite 150
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-5179
          E-mail: Charity.Olson@brockandscott.com

Defendant David A. Trott is represented by:

          Joseph Aviv, Esq.
          Bruce L. Segal, Esq.
          HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ &COHN LLP
          39400 Woodward Ave., Suite 101
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 566-8300
          E-mail: javiv@honigman.com
                  bsegal@honigman.com


TYSON FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Huser" Dismissal Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has denied the plaintiff's motion to amend or alter a
previously entered judgment and to submit an amended complaint in
a class action suit filed by William Huser against Tyson Foods,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson
Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016,
filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie
Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California.

The Company said, "The complaint alleged, among other things,
that our periodic filings contained materially false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has
colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler
chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.  Subsequent to the
filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making
similar claims were filed in the United States District Courts
for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of
Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio.  Each of those cases
has now been transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas and consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs have been appointed.  A consolidated complaint was
filed on March 22, 2017 (which also named additional individual
defendants).  The consolidated complaint seeks damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

"The court granted our motion to dismiss this complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment and to
submit an amended complaint, which was denied.  The court's
dismissal was with prejudice."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


UBS GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's
claim related to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
(BMIS) investment fraud,.

A large number of alleged beneficiaries have filed claims against
UBS entities (and non-UBS entities) for purported losses relating
to the Madoff fraud. The majority of these cases have been filed
in Luxembourg, where decisions that the claims in eight test
cases were inadmissible have been affirmed by the Luxembourg
Court of Appeal, and the Luxembourg Supreme Court has dismissed a
further appeal in one of the test cases.

In the US, the BMIS Trustee filed claims against UBS entities,
among others, in relation to the two Luxembourg funds and one of
the offshore funds. The total amount claimed against all
defendants in these actions was not less than USD 2 billion. In
2014, the US Supreme Court rejected the BMIS Trustee's motion for
leave to appeal decisions dismissing all claims except those for
the recovery of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments.

In 2016, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the remaining claims
against the UBS entities. The BMIS Trustee appealed. In 2014,
several claims, including a purported class action, were filed in
the US by BMIS customers against UBS entities, asserting claims
similar to those made by the BMIS Trustee, and seeking
unspecified damages. These claims have either been voluntarily
withdrawn or dismissed on the basis that the courts did not have
jurisdiction to hear the claims against the UBS entities. In
2016, the plaintiff in one of those claims appealed the
dismissal. In February 2018, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's
claim.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas,
Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment
Bank.


UBS GROUP: Foreign Currency-Related Suits Awaits Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the foreign currency-related class action
suits awaits final approval by the court.

Putative class actions have been filed since 2013 in US federal
courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on
behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign
currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They
allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the
antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment.

In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal
court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a
putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign
exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange
futures contracts since 2003.

The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act
(CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons
covered by the US federal court class actions described above.
UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve
all of these US federal court class actions. The agreement, which
has been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to
final court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay
an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the
settlement classes.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas,
Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment
Bank.


UBS GROUP: Government Bonds-Related Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a class action suits related to Government bonds

Putative class actions have been filed in US federal courts
against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who participated
in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007. The complaints
generally allege that the banks colluded with respect to, and
manipulated prices of, US Treasury securities sold at auction.
They assert claims under the antitrust laws and the CEA and for
unjust enrichment.

The cases have been consolidated in the SDNY, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in November 2017. Following filing of these
complaints, UBS and reportedly other banks are responding to
investigations and requests for information from various
authorities regarding US Treasury securities and other government
bond trading practices. As a result of its review to date, UBS
has taken appropriate action.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas,
Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment
Bank.


UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC: Kotov May Refile Bid for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James B. Clark, III, administratively terminated the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned Kotov v. Universal Electric Motor Service, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01438-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.).

In light of the pending motion to amend, the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification is administratively terminated, according
to the Court's Letter Order.  The Plaintiff may move to reinstate
the class certification motion upon disposition of the motion to
amend.

A copy of the Letter Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vcmbbH3w


US BANK: Moseman Moves to Cert. Two Classes of Workers Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JORDAN MOSEMAN, on behalf
himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00481-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), moves the
Court to conditionally certify, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act two "FLSA Collective Classes" defined as:

   (1) All individuals who worked for U.S. Bank through staffing
       agencies as hourly-paid AML/BSA Preliminary Investigators,
       or any equivalent position, at any location in the United
       States during the period from three years prior to the
       entry of the conditional certification order to the
       present; and

   (2) All individuals who worked for U.S. Bank as AML/BSA
       Investigators, or any equivalent position, and were
       classified as exempt employees at any location in the
       United States during the period from three years prior
       to the entry of the conditional certification order to the
       present.

Mr. Moseman also asks the Court to order judicial notice to the
Classes.  As part of this order, he moves the Court to order a
75-day period for responding to the Notice, to order the
Defendant to produce a list of putative class members, including
information necessary to send the Notice, to authorize him to
distribute the Notice via First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail and to
send a reminder postcard on or about 20 days before the end of
the notice period, and to order posting of the Notice at a
location in the Defendant's offices where putative class members
are likely to view it.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v7FDAc4M

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 331
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: pgibbons@stephanzouras.com


US STEEL: Athan Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DAVID ATHAN, DARYL
JACKSON, COREY PARKER, and ROBERT FLANNERY, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., a foreign profit
corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-14220-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich.), file
with the Court their Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification
and Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA collective is defined as:

     All current and former hourly employees who worked at any
     time during the past three years for Defendant U.S. Steel in
     Michigan.

The action is brought for alleged unpaid and late wages brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs filed the
action to challenge the Defendant's alleged practice and policy
of not paying its hourly employees for all time worked or the
statutorily mandated minimum and overtime wages in a timely
manner in violation of the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PwgLePb7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, PC
          8225 Moorsbridge
          PO Box 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003
          Telephone: (269) 321-2311
          E-mail: jyoung@kreisenderle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret C. Alli, Esq.
          William E. Pilchak, Esq.
          Joshua P. Lushnat, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC
          34977 Woodward Ave., Suite 300
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 593-6400
          E-mail: meg.alli@ogletree.com
                  william.pilchak@ogletree.com
                  joshua.lushnat@ogletree.com


VERDE ENERGY: "Jurich" Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, 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 Jurich v. Verde Energy
USA, have proposed to the court that initial briefing on the
motions would be due March 16, 2018.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a purported class action
originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed
on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of
Hartford, State of Connecticut.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers
and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages for the purported class and injunctive relief.

The parties have exchanged initial discovery. Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was briefed and the Verde Companies filed
its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
October 17, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the
plaintiffs' class certification motion.  However, the Court opted
not to send out class notices, and instead directed the parties
to submit briefing on legal issues that could result in a
modification or decertification of the class.

The parties proposed to the Court that initial briefing on such
motions would be due March 16, 2018. As part of an agreement in
connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the
original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter.

Spark Energy said "Given the early stage of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this
time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this
litigation matter by the original owners of the Verde Companies,
subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


VERDE ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, 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 a class
action suit entitled, Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.

Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment remains pending.

On May 16, 2018, a notice was filed by Jacqueline Bowser,
Michelle Hunt, Brian Richardson and John White of Supplemental
Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members'
cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing
to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to
cease. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported
class and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged
conduct.

Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on
November 10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named
plaintiffs' claims was filed on November 24, 2017. Plaintiffs'
response to dispositive motions' pleadings was filed on December
22, 2017 and Verde Companies' reply briefs were filed on January
5, 2018.

To date, no hearing has been set on these motions. As part of an
agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde
Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies is handling
this matter.

Spark Energy said "Given the early stages of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this
time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this
litigation matter by the original owners of the Verde Companies,
subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Class Suit Concluded Following Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, 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 Coleman v. Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC have reached a confidential settlement.

Coleman v. Verde Energy USA Illinois, LLC is a purported class
action filed on January 23, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members'
cellular phones without prior express consent.

The parties have reached a confidential settlement in this matter
that was paid in the fourth quarter of 2017.

On November 30, 2017, Judge David R. Herndon entered an Order
approving a Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Christopher
Coleman.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.


VIRGINIA, USA: Riggleman's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Norman K. Moon denied without prejudice the motion for
class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled
TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN v. HAROLD CLARKE AND MARK AMONETTE, Case No.
5:17-cv-00063-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.).

Harold W. Clarke is the Director of Corrections in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

"The putative class action complaint in this Eighth Amendment
case was filed in June 2017.  That December, shortly before Chief
Judge Urbanski transferred the case to me, Plaintiff Terry
Riggleman moved to certify the class.  The factual basis for
certification rested entirely on the complaint itself," Judge
Moon states.

"There were no documents, transcripts, affidavits, or any other
evidence attached to or cited in the motion," Judge Moon notes.
"That is insufficient."

Judge Moon adds: "Roughly ten months have passed since this case
was filed, and three months have elapsed since I entered my
standard pretrial order after the case was transferred to me.
Further, oral argument on the certification motion was previously
set for July 6, 2018.  So, the parties have had an opportunity to
engage in discovery, and they have developed or are developing
(and can continue to develop) facts relevant to the certification
issue."

The Clerk is directed to retain the oral argument date, and the
Court will set a briefing schedule.  Any renewed motion for
certification is due on or before May 25, 2018; the Defendants'
response is due on or before June 8, 2018; and any reply is due
on or before June 15, 2018.  Should additional time for
certification discovery be needed prior to briefing, any party
may move for the amendment of this briefing schedule and the
establishment of a certification discovery deadline by the
presiding magistrate judge.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qMkRQz3i


WARNER MUSIC: Reaches Settlement for Download Pricing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that in a class action suit against
the Company related to the pricing of digital music downloads,
the parties have reached a settlement for a nominal payment and
the lawsuit will be dismissed imminently.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads.  On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded
music.  Both investigations were ultimately closed, but
subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than
thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads.  The lawsuits were
consolidated in the Southern District of New York.  The
consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges
conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their
content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs
and fix prices for digital downloads.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the Company.  However,
on January 13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims.  The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion
in part, and denied it in part.  Notably, all claims on behalf of
the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice.  However, a
wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers.

On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated
amended complaint on September 25, 2015.  The Company filed its
answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015, and
filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015.

A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution.  On July 18, 2017, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On
August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second
Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification.  On August 11, 2017, defendants
filed their opposition to plaintiffs' petition.  On December 8,
2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for leave to
appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class
certification.

The Company said, "The parties have reached a settlement for a
nominal payment and the lawsuit will be dismissed imminently."

Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content
company in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Recorded
Music and Music Publishing. The company is based in New York.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Schechner Seeks to Certify 5 Classes of Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled TOBY SCHECHNER, BARBARA
BARNES, LAURA BLISS, KATHLEEN JORDAN, KATHRYN LIMPEDE, LOUISE
MILJENOVIC, CANDACE OLIARNY, BEVERLY SIMMONS, RICHARD THOME and
MARY ELLEN THOME, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-
12409-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), seek certification of five state
Classes under the laws of their respective states of Michigan,
Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, Idaho, and New Mexico.

Each Class is defined as "all persons who purchased a Whirlpool,
Maytag, KitchenAid, or Jenn-Air oven equipped with AquaLift in
[Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, Idaho, or New Mexico]."

According to the Plaintiffs, the lawsuit is a straightforward
false advertising case that will rise or fall with the answer to
one question: Do Whirlpool's ovens equipped with "AquaLift Self-
Clean Technology" work as advertised?

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives for the Class and their respective Classes, to
appoint their counsel as Class Counsel, and to order them to
provide the Court with a proposed form and manner of notice to
the certified Classes.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Jordan D. Mamorsky, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  jmamorsky@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com


WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter Moves to Certify Sales Clerks Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DATISHA HUNTER and LATRICIA
HUNTER, AS THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES UNDER FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IN A COLLECTIVE ACTION, and as CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES FOR PLAINTIFFS' STATE AND LOCAL LAW CLAIMS v.
WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO LLC, SKY NET WIRELESS IL LLC, HAMAD BROTHERS,
INC., and MOHAMMED GHABEN, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-00980
(N.D. Ill.), ask the Court to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Datisha Hunter, Latricia Hunter and the class members are and
were sales clerks employed by the Defendants to sell cell phones,
cell phone accessories, and cell phone service for the
Defendants' metroPCS franchise at several Chicagoland locations.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act, Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance, and
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance by failing to pay the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees: (1) minimum wages for all
time worked; (2) overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in
individual workweeks; and (3) for all time worked.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (a) authorize their counsel
to issue notice of this lawsuit in English and Spanish and a
reminder to all class members by mail and e-mail, (b) compel the
Defendants to post a court-approved notice in English and Spanish
in the Defendants' Illinois locations, (c) compel the Defendants
to enclose notice of this lawsuit in English and Spanish in pay
envelopes, (d) approve their proposed notice and reminder notice,
(e) compel the Defendants to produce an accurate list in
electronic format of all putative collective class members, (f)
bar the Defendants from engaging in any and all forms of
communication to prospective class members concerning the merits
and issues of their FLSA claims and bar Defendants from securing
any waivers or releases of the putative plaintiffs' FLSA claims,
and (g) authorize a 60-day notice period for the putative class
members to opt-in.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNJLnCF9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Antoinette Choate, Esq.
          Bradley S. Levison, Esq.
          CHOATE HERSCHMAN LEVISON, LLC
          401 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1302G
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 870-5800
          Facsimile: (312) 674-7421
          E-mail: ac@law-chl.com
                  bl@law-chl.com


WISCONSIN, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Schroeder" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RONALD SCHROEDER v. BRIAN
HAYES and WILLIAM POLLARD, Case No. 2:18-cv-00593-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), moves the Court for an order granting class certification
and appointing counsel.

Brian Hayes was Mr. Schroeder's Division of Hearings and Appeals
Administrator.

Mr. Schroeder alleges that his former probation agent elevated
the severity level of certain violations, in contrary to the
Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections' Evidence-Based Response to
Violations Guide.  He contends that his former agent's supervisor
flatly denied his claim that his former agent falsified his
revocation documents.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C2Ourwxp


WODONGA, VIC: Class Suit Possible Over Toxic Culture
----------------------------------------------------
Sophie Boyd, writing for The Border Mail, reports that a lawyer
representing former Wodonga Council staff, including one whose
complaint sparked an Ombudsman investigation, has described the
organisation's culture "as nothing less than toxic" and called
for the chief executive's resignation.

Wangaratta lawyer John Suta, Esq. -- admin@johnsutalegal.com.au -
- and a senior solicitor at Shine Lawyers confirmed Wodonga
Council has opened itself up to a possible class action by
ratepayers, after the Ombudsman revealed an $18 million
overcharge over a decade.

Shine Lawyer's senior solicitor Tristan Gaven, Esq., said he was
interested in holding a town hall meeting to inform residents
about their rights.

"We believe there may be a basis for a class action based on a
claim for restitution by the ratepayers," Mr Gaven said.

While there may be issues in relation to limitation periods for
amounts paid more than six years ago, in the event that an action
was successful, ratepayers would be entitled to recover all
charges that were held to be invalid by the court plus interest."

Mr Suta told The Border Mail one of his clients, who worked as a
strategic asset manager from January 2007, complained about the
actions of senior staff to the Ombudsman.

"My client made a complaint to the Ombudsman under an alias, as
at the time they were still employed by council," Mr Suta said.

"The complaint was basically that (they were) overcharging for
waste services above the cost of the services, subjecting the c
ommunity to excess charges and inflicting a financial cost on
ratepayers."

Mr Suta said ratepayers, as a whole, were overcharged by $3.37
million in 2015-16 alone and $3.033 million in 2016-17 at an
individual cost of $90.90 to each ratepayer in 2016 and $74.99 in
2017, Mr Suta said.

"What council did was they undertook a course of action where
there was significant financial cross-subsidisation from waste to
other departments, which obviously was not the real cost to
service," he said.

Mr Suta said despite what council have claimed since the
Ombudsman's report was published on April 24, his understanding
is that their actions were not done in "good faith".

Council have ducked, weaved and hidden under every rock in
response to this and said they did it in good faith, my
instructions do not reflect that," he said.

"Council was overcharging waste services above the cost of
service, which was illegal and contrary to law."

Mr Suta said ratepayers have a clear case for a class action
against council "on the basis of council's actions".

He said the cost of remuneration if a class action was successful
would affect council's budget.

But, he said, it was up to the public to decide if they wanted to
take action on principle.

"Ratepayers were overcharged thus bringing financial loss and
damage on ratepayers, it's ratepayers money not council's," he
said.

"It could place a principle financial burden on council, but
transparency should override the financial burden on council,
never mind the fact of public trust."

Mr Suta said former employees at council say the culture is
"toxic", and said resigning was "absolutely the right thing" for
Wodonga chief executive Patience Harrington to do.

Ms Harrington joined council in 2003 and was appointed chief
executive in April 2012.

She refused to answer questions about council's "toxic culture"
or whether council had been subjected to any bullying complaints
or legal action.

Instead, Ms Harrington said Wodonga Council received the highest
customer satisfaction of any Victorian regional city in 2017.

"This is driven by a staff culture that is measured by an
internal survey which indicates that staff are highly engaged and
know what they are here to do in working for our community," she
said.

Ms Harrington refused to say whether she or any other senior
staff would be resigning.

"The council is hearing the community concerns and we are already
working with the Essential Services Commission about how we
represent the revenue and expenditure differently," she said.

"The council has received no complaints against officers on this
issue." [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: 170 Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Intermodal Drayage
Classification Claims involving approximately 170 claimants in
three separate actions pending in California Superior Court,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed
claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they
should be classified as employees, rather than independent
contractors.  These claims seek reimbursement for the owner
operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance
and tractor lease payments.

After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven
of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the decision to
the California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial
was held on the merits of those claims.

On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of US$2.9
million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the
claimants.

The Company exhausted its appeals in this matter and the Superior
Court entered final judgment against the Company in January 2018
and that judgment has been paid.

Separate decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing
officer in claims involving five additional plaintiffs, resulting
in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of
approximately US$0.9 million, following which the Company
appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On May 16, 2017, the Court issued judgment finding that the five
claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and
awarding an aggregate of approximately US$1.0 million plus post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.  The
Company has appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance
that such appeal will be successful.

In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a
DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional
plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an
aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, which the
Company has appealed to the California Superior Court, Long
Beach.

The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") have been
transferred to California Superior Court in three separate
actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including the
claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012.

In addition, certain of the Company's intermodal drayage
subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigations in
California brought by independent contract carriers who
contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers
assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

XPO Logistics said, "The Company believes that it has adequately
accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are
probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims
referenced above.  The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in
excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of
these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. still defends Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they
should be classified as employees, rather than independent
contractors.  The particular claims asserted vary from case to
case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek
reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending, or have recently been settled, in California (Fernando
Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, in the
Federal District Court, Southern District of California - the
Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation, the
court has granted final approval, and the settlement has been
paid; and four related cases all pending in the Federal District
Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan Estrada,
Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO
Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and
XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO
Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO
Last Mile, Inc., filed in May 2017).

XPO Logistics said, "The Company believes that it has adequately
accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating
to the foregoing claims that are probable and reasonably
estimable.  The Company is unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess
of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these
claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities
of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


XPO LOGISTICS: Still Awaits Ct. Approval on TCPA Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval is still pending for a settlement agreement
to resolve a putative class action suit against XPO Logistics,
Inc. over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation
(Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S.
District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer
call system used by a last mile logistics business that the
Company acquired.  The Company has reached an agreement to
resolve the Leung case and awaits final court approval of the
settlement.  The Company has accrued the full amount of the
proposed settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are
multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and
include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO
runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable
segments: Transportation and Logistics.


YAHOO INC: New Terms of Service No Impact on Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucian Armasu, writing for tom's HARDWARE, reports that Oath,
Verizon's online content subsidiary, which owns both Yahoo and
Aol, has published a new privacy policy.  The policy waives
users' rights to sue the company in a class action lawsuit.  Oath
also notes that this new change is "an important part" of its
relationship with you.  The company's new terms will also give it
the right to fully analyze all of your emails and share
"individually identifiable" data with Verizon and hundreds of
third-party companies.

Oath recently announced that it will be merging the email
infrastructure of AOL and Yahoo.  The company will use Yahoo's
back-end infrastructure to power the AOL email system, too.

Last year, we learned that Yahoo suffered the largest data breach
in history, which exposed three billion user accounts.  We also
know from previous reports that Yahoo's former CEO, Marissa Mayer
was often in conflict with the company's security team, so the
infrastructure was likely not as secure as it could have been.

Reuters also reported that Yahoo's leadership may have also
allowed an NSA backdoor to reside on its servers, giving the NSA
search access to its email database.

Oath Waives Right To Launch Class Action Lawsuit
Oath's new terms and policies disallow users from suing the
company in a class action lawsuit, if they agree to these terms.
However, if they don't agree, the users will soon no longer be
able to use their Yahoo accounts (AOL had already instituted a
similar policy before Verizon purchased it).  For the moment,
users can skip the message, but it seems to appear on almost
every interaction with the Yahoo Mail service.

In its new Terms of Service (ToS), Oath included the following:
"You understand that by agreeing to these terms, arbitration or a
small claims action will be the sole and exclusive means of
resolving any dispute between us.  You also understand that by
agreeing to these terms, you and Oath are giving up the right to
bring a claim in court or in front of a jury (except for matters
that may be brought in small claims court), and that you and Oath
are giving up the right to proceed with any class action or other
representative action."

Oath arbitrations will be handled by the American Arbitration
Association.  Collective arbitration will not be allowed, which
means each user will have to make their case against
Verizon/Oath's top lawyers and hope to win.  In some cases,
companies are not allowed to force users into arbitration.
Therefore, Oath also says in its ToS that if the dispute proceeds
in court, the users will agree that there will not be a jury
trial -- only a trial by court.

Although the new changes will affect users that now agree with
the terms, a federal judge had already ruled in March that a
class action lawsuit over the previous data breach must still go
through.  In that lawsuit, Yahoo is being sued for negligence in
handling user data, breach of contract, and failure to disclose
the breach in a reasonable amount of time.  The breach happened
in 2013, but Yahoo didn't disclose it until 2016.  The users
suing Yahoo also argued that the breach put them at risk of
identity theft, which required them to spend money on credit
freeze, monitoring, and other protections.

Oath To Share "Individually Identifiable" Data
The new privacy policy will give Oath permission to mine your
Yahoo and AOL emails for advertising purposes.  Yahoo had to
settle a lawsuit in 2016 over its similar practices at the time.
However, the company agreed to only analyze emails that were
opened by users.  Oath is taking all of that back, and will
analyze every email, including information you get from your bank
and the EXIF data of images and videos, location information, and
more.

Additionally, Oath's new ToS says that your Yahoo/AOL data will
be shared within Oath, with Verizon and its affiliates, and over
100 third parties such as analytics companies, social widget
companies, advertising technology companies, content and video
content providers, game developers, and others.

The new privacy policy and ToS looks quite aggressive in terms of
how little control it gives users, so it remains to be seen how
the EU will respond once the GDPR passes.  In the United States,
the CONSENT Act may protect users against most of the potential
abuses, if it passes.  Although Oath is owned by Verizon, it's
still an "edge provider" itself, so it should still fall under
the same regulations. [GN]


* Law Firms Urge Apartment Owners to Join Cladding Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Hughes, writing for Australia Financial Review, reports
that more than 250,000 owners and residents of about 1400
apartment blocks are being asked to join class actions seeking
more than $4 billion damages and compensation in the first round
of actions focusing on the installation of flammable cladding.

Those considering their options need to look beyond just the
desire to punish those responsible for the mess and cold-headedly
calculate what produces the best financial result for them.

"Class actions sound very attractive. But they tend to happen
when people feel they are being neglected," warns Paul Morton,
CEO of Lannock Strata Finance, which lends to body corporates and
strata titled buildings on anything from repairs to litigation.
"There is the appearance that someone is on your side,
understands you, wants to help you," Lannock adds.

But unleashing lawyers could consume years in expensive
litigation with no guarantee that the final outcome will reward
the stress and strains as well as pay the compensation needed to
rectify the problem.

Those considering litigation can choose between an "unfunded"
action (offered by law firms like Slater and Gordon and Adley
Burstyner), and a "funded" action (where parties agree to pay
their own fees and costs).

Lawyers, advisers and litigation funders behind "unfunded"
actions will cut the first slice from any settlement, which
varies according to the case but will typically be about 30 per
cent.

How finance works
Alternatively, lenders like Lannock Strata Finance charge about
7.5 per cent interest on litigation loans.

Class actions can also be brought by legal aid, commercial third-
party funders, regulatory agencies or insurers.

Two law firms are spruiking for clients to bring class actions
against those responsible for installing dangerous cladding on
high-rise buildings in most of the nation's capitals.  Others are
likely to follow.

Last year's Grenfell Tower fire in London, which killed more than
70 and injured another 70, highlighted the danger to tenants from
flammable cladding.

In Melbourne, a fire in 2014 raced up 13 floors of the Lacrosse
buildings in Docklands in about 10 minutes, leading to the
evacuation of about 450 people, causing millions of dollars in
damages.

Phil Dwyer, national president of the Builders Collective of
Australia, a lobby group to improve buildings standards and
regulations, says many owners in medium and high-rise buildings
are fearful of fire but struggling to pay for replacement
cladding, particularly first-time home buyers and the elderly.

The average cost per apartment for replacing cladding on a high-
rise building is estimated to be between $20,000 and $40,000.

Who to target
Lawyers claim they need to identify a target with pockets deep
enough to negotiate a settlement or pay court-awarded damages,
and which won't spend years dragging the case through tribunals,
courts and appeals.

For example, class action lawyers are anxiously awaiting the
outcome of a test case before the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal which started this year.  There would be
further delays if it is appealed.

There is also the problem of whether to target regulators,
developers, builders, surveyors or cladding manufacturers -- or a
combination of these.  The wrong choice could be disastrous for
litigants.

Most actions are "opt-out", which means while affected
individuals are not party to an action, they remain within the
class unless they take action to opt out.

There is also an opt-in class action which means members have
agreed to proceedings.

"Before you decide whether to opt out of a class action, ask
yourself if you have viable alternatives, such as private
litigation, dispute resolution or a claim for compensation,"
points out the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions,
the nation's chief securities regulator.

Those considering an action should also familiarise themselves
with their rights, fees, obligations, estimated time any case and
how to get the best outcome in the circumstances, it adds.  This
might involve extra legal fees for initial advice. [GN]








                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *