CAR_Public/180530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 108



                            Headlines


21VIANET GROUP: Awaits Court Approval of Accord in "Singh" Suit
ADT INC: Perdomo Sues over January 2018 IPO
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Chancery Court Denies Bid to Expedite Case
ALLIANCE MMA: Parties in "Shapiro" Suit Reached Settlement
AMICA MUTUAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Bonin" Suit

AMTRUST FIN'L: Rabinowitz Balks at Merger Deal with Stone Point
AMYRIS INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Calif. Class Suit
ARS NATIONAL: "Hertzovitz" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
ATLANTIC ACQUISITION: HDMI Settlement Receives Initial Approval
ATRIA SENIOR: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York

AXA EQUITABLE: Ross and Yarbrough Fail to File Appeal
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend "O'Donnell" Class Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: "Brach" Suit Consolidated With Others
AZZ INC: "Mullins" Class Action Underway in Texas
BABYLON TOWNHOUSE: Norris Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA

BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Suit Dismissed by Court
BIOGENETIC LABORATORIES: "Fahey" Mislabeling Class Suit Dismissed
BRANDYWINE SENIOR: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
BRONXWOOD HOME: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Beiner Files Suit Over Date Breach

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CARMAX INC: Calif. Wage and Hour Class Action Claims Ongoing
CBOE EXCHANGE: "Beck" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
CELGENE CORP: Warren City Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending

CENTENE CORP: Bid to Drop "Harvey" and "Milman" Suit Underway
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Accord for "Masters" Suit Underway
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Settlement Pending
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Tagalogon" Class Action

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Mediation Fails in "Zhang" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: June 13 Voluntary Mediation Set for 2 Cases
CHEETAH MOBILE: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Toss "Masterson" Suit
CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Pending
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Issued Remaining Fee Shares in Settlement

CHINA COMMERCIAL: Exchange Agreement with Sorghum Terminated
CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
COMPASS GROUP: "Valladares" Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
CONSOLIDATED SERVICES: Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages

CPFL ENERGY: Appeal in Sao Paulo Class Suit Still Pending
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit
CURBSTAND INC: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages & OT, Macias Says
DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. Affirms Final Judgment in 1st Bag Fee Suit

DEPOSITORY TRUST: "Sistrunk" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
DETROIT TRADING: Roudaut Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
DIRECTV LLC: Carter Files Suit Over Falsely Advertising
DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend "Lee" Class Suit
DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suits

DITECH HOLDING: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Elkin"
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Rossman" Suit in N.D. New York
ECOPETROL SA: Suit over Oil Spill Still on Probatory Stage
ECOPETROL SA: Evidence Gathering to Commence in BT Energy Suit
EMERGENT BUSINESS: Faces "Moon" Suit in New Jersey

EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Albelo" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Vance-Guerbe Sues over Collection of User Data
FBCS INC: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Williams Says
FILBEN GROUP: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST SOLAR: Appeals Court Denies Petition for Panel Rehearing

FITLIFE BRANDS: "Ryan" Class Action Underway in N.D. Calif.
FLORIDA: Davis, et al. Seek to Certify Class
FLOWERS FOODS: Wiatrek Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
FMS INC: Faces "Torres" Suit in D. New Jersey
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Accord in "Kalen" Suit Has Initial Okay

FUNKO INC: 7 Securities Class Suits Underway
GEFEN ACF: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
GENER8 MARITIME: "Fragpane" and "Mohr" Suits Underway in New York
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway
GLOBAL POWER: "Budde" Class Action Still Ongoing

HARDINGE INC: Reaches Accord to Resolve Shareholder Class Suit
HONOLULU, HI: Wants to Auction to Dispose Abandoned Vehicles
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Younge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
INTEGRATED TECH: Mendez & La Rosa Seek OT & Minimum Wages
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Appeal in NY ERISA Class Suit Pending

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Hearing on Summary Judgment Set for June 14
IZEA INC: Faces "Perez" Securities Class Action
J JILL INC: Pension Trust Suit Pending in Massachusetts
JENIN HOME: Underpays Staff, Ortiz Cortez Claims
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Says "Peters" Class Action Concluded

JPMORGAN CHASE: "Llordi" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
KIMBERLY CLARK: Continues to Defend Bahamas Surgery Center Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Agreement in Principle Reached in Easement Suits
KINDER MORGAN: Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation Still Ongoing
KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. Revives Class Suit by Natural Gas Buyers

LA QUNITA: Enters Into Memorandum of Understanding
LARCHWOOD HEALTH: Jackson Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
LE LABO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims
LM FUNDING: Plaintiffs Withdrew From Settlement Agreement
LONGFIN CORP: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in New York

LTD FINANCIAL: Dokes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
M & A AUTO: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in New Jersey
MACTANZ INC: Snider Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
MANAGEMENT SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Jackson Says

MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: "Esparza" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MATTERSIGHT CORP: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with NICE
MATTERSIGHT CORP: Ali Balks at Merger Deal With NICE
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
MDL 2741: "Klodzinski" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated

MERCHANTS CREDIT: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MEUNDIES INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Says
MGMERK STOCKING: Regis Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
MID-CONTINENT OIL: Castello Seeks to Certify Class

MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard
MICROSEMI CORP: Faces "Rubin" Class Action
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tipton Sues over Dicamba-Tolerant Crop System
MRS BPO: Rottenstein Sues over Debt Collections Practices
MY SIZE: Shareholders Class Action Still Pending

NAVIOS MARITIME: Time to Appeal Class Action Ruling Expired
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Doshi" Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Jackie888" Plaintiff Files Bid to Lift Stay
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Garbowski" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Amends "Wu" Class Action Complaint

ONE GROUP: Paid $200,000 to Resolve California Class Suit
ONE GROUP: Paid $200,000 Installment Payment in NY Class Suit
ORIGIN TAX: Showe-Gai Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
PALM BEACH, FL: Paulot Sues School District for Overtime Wage
PENSKE MOTOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium Wages, Yamak Says

PETROBRAS: Stichting Petrobras Class Action Still Ongoing
PETROBRAS: June 4 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Document Discovery to be Completed by July 18
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Balks at Bid to File 2nd Amended "Fuller" Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Oklahoma Suit by Chicken Farmers Still Pending

PIONEER CREDIT: Lafrenier Sues over Debt Collection Fee
PLY GEM: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Stockholders Suit
PNC BANK: Vare Sues over "Post-Payment" Interests on Loans
POLLACK & ROSEN: James Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Madinya Sues over Debt Collection Practices

PPG INDUSTRIES: "Riefe" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
PRIMERO MINING: Awaits Court Ruling on Appeal in Cal. Class Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend 3226701 Canada, Inc. Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Trial on Consumer Class Suit Set for Jan. 2019

QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending
REX ENERGY: Sept. 12 Supplemental Hearing on Class Cert. Bid
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces "Takata" Shareholder Suit in New Jersey
RLJ LODGING: Securities Suit in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed
ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Whitehead" Class Lawsuit Still Ongoing

RPM PIZZA: "Payne" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Faces "Torres" Suit in D. New Jersey
SAVANNAH, GA: "Milie" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
SEADRILL LTD: Suit over Rosneft Transaction Still Ongoing
SELLAS LIFE: Suit on Abstral(R) Promotional Practices Ongoing

SELLAS LIFE: Settlement Hearing to Continue, Court Says
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: "Renner" Class Suit Underway
SHELTER MUTUAL: "Whitaker" Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas
SIGMA DESIGNS: 3 Class Suits Underway in California
SINOVAC BIOTECH: Defends Class Lawsuit over Amalgamation Accord

SLDL LLC: Underpays Machine Operators, Rojas Claims
SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Proviso of "Garfield" Case Dismissal Okayed
STAGE STORES: Laman Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
STAMPS.COM INC: "Lopez" Class Action in Calif. Still Pending
STATEWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Carrick" Suit in E.D. New York

STATEWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York
SURGERY PARTNERS: Delaware Suit over New Preferred Shares Pending
SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending
SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Security Data Breach Suit Ongoing
SYNACOR INC: Disputes Claims in N.Y. Securities Class Litigation

TELENAV INC: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for Final Settlement Approval
TRANSUNION: "Walsh" Class Action Stayed
TRIBUNE MEDIA: MOU to Settle Individual Claims Still Underway
TWILIO INC: "Flowers" Class Suit Still Ongoing in Calif.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manning Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Motions for Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Pending
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces "Murray" Suit in C.D. California
UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Drop Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending
UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
VALE SA: Holders of Samarco Bonds File Suits in New York

VALE SA: Suit over Fundao Dam Collapse Still On Discovery
VALE SA: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Suit
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Incurs $1.5MM in Tobacco-Related Lawsuits
VECTOR GROUP: 80 Claims Still Pending in Engle Progeny Cases
VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Personal Injury Class Suit Remains Stayed

VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Personal Injury Class Suit Still Stayed
VECTOR GROUP: 65 Individual Tobacco Cases Pending vs. Liggett
VERU INC: Suit over Aspen Park Acquisition Still Ongoing
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Concluded
VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Amended "Goetz" Suit Still Pending

WALMART INC: "Velasquez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
WEI LING CHINESE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Pending
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Says Class Suits Remain Pending
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Shanklin" Suit

WILHELMINA INT'L: Little Now Sole Plaintiff in "Pressley" Suit
WMIH CORP: Faces "Franchi" Class Suit over Nationstar Merger Deal
XEROX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Relating to Fuji Transaction
XEROX CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Fund Appeals Case Dismissal
YELP INC: Securities Class Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.

ZTO EXPRESS: Stay of Birmingham Retirement System's Suit Lifted
ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Stay "Guo" and "McGrath" Suits Granted
ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Nurlybayev" Suit Pending


                            *********


21VIANET GROUP: Awaits Court Approval of Accord in "Singh" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
21Vianet Group, Inc. 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 lead plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement is still pending.

On September 12, 2014, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit against the company and its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer, Singh v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00894 (E.D. Tex.) (the "Singh Case"),
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

On September 17, 2014, another putative shareholder class action
against company and its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, Sun v. 21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 4:14-cv-2677 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Sun Case"), was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case allege that public
filings, press releases, financial statements and other related
disclosures made by company during the alleged class period
contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of
the federal securities laws, and that such public filings, press
releases, financial statements and other related disclosures
artificially inflated the value of the company's ADSs.

The complaints in the Singh Case and Sun Case state that
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related
to the company's ADSs from April 21, 2011 to September 10, 2014,
and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5 (2013).

On September 15, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating
the cases and on September 21, 2015, the court entered an order
appointing a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated
case. On September 13, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the company and certain of its personnel
seeking to represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered
damages as a result of their trading activities related to our
ADSs from August 20, 2013 to August 16, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, our company and one individual defendant
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 13,
2017, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a report
and recommendation, which recommended that the company and the
individual defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. On September
28, 2017, the Court issued an order adopting the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation and denying the company's and
the individual defendant's motion to dismiss.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement, requesting
that the Court a) preliminarily approve a settlement agreement
that the parties reached to settle the case for USD 9,000,000, b)
preliminarily certify the proposed settlement class, c) approve
the parties' proposed notice to the settlement class, and d) set
a hearing date at which the Court will consider final approval of
the settlement and entry of a proposed final judgment approving
class action settlement, the plan of allocation of settlement
proceeds, and lead counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. The lead plaintiff's unopposed
motion is currently pending before the Court.

21Vianet Group, Inc. provides carrier-neutral Internet data
center services to Internet companies, government entities, blue-
chip enterprises, and small-to mid-sized enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It offers hosting and related
services to house servers and networking equipment in its data
centers, and connects them through a data transmission network;
and other hosting related value-added services.


ADT INC: Perdomo Sues over January 2018 IPO
-------------------------------------------
JUAN PERDOMO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADT INC., APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
LLC, TIMOTHY J. WHALL, JEFFREY LIKOSAR, MARC E. BECKER, REED B.
RAYBIN, MATTHEW H. NORD, ANDREW D. AFRICK, ERIC L. PRESS, LEE J.
SOLOMON, STEPHANIE DRESCHER, BRETT WATSON, DAVID RYAN, and P.
GRAY FINNEY, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80668-DLB (S.D.
Fla., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired ADT common stock
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with ADT's January 2018 initial
public offering. The action asserts non-fraud, strict liability
claims under Securities Act of 1933, against ADT, certain ADT
officers and directors, and the sponsor of the IPO, Apollo Global
Management LLC.

ADT is a home security company taken private by Apollo Global in
May 2016, and quickly taken public again via the January 2018
IPO. ADT's common stock now trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker "ADT." In January 2018, the Defendants commenced
the IPO, issuing approximately 105 million shares of ADT common
stock to the investing public at $14 per share, all pursuant to
the Registration Statement.

The lawsuit contends that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to
make the statements made not misleading. With these
misrepresentations and omissions, the IPO was extremely lucrative
for Defendants, who raised more than $1.4 billion in gross
proceeds. But when the truth of Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions became known, the price of ADT shares suffered
sharp declines. By the commencement of this action, ADT shares
traded below $9 per share, an over 35% decline from the offering
price. All told, investor suffered hundreds of millions of
dollars in losses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357 2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200 8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

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


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Chancery Court Denies Bid to Expedite Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court has denied plaintiff's motion to expedite a
putative class action related to Albertsons Companies, Inc.'s
Rite Aid Merger, finding that plaintiff "failed to assert a
colorable claim" for relief, according to the Albertsons
Companies' Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended February 24, 2018.

On April 24, 2018, Mel Aklile, a Rite Aid stockholder, (the
"Plaintiff") brought a putative class action in Delaware Chancery
Court against Rite Aid, the Company, Merger Sub, Merger Sub II
and each of the Rite Aid directors (the "Director Defendants"),
Del. C.A. No. 2018-0305-AGB.  Mr. Aklile contends that Rite Aid
stockholders have appraisal rights under Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporate Law (the "DGCL") because,
notwithstanding that (i) Rite Aid stockholders are not required
to receive consideration other than shares of ACI common stock
(and cash in lieu of fractional shares, if any) in the merger and
shares of ACI common stock will be listed on the NYSE immediately
after the merger, and (ii) the election to receive cash
consideration is voluntary and dependent upon Rite Aid
stockholders' election (other than cash in lieu of fractional
shares, if any), the alleged disparity in value between the
additional cash consideration of US$0.1832 per share and the
additional stock exchange ratio of 0.0079 ACI common stock per
share of Rite Aid common stock amounts to a "false choice"
designed to deprive Rite Aid stockholders of their alleged
appraisal rights.

Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Director Defendants for their alleged failure to provide, and
inform Rite Aid stockholders of, their alleged statutory
appraisal rights under Delaware law and for allegedly falsely
informing Rite Aid stockholders that they will not have appraisal
rights.  Plaintiff further contends that the proxy
statement/prospectus filed by the Company on April 6, 2018 was
deficient under Section 262(d)(1) of the DGCL for failure to
inform stockholders of their alleged appraisal rights.

Mr. Aklile seeks declarations from the Chancery Court that the
action is a proper class action and that the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately inform
class members of their appraisal rights under Delaware law, to
enjoin the proposed action from closing until such time as class
members are afforded the ability to seek appraisal of their
shares, or otherwise permit class members to petition the Court
for appraisal, and attorneys, fees, expenses and costs to
plaintiff.

Defendants oppose plaintiffs claims on the ground that Rite Aid
stockholders have no right of appraisal under the DGCL because
they have a right to receive all stock consideration as described
in the proxy statement/prospectus filed by the Company on April
6, 2018.  Defendants intend to seek to dismiss the claims against
them by bringing a dispositive motion and to otherwise vigorously
defend against this action.

On May 7, 2018, the Chancery Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's
motion to expedite and for a preliminary injunction.  The
Chancery Court denied plaintiff's motion to expedite, finding
that plaintiff failed to assert a colorable claim for relief.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is one of the largest food and drug
retailers in the United States, with both strong local presence
and national scale.  The Company also manufactures and processes
some of the food for sale in its stores.


ALLIANCE MMA: Parties in "Shapiro" Suit Reached Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Alliance MMA, 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, Shapiro v.
Alliance MMA, Inc., have reached a settlement.

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

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

In July 2017, the plaintiffs in the New York action voluntarily
dismissed their claim and, on March 8, 2018, the parties reached
a settlement to the New Jersey action in which the carrier for
the company's directors and officers liability insurance policy
has agreed to cover Alliance's financial obligations, including
legal fees, under the settlement arrangement, less a deductible
of $250,000.

Alliance MMA, Inc. is a sports media company that operates a
regional mixed martial arts ("MMA") promotion business under the
Alliance MMA name as well as under the trade names of the
regional promoters that the company owns and operates.


AMICA MUTUAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Bonin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEREDITH BONIN, on behalf of Herself and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10434-ADB
(D. Mass.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement;

   2. certifying settlement Class of:

      "all person (1) who brought a claim under a Subject Policy
      between December 30, 2008 and April 30, 2018, (2) who
      received at least $2000 in personal injury protection
      payments under the Subject Policy, and (3) claim is
      identified as closed in Amica's records";

   3. appointing Connor, Morneau & Olin, LLP and Manelis &
      Beresen as Class Counsel with respect to the settlement of
      this action;

   4. appointing Meredith Bonin as Class Representative with
      respect to the settlement of the action; and

   5. approving Amica as the Claims Administrator.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wk8PcbC3


AMTRUST FIN'L: Rabinowitz Balks at Merger Deal with Stone Point
---------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY RABINOWITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, DONALD T. DECARLO, SUSAN C. FISCH,
ABRAHAM GULKOWITZ, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, LEAH KARFUNKEL, RAUL RIVERA,
EVERGREEN PARENT, L.P., EVERGREEN MERGER SUB, INC., and STONE
POINT CAPITAL LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04484
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the Defendants and their counsel, agents, employees and
all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction, unless and until Defendants disclose the material
information which has been omitted from a proxy, and in the event
that the transaction is consummated prior to the entry of this
Court's final judgment, rescinding it or awarding Plaintiff and
the Class rescissory damages.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. against
AmTrust's Board of Directors for their violations of Section
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising
out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Stone Point
Capital LLC through its affiliate Evergreen Parent, L.P. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Evergreen Merger Sub, Inc.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading definitive proxy statement
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2018. The Proxy recommends that AmTrust stockholders vote in
favor of a proposed transaction whereby AmTrust is acquired by
Stone Point. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on
March 1, 2018, when AmTrust and Stone Point announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Stone Point will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of AmTrust for $13.50 per share. The Karfunkel-Zyskind
Family has agreed to rollover their AmTrust shares into ownership
interests in Evergreen.

The Proposed Transaction is not fair to AmTrust's stockholders.
The Karfunkel-Zyskind Family exerted its control over the Company
to ensure that the Special Committee agreed to the Proposed
Transaction. And while the Proposed Transaction values the
Company at approximately $2.7 billion, the Special Committee's
financial advisor, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., calculated an
implied per share equity value as high as $19.51.

Furthermore, the Proxy is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the sales process and the financial projections
prepared by AmTrust management.

AmTrust Financial is a New York City-based multinational property
and casualty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514
          E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com
                  drl@rowleylawpllc.com


AMYRIS INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Calif. Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, 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 an order of dismissal has been entered on
the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal of a class action
lawsuit without prejudice.

In April 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, and CFO, Kathleen
Valiasek, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class that would comprise all individuals who
acquired the Company's common stock between March 2, 2017 and
April 17, 2017. The complaint alleged securities law violations
based on statements made by the Company in its earnings press
release issued on March 2, 2017 and Form 12b-25 filed with the
SEC on April 3, 2017.

On September 21, 2017, an Order of Dismissal was entered on the
plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

Amyris, Inc. is an industrial biotechnology company that applies
its technology platform to engineer, manufacture and sells high
performance, natural, sustainably sourced products into the
Health & Wellness, Clean Skincare, and Flavors & Fragrances
markets. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


ARS NATIONAL: "Hertzovitz" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Jennifer E. Hertzovitz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS
National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 612104/2017 was
brought before the New York Supreme Court on May 15, 2018.

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks;
and credit card companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   MITCHELL L. PASHKIN, ESQ.
   775 PARK AVE, SUITE 255
   HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 629-7709

The Defendant is represented by:

   FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS ESQ
   1370 BROADWAY, STE 539
   NEW YORK, NY 10018
   Tel: (646) 380-1967


ATLANTIC ACQUISITION: HDMI Settlement Receives Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Acquisition Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company has received
preliminary approval of a settlement by the court.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit regarding
the Company's HDMI cables. The complaint alleges that the Company
misrepresented certain facts regarding the minimum bandwidth
required to operate certain 1080p and 4k video components.
Plaintiffs brought claims alleging violation of Illinois and
California consumer protection statues. The California case was
stayed, and the case proceeded in Illinois.

Based on the issues and submissions of the parties, the Company
received preliminary approval of a settlement by the court on
March 5, 2018.

The proposed settlement includes $300,000 paid to the Plaintiff's
attorney in August of 2018, opening a claims resource whereby
individuals can process claims based on cable type for
replacement or discounts or payments of $20, $15 and $10
depending on the cable. The estimate for this portion based on
cable sales would be approximately $175,000.


ATRIA SENIOR: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atria Senior
Living, Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atria
Senior Living, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04329 (S.D.
N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Atria Senior Living is a privately held, for-profit senior
housing company based in Louisville, Kentucky.  The company
operates more than 190 communities in 28 states and seven
Canadian provinces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AXA EQUITABLE: Ross and Yarbrough Fail to File Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the
cases entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and
Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company,
failed to file an appeal from the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Second Circuit affirming the decisions of the
district court.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, now entitled Ross v.
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative
class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between
2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased,
renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA
Equitable (the "Policies").

The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its
New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the
collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an
omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its
"financial condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit
seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law
of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the
relevant period. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In April 2015, a second action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York was filed on behalf
of a putative class of variable annuity holders with "Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially
the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as the Ross
action. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the
Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as the Ross litigation.

In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs motion
to consolidate their appeals but ordered that the appeals be
heard together before a single panel of judges. In February 2017,
the Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court
in favor of AXA Equitable, and that decision is now final because
the plaintiffs failed to file a further appeal.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is one of America's leading
financial services companies, providing (i) advice and solutions
for helping Americans set and meet their retirement goals and
protect and transfer their wealth across generations and (ii) a
wide range of investment management insights, expertise and
innovations to drive better investment decisions and outcomes for
clients worldwide. The company is based in New York.


AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend "O'Donnell" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, entitled Richard T.
O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Camden County entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on
behalf of all AXA Equitable variable life insurance policyholders
who allocated funds from their policy accounts to investments in
AXA Equitable's Separate Accounts, which were subsequently
subjected to the volatility management strategy and who suffered
injury as a result thereof.

The action asserts that AXA Equitable breached its variable life
insurance contracts by implementing the volatility management
strategy. In February 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint. In
March 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In August 2015, another lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T.
O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a
putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
variable annuities from AXA Equitable, which were subsequently
subjected to the volatility management strategy and who suffered
injury as a result thereof.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy in
violation of applicable law. In November 2015, the Connecticut
Federal District Court transferred this action to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted AXA
Equitable's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April 2018, the appellate
court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case
back to Connecticut state court.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said "We are vigorously
defending these matters."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is one of America's leading
financial services companies, providing (i) advice and solutions
for helping Americans set and meet their retirement goals and
protect and transfer their wealth across generations and (ii) a
wide range of investment management insights, expertise and
innovations to drive better investment decisions and outcomes for
clients worldwide. The company is based in New York.


AXA EQUITABLE: "Brach" Suit Consolidated With Others
----------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court in the
"Brach" class action lawsuit has entered an order consolidating
the "Brach" case and the other putative class action for all
purposes and has also ordered that the three individual actions
be consolidated with the Brach litigation for the purposes of
coordinating pre-trial activities.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled
Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on
behalf of all owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to
AXA Equitable's COI increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised
COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007,
which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value
amount of $1 million and above.

The current complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract and
a claim that AXA Equitable made misrepresentations in violation
of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law ("Section 4226").
Plaintiff seeks (a) with respect to its breach of contract claim,
compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and (b) with respect to its claim concerning Section
4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiff
and the putative class.

AXA Equitable's response to the complaint was filed in February
2017. Additionally, a separate putative class action and seven
individual actions challenging the COI increase have been filed
against AXA Equitable in Federal or State courts.

Within that group, all of the outstanding Federal actions (the
second putative class action and three individual actions) have
been transferred to the Federal court where the Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. litigation is pending. In October 2017, the
Brach court entered an order consolidating the Brach class action
and the other putative class action for all purposes and has also
ordered that the three individual actions be consolidated with
the Brach litigation for the purposes of coordinating pre-trial
activities.

AXA Equitable Life said "We are in various stages of motion
practice in each of these matters and are vigorously defending
them."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is one of America's leading
financial services companies, providing (i) advice and solutions
for helping Americans set and meet their retirement goals and
protect and transfer their wealth across generations and (ii) a
wide range of investment management insights, expertise and
innovations to drive better investment decisions and outcomes for
clients worldwide. The company is based in New York.


AZZ INC: "Mullins" Class Action Underway in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2017, that the company is facing a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled, Logan
Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al.

On May 9, 2018, a Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding the
Motion to Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Approval
of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel was filed by IBEW
Local 353 Pension Plan.

On January 11, 2018, Logan Mullins, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and
January 8, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the
Company and two of its executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and
Paul W. Fehlman. Logan Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00025-Y.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by the Company's alleged failure to properly
recognize revenue related to certain contracts in its Energy
Segment in purported violation of (1) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive
damages, interests, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company denies the allegations and believes it has strong
defenses to vigorously contest them. The Company cannot predict
the outcome of this action nor when it will be resolved. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail in this matter, the Company could be
liable for damages, which could potentially be material and could
adversely affect its financial condition or results of
operations.

AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing services, welding solutions,
specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered services to
the power generation, transmission, distribution, refining, and
industrial markets. The company operates through two segments,
Energy and Galvanizing Services. The company is based in Fort
Worth, Texas.


BABYLON TOWNHOUSE: Norris Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JILL NORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BABYLON TOWNHOUSE DINER CORP. d/b/a
INFINITY DINER, and ANTONIS SKALIOTIS, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03051 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid full minimum wage for Plaintiff and
similarly situated servers who have worked for the Defendants,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers with proper notice of
the tipped minimum wage and its requirements. Defendants rely on
a "tip credit" to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers
the "tipped minimum wage" as opposed to the full minimum wage.

The Defendants have a policy or plan requiring Plaintiff and
similarly situated coworkers to spend over 20 percent of their
time performing work unrelated to serving customers, and failed
to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers at the
full minimum wage rate for all workdays where they spent over 20
percent of their workday completing un-tipped side-work.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective Class:

          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499 9100


BIOGEN INC: Massachusetts Suit Dismissed by Court
-------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Massachusetts court has dismissed a
shareholder complaint.

The company and certain current and former officers are
defendants in an action filed by a shareholder in October 2016 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C
Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5
and seeking a declaration of the action as a class action and an
award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In March 2018 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made
at this time.

Biogen is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, developing and delivering worldwide innovative
therapies for people living with serious neurological and
neurodegenerative diseases, including in our core growth areas of
multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuroimmunology, Alzheimer's disease
(AD) and dementia, movement disorders and neuromuscular
disorders, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).


BIOGENETIC LABORATORIES: "Fahey" Mislabeling Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FitLife Brands, 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 case captioned, Fahey vs. BioGenetic
Laboratories, Inc., et al., has been dismissed.

On February 28, 2017, Kevin Fahey, through his attorney, and on
behalf of himself and the citizens of the District of Columbia,
filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia Civil Division captioned Fahey vs. BioGenetic
Laboratories, Inc., et al., case No.2017 CA 001240.

The Complaint was filed against BioGenetics, a brand of the
Company's iSatori division, and various GNC entities. Fahey
asserts in his Complaint that the labeling and marketing
materials of the product HCG Activator are fraudulent, false and
misleading with respect to certain weight loss and hunger
suppression claims. Fahey claims these actions violate the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act Section
28-3901 et seq., and has asked the court for direct treble
damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. This matter was resolved and the
lawsuit was dismissed June 27, 2017.

The resolution did not have a material impact on the Company, its
financial condition or results from operations.

FitLife Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets nutritional
supplements for health conscious consumers in the United States
and internationally. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


BRANDYWINE SENIOR: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brandywine Senior
Living LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Brandywine Senior Living LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04331
(S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Brandywine Senior Living, LLC provides healthcare services. The
Company offers assisted living, individual assessments,
medication administration, health monitoring, dementia and memory
care, rehabilitation, dining, senior concierge, and skilled
nursing services.  Brandywine Senior Living serves patients in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRONXWOOD HOME: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bronxwood Home For
the Aged, Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bronxwood Home For the Aged, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04334 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Bronxwood Home For The Aged, Inc. is a home care provider that
services Bronx, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Beiner Files Suit Over Date Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Beiner and Brandon Haubert, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cambridge Analytica
LLC, Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg and John and Jane Does 1-
100, Case No. 18-cv-01953, (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2018), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986,
Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Plaintiffs are registered voters in the North District of
Illinois. They allege that the Defendants engaged in data mining,
data brokerage, and data analysis for the purpose of influencing
the 2016 electoral process, using the personal information of
millions of Facebook users to influence the 2016 United States
presidential election. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Rudolph, Esq.
      Melissa Gardner, Esq.
      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              drudolph@lchb.com
              mgardner@lchb.com

              - and -

      Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      Email: ndiamand@lchb.com

             - and -

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      Allen Carney, Esq.
      David Slade, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 West 7th Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
             acarney@cbplaw.com
             dslade@cbplaw.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICIA MERKOVICH and ANNE O'BOYLE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00786-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l6rgFVy7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CARMAX INC: Calif. Wage and Hour Class Action Claims Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2018, that the company continues to defend four
putative class action suits asserting wage and hour claims with
respect to CarMax sales consultants in California.

CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in
California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum
wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/
contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and
provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition;
and Private Attorney General Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The
Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax, Inc. delivers an unrivaled customer experience by
offering a broad selection of quality used vehicles and related
products and services at low, no-haggle prices using a customer-
friendly sales process in an attractive, modern sales facility,
as well as through carmax.com and its mobile apps. The company is
based in Richmond, Virginia.


CBOE EXCHANGE: "Beck" Alleges Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Beck, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., CBOE Global Markets,
Inc., CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, and John Does, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-02304 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2018), seeks treble damages
arising out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of
financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options
Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act and the
Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the
placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were
intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices
to spike artificially.

Volatility Index is a benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets,
Inc. It purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap
U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future.

Beck transacted in VIX-linked products.

John Does are a group of financial institutions, market makers,
and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Plaintiffs
will be able to identify Defendants through discovery and will
request leave to amend this complaint upon learning the identity
of Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     P.O. Box 487
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Tel: (618) 307-6116
     Fax: (618) 307-6161
     Email: dyb@mccunewright.com

            - and -

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Tel: (909) 557-1250
     Fax: (909) 557-1275
     Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
            dcw@mccunewright.com


CELGENE CORP: Warren City Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Celgene Corporation, Mark J. Alles, Peter N. Kellogg, Scott A.
Smith, Nadim Ahmed and Terrie Curran, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
04772 (D. N.J., March 29, 2018), seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Celgene is a biotechnology company that specializes in the
discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. On February 27,
2018, Celgene announced that the FDA had issued a Refusal to File
letter for its developmental multiple sclerosis treatment,
Ozanimod, citing both the nonclinical and clinical pharmacology
sections in its New Drug Application as insufficient to permit a
complete review. On this news, the price of Celgene stock dropped
9%, or $8.66 per share, to close at $87.12 per share on February
28, 2018.

City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System purchased
Celgene common stock and lost upon devaluation of their said
shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173

             - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423


CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting a court ruling on
its motion to dismiss.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court
entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the
lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related
disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition
of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September
2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject
to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long
this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be,
and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a
materially adverse impact on our financial position and results
of operations.

Centene Corporation is a diversified, multi-national healthcare
enterprise that provides services to government sponsored and
commercial healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and
uninsured individuals. The company provides member-focused
services through locally based staff by assisting in accessing
care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. The
company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE CORP: Bid to Drop "Harvey" and "Milman" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has sought dismissal of a class
action suit by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman.

On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and
certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company
failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider
networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies,
denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and
failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to
incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate
motions to dismiss each defendant.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many
uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a
materially adverse impact on our financial position and results
of operations.

Centene Corporation is a diversified, multi-national healthcare
enterprise that provides services to government sponsored and
commercial healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and
uninsured individuals. The company provides member-focused
services through locally based staff by assisting in accessing
care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. The
company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TROY NORTON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
PORTFOLIO CONTROL INC., ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORPORATION, and
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00787-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DcOkr1V3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Accord for "Masters" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative agreement of The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated
with parties in the "Masters" class action suit remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 3, 2018.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.  On March 2, 2015,
Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned
a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior
Court.

On June 27, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related.  On May 23, 2017,
the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded
without resolution.  Subsequent to the plaintiff filing a second
amended complaint on July 14, 2017, the parties agreed to resume
mediation.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and
other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other
purported class members.  The parties resumed mediation on
February 13, 2018 and reached a tentative settlement subject to
documentation and court approval.

The Company said, "Based upon the current status of this matter,
we have reserved an immaterial amount."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States.  The Company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors.
The Cheesecake Factory branded restaurants under licensing
agreements internationally.  The company was founded in 1972 and
is headquartered in Calabasas, California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement reached in the case styled Guglielmo v.
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 2:15-
CV-03117, remains subject to documentation and court approval,
according to The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2018.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated
the State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions.

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against
opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements.  On July 21,
2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the
parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow
the case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited
number of the Company's restaurants in the State of New York.

On July 31, 2017, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation, which concluded without resolution.

On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement
subject to documentation and court approval.

The Company said, "Based upon the current status of this matter,
we have reserved an immaterial amount."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States.  The Company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors.
The Cheesecake Factory branded restaurants under licensing
agreements internationally.  The company was founded in 1972 and
is headquartered in Calabasas, California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends "Tagalogon" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated still defends itself in the
class action lawsuit styled Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 11, 2018, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2018.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee
filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its
managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to
provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments.

On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status
conference statement at which time the Company gave notice to the
court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be
related.  On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to
the complaint.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action.
However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter and,
accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States.  The Company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors.
The Cheesecake Factory branded restaurants under licensing
agreements internationally.  The company was founded in 1972 and
is headquartered in Calabasas, California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Mediation Fails in "Zhang" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
An April 3, 2018 voluntary mediation for the consolidated "Zhang"
lawsuit had "concluded without resolution," according to The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2018.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act, by failing to properly censor consumer credit or
debit card information.  (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated; Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM).

On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional
lawsuits were filed in California and New York, respectively,
alleging similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM.  (Tibbits
v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968
(E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No
8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)).

The Company filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No. 0:17-
cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to
transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017.

On October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted the Company's
motion to transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be
consolidated with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357, and the plaintiff filed
a motion for reconsideration thereof.  The plaintiff in Case No.
1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case to California and such
matter was subsequently consolidated with Case No 8:17-cv-00357.

On April 3, 2018, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation, which concluded without resolution.  These lawsuits
seek unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary
payments.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend these actions.
However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the outcome of or any potential liability from these matters and,
accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States.  The Company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors.
The Cheesecake Factory branded restaurants under licensing
agreements internationally.  The company was founded in 1972 and
is headquartered in Calabasas, California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: June 13 Voluntary Mediation Set for 2 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in two consolidated lawsuits in California are
scheduled to participate in voluntary mediation on June 13, 2018,
according to The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2018.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by
failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to
provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-
2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL).

On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No. 37-2016-
00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL).

The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos. 37-
2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL.  The
parties are scheduled to participate in voluntary mediation in
the two consolidated cases on June 13, 2018.  These lawsuits seek
unspecified penalties under the California Private Attorneys'
General Act in addition to other monetary payments.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend these actions.
Based upon the current status of these matters, we have reserved
an immaterial amount."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States.  The Company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors.
The Cheesecake Factory branded restaurants under licensing
agreements internationally.  The company was founded in 1972 and
is headquartered in Calabasas, California.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Toss "Masterson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. 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 is awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss in a putative shareholder class action
suit entitled, Michael Masterson v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al.

Judge Manuel L. Real held in an Order dated May 2, 2018, that the
Court has determined that Defendant Cheetah Mobile Inc.'s Motion
to Dismiss case set for hearing on May 7 at 10:00 a.m. is
suitable for a decision on the papers as filed by all parties
without the need for oral argument.  Therefore, the Motion to
Dismiss was taken under submission on the papers as filed and the
May 7 hearing date was vacated and taken off calendar.  The Court
said it will issue its ruling on the matter in due course.

On November 8, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers: Michael Masterson v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al., Case
No. 17-cv-08141 7952-R-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

This putative shareholder class action lawsuit's complaint
alleges that certain press releases and SEC filings made by the
company between April 26, 2017 and October 25, 2017 relating to
its business and operating results contained false or misleading
statements in violation of the federal securities laws. On
January 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of choice of counsel, which
motion remains pending before the court.

On January 25, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On February 15, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the company and certain of its officers, which
asserts that certain press releases and SEC filings made by the
company between May 8, 2014 and October 25, 2017 relating to the
company's business and operating results contained false or
misleading statements and alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 1, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which motion is pending before the court.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates a platform that offers mobile and
personal computer (PC) applications for its users and global
content promotional channels.


CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. 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 lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit has filed a motion to certify a class
consisting of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between June 30,
2010 and March 18, 2015, and the motion remains pending before
the court.

Since October 2015, a consolidated class action lawsuit has been
pending against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the
U.S. securities laws in connection with the subject matter of the
investigations described above.  The complaint alleges that
certain statements made by the Company, principally in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, were materially false
and/or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint challenges certain of the Company's
statements concerning its compliance with applicable laws and
regulations; the effectiveness of its internal controls; its
adoption of a code of ethics consistent with SEC requirements;
its revenues and taxes owed; and its compliance with applicable
accounting standards. The complaint also alleges that the Company
made inadequate disclosures concerning the status of the Corfo
litigation described below. The lead plaintiff seeks damages of
an undetermined amount to recover the economic losses allegedly
suffered by the class as a result of the challenged statements.

On March 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or,
alternatively, pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Briefing on that motion to
dismiss was completed on June 29, 2016. On March 28, 2017, the
district court issued an opinion and order denying in part and
granting in part the motion to dismiss. The district court denied
the motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens;
denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with
respect to the statements concerning legal compliance, internal
controls, and financial reporting and accounting; and granted the
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to
the statements concerning the Company's code of ethics and the
status of the Corfo litigation.

On January 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify
a class consisting of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between
June 30, 2010 and March 18, 2015, and such motion remains pending
before the court.

Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. is a Chilean chemical
company and a supplier of plant nutrients, iodine, lithium and
industrial chemicals. It is the world's biggest lithium producer.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Issued Remaining Fee Shares in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, 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 237,500 of plaintiff
attorney fee shares have been issued to plaintiff's attorney's
broker account.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers.

The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company and its
current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi,
Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy
violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in prior
public filings certain material facts about the risks associated
with its loan guarantee business.

On October 2, 2014, purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv
Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims
against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned
Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of
damages sought.

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

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

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

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

On November 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to settle the
Securities Class Action. The Stipulation resolves the claims
asserted against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the Securities Class Action
without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by
the Company or the other defendants. The Stipulation also
provides, among other things, a settlement payment by the Company
of $245,000 in cash and the issuance of 950,000 shares of its
common stock (the "Settlement Shares") to the plaintiff's counsel
and class members. The terms of the Stipulation were subject to
approval by the Court following notice to all class members. The
issuance of the Settlement Shares are exempt from registration
pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

A fairness hearing was held on May 30, 2017, and the Court
approved the settlement. On December 22, 2017, the Court entered
a distribution order approving the distribution of the Settlement
Stock to the class plaintiffs. The $245,000 cash portion of the
settlement has been paid in full. The 712,500 Class Settlement
Shares were issued on or about January 19, 2018. The settlement
has been finalized, and that thereafter there are no remaining
claims outstanding as against the Company with respect to this
litigation. On April 10, 2018, the 237,500 of plaintiff attorney
fee shares were issued to plaintiff's attorney's broker account.

Two of the Underwriter Defendants, Axiom Capital Management,
Inc., and ViewTrade Securities, Inc., have asserted their
respective rights to indemnification under the Underwriting
Agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering. On or about March 16,
2016, CCCR entered into an Advance Funding and Escrow Agreement
("Advance Funding Agreement"), under which the CCCR agreed to
deposit shares into escrow to fund the advancement obligation,
with the initial deposit to be 637,592 shares which was valued at
Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), based upon 80% of the 30
day volume weighted average trading price for each of the 30
consecutive trading days prior to the date of the agreement.

As of the completion of the settlement, an aggregate of 527,078
shares are unused in the escrow account and the Underwriter
Defendants acknowledged there is no additional payment of fees
and expenses owed to the Underwriter Defendants and the Advance
Funding Agreement shall be terminated. The Company has instructed
the transfer agent to cancel the 527,078 shares and return them
to authorized shares. As of the date of this Annual Report, the
Company is working with its counsel and the escrow agent to
complete such cancelation.

China Commercial Credit, Inc., is a financial services firm
operating in China. The company's mission is to fill the
significant void in the market place by offering lending,
financial guarantee and financial leasing products and services
to a target market which has been significantly under-served by
the traditional Chinese financial community.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Exchange Agreement with Sorghum Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the company has advised the
plaintiff of the termination of the Exchange Agreement the
company entered with Sorghum Investment Holdings Limited.

The Company and its directors were party to a lawsuit filed on
September 1, 2017, by certain a stockholder of the Company on
behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of the
Company CCC in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware Chancery Court") (Case No. 2017-0633-JTL) (the
"Action"), Plaintiff stockholders which sought injunctive relief,
costs, and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff's Verified Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") alleged
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by failing to disclose all necessary
material information relating to the Company's entry into an the
Exchange Agreement ("Exchange Agreement") with Sorghum Investment
Holdings Limited ("Sorghum") on August 9, 2017, and preventing
the Company's stockholders from casting a fully informed vote on
the Company's acquisition of Sorghum, and other proposals
contained in the Company's preliminary proxy statement, dated
August 14, 2017 ("Preliminary Proxy Statement").

On October 10, 2017, the Company filed Amendment No. 1 to its
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Amended Preliminary Proxy")
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") in response to the Commission's September 8, 2017
comment letter ("Comment Letter"). After reviewing the Amended
Preliminary Proxy, Plaintiff determined that the Company's
Amended Preliminary Proxy rendered the claims asserted in
Plaintiff's Complaint moot and/or otherwise unsuitable for
further pursuit. On October 19, 2017, the Company and Plaintiff
entered into a stipulation ("Stipulation") wherein Plaintiff
agreed to voluntarily dismiss his claims against the Company, and
its directors, with prejudice.

The Delaware Chancery Court granted the Stipulation on October
20, 2017, and entered an Order dismissing the Action with
prejudice. In accordance with the Order, the Company will advise
the Delaware Chancery Court within fifteen (15) days of the
earlier of (a) the stockholder vote on the Exchange Agreement
relating to the proposals, or (b) the termination of the Exchange
Agreement, and whether the parties to the Action have reached an
agreement with respect to Plaintiff's anticipated request for
fees and expenses. Currently, no compensation in any form has
passed from the Company, or its directors, to Plaintiff or
Plaintiff's attorneys in the Action, and the Company has not made
a promise to give any such compensation.

On or about November 6, 2017, the Company filed Amendment No. 2
to its Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Commission in further
response to the Comment Letter. On December 29, 2017, the Company
received notice from Sorghum notifying the Company that the
Exchange Agreement is terminated. The Company advised Plaintiff
of the termination of the Exchange Agreement on January 9, 2018.

China Commercial Credit, Inc., is a financial services firm
operating in China. The company's mission is to fill the
significant void in the market place by offering lending,
financial guarantee and financial leasing products and services
to a target market which has been significantly under-served by
the traditional Chinese financial community.


CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00790-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZYkTAh8q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTION
ASSOCIATES, LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00792-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


COMPASS GROUP: "Valladares" Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nathalie Valladares, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Compass Group
USA, Inc., doing business as: Levy Restaurants at American
Airlines Arena, the Defendant, Case No. 18-013841-CA-010, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on May 23,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-22058-
KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Kathleen M. Williams.

Compass Group PLC is a world-leading food and support services
company whose history can be traced back over 60 years.[BN]

Attorneys for Nathalie Valladares and other similarly situated
individuals:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Compass Group USA, Inc.:

          Steven Adam Siegel, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4800
          Facsimile: (954) 525 8739
          E-mail: ssiegel@fisherphillips.com


CONSOLIDATED SERVICES: Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronson Caligone and Richard Esardial, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated
Services of North America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00982,
(S.D. Tex., March 29, 2018), to recover unpaid regular and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Consolidated Services specializes in heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning, refrigeration, plumbing and electrical services
where Caligone and Esardial worked as technician and electrician
respectively. They usually worked off-the-clock, but Defendants
would pay them only for the number of hours approved for the
individual repair. Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours per
week but were not paid overtime. Defendants allegedly manipulated
their time records to reflect fewer hours than they actually
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CPFL ENERGY: Appeal in Sao Paulo Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energy Inc. 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 is awaiting a court ruling on
the appeal made by the Consumer Protection Office (Promotoria de
Defesa do Consumidor - PROCON), in a class action suit filed in
the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

CPFL Paulista is a defendant in a class action suit commenced by
the Consumer Protection Office of Campinas in the State of Sao
Paulo, seeking to suspend the tariff adjustment authorized by
ANEEL for 2009.

CPFL Energy said, "The claim against us was rejected by the court
of first instance, but the Consumer Protection Office appealed
the decision. The tariff adjustment remains in force until a
ruling on appeal is made. We believe that the risk of loss in
these proceedings is possible and therefore have not recorded any
accounting provision in this respect."

CPFL Energy Inc. is a corporation (sociedade por acoes)
incorporated and existing under the laws of Brazil with the legal
name CPFL Energia S.A.  The company is a holding company that,
through our subsidiaries, distributes, generates, transmits and
commercializes electricity in Brazil as well as provides energy-
related services.


CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SEIT ALLA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT
ADJUSTMENTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00784-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iINFBUs2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend the Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs
to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification
decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case
to the District Court to reconsider its class certification
decision. On October 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order
denying class certification. The D.C. Circuit is reviewing the
court's denial of class certification. The District Court had
delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome
of the class certification remand proceedings, and has not yet
issued a further schedule in light of the order denying class
certification and the related appeal.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe,
and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision
on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
in that particular period.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides rail-
based transportation services in the United States and Canada.
The company offers rail services, as well as transports
intermodal containers and trailers. The company is based in
Jacksonville, Florida.


CURBSTAND INC: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages & OT, Macias Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO MACIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the California general public; JAVIER
MONCADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the California general public; DIEGO PRADA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the California general public, the Plaintiffs, v. CURBSTAND,
INC., a Delaware corporation; SERGE R. GOJKOVICH; ARYA ALEXANDER;
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC706911
(Cal. Super Ct., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class
the overtime rate required by Industrial Welfare Commission Order
and Labor Code by, among other things, only paying Plaintiffs and
the Class their regular hourly rate for the overtime hours
Plaintiffs and the Class worked; and failed to have a meal and
rest period policy, failed to provide meal and rest periods
required by law, and failed to pay additional hour of wages
(premium wages) they are owed under Labor Code.

CurbStand is a modern payment and specialty services platform for
the valet parking industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. Affirms Final Judgment in 1st Bag Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the final judgment made by the U.S. District
Court of Northern District of Georgia in the case related to the
First Bag Fee Antitrust Suit.

In May-July 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust
lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran Airways
("AirTran"), alleging that Delta and AirTran engaged in collusive
behavior in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in November
2008 based upon certain public statements made in October 2008 by
AirTran's CEO at an analyst conference concerning fees for the
first checked bag, Delta's imposition of a fee for the first
checked bag on November 4, 2008 and AirTran's imposition of a
similar fee on November 12, 2008.

The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after
December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified
treble damages. All of these cases were consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia.

On March 29, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment. On March 9, 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this final judgment.
The time period for further appeal has not yet expired.

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


DEPOSITORY TRUST: "Sistrunk" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Sistrunk, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
18-CA-3841, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on May 22, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01228-MSS-AAS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary S.
Scriven.

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is an American post-trade
financial services company providing clearing and settlement
services to the financial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Matthew Triggs, Esq.
          Michelle A. Gyves, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
          Suite 421 Atrium
          2255 Glades Rd
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7360
          Telephone: (561) 241 7400
          Facsimile: (561) 241 7145
          E-mail: mtriggs@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Pearlman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          233 S Wacker Dr Ste 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460 5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460 7000
          E-mail: spearlman@seyfarth.com


DETROIT TRADING: Roudaut Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Roudaut, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Detroit Trading Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02315-LMM (N.D. Ga., May 21, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing to send text messages
to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, and from sending text
messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers by using an
automatic telephone dialing system without the prior express
consent of the consumers, and from committing further violations
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on or about May 21, 2017 and May 31,
2017, the Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (404) 444-xxxx-a number for
which Plaintiff is the subscriber and customary user.  The
Defendant's first text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number stated: "Thank you for Subscribing to Our Auto Program.
Get a Fast & Simple FREE New Car Quote http://goo.gl/ekcnty.Text
Help for Help or Stop to Stop".

The Plaintiff suffered harm as a result of Defendant's text
messages to her cellular telephone number in that she suffered an
invasion of her privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a
private nuisance.

The Defendant is an automotive marketing company with its
principal office located in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          NORCROSS LAW FIRM
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395 7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929 2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


DIRECTV LLC: Carter Files Suit Over Falsely Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Carter, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DirecTV, LLC
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00534 (E.D.
Cal., March 29, 2018), seeks full restitution of all funds
acquired from charging fees and taxes; punitive and all statutory
enhanced damages; reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and
cost; prejudgment and post-judgment interest and all other
relief, general or special, legal and equitable, for violation of
the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

DirecTV allegedly made falsely advertising that customers who
signed up and/or paid for DirecTV television service would
receive Visa Gift Cards in excess of $100 and two years of NFL
Sunday Ticket for free. Plaintiffs signed up and/or paid for
DirecTV television service but received only $100 in Visa Gift
Cards and did not receive NFL Sunday Ticket programming for free,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend "Lee" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action entitled, Kamimura, Lee C. v.
Green Tree Servicing LLC

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April
8, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
Ditech Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action
suit alleging FCRA violations by obtaining credit bureau
information without a permissible purpose after the discharge of
debt owed to Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages,
statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

Ditech Holding Corporation is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for GSEs, government
agencies, third-party securitization trusts and other credit
owners. The company is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DITECH HOLDING: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to
defend several putative class action suits in violation of
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ditech Financial is subject to several putative class action
suits alleging violations of the TCPA for placing phone calls to
plaintiffs' cell phones using an automatic telephone dialing
system without their prior consent. The plaintiffs in these
suits, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
seek statutory damages for both negligent and knowing or willful
violations of the TCPA.

Ditech Holding Corporation is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for GSEs, government
agencies, third-party securitization trusts and other credit
owners. The company is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DITECH HOLDING: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Elkin"
---------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding 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 parties in the case,
Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
have reached an agreement in principle to settle for $2.95
million.

A federal securities fraud complaint was filed against the
Company, George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon, Anthony N. Renzi, and
Gary L. Tillett on March 16, 2017. The case, captioned Courtney
Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02025-JCJ, is pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff in the
action who filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2017.

The amended complaint seeks monetary damages and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act during a class
period alleged to begin on August 9, 2016 and conclude on August
1, 2017.  According to the company, "the amended complaint
alleges that: (i) defendants made material misstatements about
the value of our deferred tax assets; (ii) the material
misstatement about the value of our deferred tax assets required
us to restate certain financials in our Quarterly Reports on Form
10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 2016, September 30, 2016 and
March 30, 2017 and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2016, and caused us to violate the financial
covenants and obligations in agreements with our lenders and
GSEs; and (iii) defendants made material misstatements concerning
our initiatives to deleverage our capital structure."

On November 3, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
defendant Denmar J. Dixon from the action. On November 14, 2017,
the remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
From December 1, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the action was stayed
pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 15,
2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action for $2.95 million subject to the negotiation of a formal
settlement agreement, notice to the alleged class, and court
approval. The settlement, if completed, is to be paid in part by
us and in part by our directors' and officers' insurance carrier.

Ditech Holding Corporation is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for GSEs, government
agencies, third-party securitization trusts and other credit
owners. The company is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Rossman" Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General
Corporation. The case is styled as Jennifer Rossman, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp of New York, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00573-FJS-TWD (N.D. N.Y., May 15,
2018).

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. As of August 2017,
Dollar General operated over 13,000 stores in 44 of the 48
contiguous United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jennifer J. Monthie, Esq.
   725 Broadway, Suite 450
   Albany, NY 12207
   Tel: (518) 432-7861
   Fax: (518) 427-6561
   Email: jennifer.monthie@disabilityrightsny.org

      - and -

   Ryan J. McDonald, Esq.
   44 Exchange Boulevard, Suite 110
   Rochester, NY 14614
   Tel: (518) 432-7861
   Fax: (518) 427-6561
   Email: ryan.mcdonald@drny.org


ECOPETROL SA: Suit over Oil Spill Still on Probatory Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. 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 suit related to Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil
Pipeline Spill.

On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline
ruptured and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of
crude oil into the Iscala creek, which connects with the
Pamplonita River that provides water to the city of Cucuta. The
incident did not cause any fatalities or injuries.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in the
probatory stage.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil company. It operates
through three segments: Exploration and Production; Transport and
Logistics; and Refining, Petrochemical and Biofuels. The company
produces crude oil and gas; and engages in the extraction,
collection, treatment, storage and pumping, or compression of
hydrocarbons.


ECOPETROL SA: Evidence Gathering to Commence in BT Energy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. 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 evidence gathering process is scheduled
to commence in the class action suit related to the loading
incident in the BT Energy Challenger vessel.

On October 22, 2014, the company was served with a class action
suit against it seeking monetary damages of approximately COP$7.4
trillion related to an incident that occurred on August 21, 2014,
during the loading operations of the BT Energy Challenger vessel.

The claimants alleged possible damage to the port area of
Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine and
submarine areas and beaches that form the geographical area of
the Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under
investigation by the Harbor Master of Covenas. Ecopetrol filed a
motion requesting the judge to require the claimants to amend
their claim to more precisely set forth the facts and evidence it
believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability.

On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol filed its statement of defense
arguing the exclusive fault of a third party. On October 20,
2015, the Court denied a class action of more than 100 informal
traders in the region because there is no common identity with
the initial class (hotel employees). However, during 2016 the
Sucre Administrative Tribunal accepted another 1208 informal
traders and fishermen as claimants.

On March 10, 2017, a mandatory conciliatory hearing was held in
order to seek an agreement but it failed.

In January 2018, a judicial order was issued to commence the
evidence gathering process, a decision which was objected by the
parties.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil company. It operates
through three segments: Exploration and Production; Transport and
Logistics; and Refining, Petrochemical and Biofuels. The company
produces crude oil and gas; and engages in the extraction,
collection, treatment, storage and pumping, or compression of
hydrocarbons.


EMERGENT BUSINESS: Faces "Moon" Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emergent Business
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Juhyoun Moon, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emergent
Business Group, Inc. doing business as: Emergent Servicing and
New Century Financial Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09238
(D. N.J., May 15, 2018).

Emergent Business Group, Inc. is a financial planner in Hanover,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   TODD D. MUHLSTOCK, Esq.
   BAKER SANDERS LLC
   100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Email: ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com


EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Albelo" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO, o/b/o himself and
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 17-00454-CV-
W-ODS (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ortrie D. Smith entered an order
on May 23, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "[a]ll current and former landscape laborers who worked for
      Defendant at any time from June 5, 2014, to the present who
      were not fully compensated at the applicable wage rates for
      all work performed"; and

   2. approving Plaintiff's notice plan to edit the notice form,
      and to provide notice consistent with the deadlines set
      forth in the order.

The Court said, "Defendant argues, if conditional certification
of a class is granted, the class should be limited to those
individuals working in the same positon, location, and under the
same supervisor as Plaintiff Albelo. Although Defendant argues
the proposed class definition is vague and inadequate, the Court
declines to limit the class in the drastic fashion proposed by
Defendant. To the extent there are differences in the duties of
landscape laborers, the Court is confident Defendant will fully
brief the issue for the Court at the appropriate time. The
Defendant also raises two objections to the requested notice.
First, Defendant seeks to limit the class to those who worked for
Defendant for a two year period, rather than a three-year period
as permitted under the FLSA for "willful" violations, because
there is no factual basis for a three-year period or "willful"
FLSA violations. See 29 U.S.C. section 255(a). The second amended
complaint alleges an FLSA action was brought against Defendant in
2009 for failure to properly pay overtime wages, but Defendant
did not change its practices with respect to hourly laborers. It
is further alleged Defendant's continual violation of the FLSA is
"willful."".

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


FACEBOOK INC: Vance-Guerbe Sues over Collection of User Data
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA VANCE-GUERBE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02987
(N.D. Cal., May 21, 2018), seeks to change Facebook's business
practices relating to data retention and collection.

Facebook is currently the world's largest social networking
platform, with about 2.2 billion active users worldwide and
approximately 214 million users in the United States. The
Facebook platform allows users to create online profiles with
personalized content such as name, gender, e-mail address,
birthday, interests, relationship status, education, work,
political, or religious views. Users interact with each other or
the platform in a variety of ways, including by posting comments,
sharing photos, videos, or news articles, chatting, using
applications, playing games, taking personality quizzes, or
"liking" content.

Through this platform, Facebook has become one of the world's
largest repositories of personal data, with an ever growing range
of potential uses. The data has great value to researchers, as
well as advertisers and political campaigns. Facebook promises
its users that they have control over their sensitive personal
information. For example, in a keynote speech given in 2014, Mark
Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, stated, "[i]n every single thing we
do, we always put people first." Zuckerberg promised that
Facebook gives people control over how they share their
information.

However, instead of safeguarding its users' sensitive
information, Facebook instead provides it to third party
application developers without user consent. Specifically,
Cambridge improperly collected the data by claiming it was for
academic purposes. However, a whistleblower revealed that the
personal information was taken in order "to build a system that
could profile individual US voters, in order to target them with
personalized political advertisements."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Quentin A. Roberts, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291 2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
                  qroberts@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com


FBCS INC: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Williams a/k/a Lisa Guyton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FBCS, Inc.,
Midland Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02140-GAM (E.D. Pa., May 21, 2018), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to June 8, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to GE Money Bank by the
Plaintiff. The GE Money Bank obligation arose out of a
transactions involving money, property, insurance or services.
Specifically Plaintiff used funds from GE Money Bank at WalMart
primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged
GE Money Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5). Defendant Midland, is a debt collector and a
subsequent owner of the GE Money Bank Wal-Mart obligation. The
Defendant Midland contracted Defendant FBCS to collect the
alleged debt. Defendants collect and attempt to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United
States Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326 9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


FILBEN GROUP: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Filben Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Filben Group, LLC
doing business as: Braemar Living, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04337 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Filben Group, LLC (trade name Braemar Living) is in the Senior
Citizens' Center or Association business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST SOLAR: Appeals Court Denies Petition for Panel Rehearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has denied the Company's petition for panel
rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals related
to the case Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00555-DGC, according to the Form 8-K filed by First
Solar, Inc. with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 11, 2018.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers (the "Defendants").  The complaint was filed on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February
28, 2012 (the "Class Action").  The complaint generally alleges
that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
prospects.  The action includes claims for damages, including
interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to
the putative class.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in
part, and certified an issue for immediate appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Court of
Appeals").  The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was
denied.  On August 20, 2015, the Company filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals.  Upon the filing
of this petition, the Arizona District Court entered a stay until
the Court of Appeals decided whether to take the appeal and, if
it did, until the appeal is decided.  On November 18, 2015, the
Court of Appeals issued an order granting permission to proceed
with the appeal and setting a briefing schedule.

On January 31, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the order of the Arizona District Court partially
denying summary judgment.  On March 16, 2018, the Company filed a
petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Court
of Appeals.  On May 7, 2018, the Company's petition was denied.

First Solar is a global provider of comprehensive PV solar energy
solutions.


FITLIFE BRANDS: "Ryan" Class Action Underway in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
FitLife Brands, 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 Ryan et al. v. Gencor
Nutrients, Inc. et al., issued a joint status report and that
matter is again active.

On December 31, 2014, various plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a purported nationwide and sub-class of purchasers,
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Ryan et al. v. Gencor
Nutrients, Inc. et al., Case No.: 4:14-CV-05682. The lawsuit
includes claims made against the manufacturer and various
producers and sellers of products containing a nutritional
supplement known as Testofen, which is manufactured and sold by
Gencor Nutrients, Inc. ("Gencor").

Specifically, the Ryan plaintiffs allege that various defendants
have manufactured, marketed and/or sold Testofen, or nutritional
supplements containing Testofen, and in doing so represented to
the public that Testofen had been clinically proven to increase
free testosterone levels. According to the plaintiffs, those
claims are false and/or not statistically proven. Plaintiffs seek
relief under violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and
violations of unfair trade practices in violation of California,
Pennsylvania, and Arizona law.

NDS utilizes Testofen in a limited number of nutritional
supplements it manufactures and sells pursuant to a license
agreement with Gencor.

On February 19, 2015 the matter was transferred to the Central
District of California to the Honorable Manuel Real. Judge Real
had previously issued an order dismissing a similar lawsuit that
had been filed by the same lawyer who represents the plaintiffs
in the Ryan matter. The United States Court of Appeals reversed
part of the dismissal issued by Judge Real and remanded the case
back down to the district court for further proceedings. As a
result, the parties in the Ryan matter issued a joint status
report and that matter is again active.

FitLife Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets nutritional
supplements for health conscious consumers in the United States
and internationally. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


FLORIDA: Davis, et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARK DAVIS, MARK GERALDS, JESSE GUARDADO,
JOSEPH JORDAN, JOHN TROY, STEVEN STEIN, JASON STEPHENS, and GARY
WHITTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JULIE JONES, KEVIN JORDAN, and BARRY
REDDISH, in their official capacities as employees of the Florida
Department of Corrections, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00820-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of

   "all persons in the State of Florida who have been sentenced
   to death, are in the custody of the Florida Department of
   Corrections (FDOC), and are being held at Union Correctional
   Institution (UCI) or Florida State Prison (FSP)."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZPnehDl6

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda McDermott, Esq.
          Martin J. McClain, Esq.
          McCLAIN & MCDERMOTT P.A.
          141 NE 30th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33334-1064
          Telephone: (850) 322 2172
          Facsimile: (954) 564 5412
          E-mail: Lindamcdermott@msn.com

               - and -

          Claire M. Wheeler, Esq.
          Seth A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Claire M. Wheeler, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344 4741
          Facsimile: (202) 344 8300
          E-mail: Sarosenthal@venable.com
                  Cmwheeler@venable.com

               - and -

          Evan T. Shea, Esq.
          Matthew T. Shea, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 244 7400
          Facsimile: (410) 244 7742
          E-mail: Etshea@venable.com
                  Mtshea@venable.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Wiatrek Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD WIATREK, et al., Individually and
on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF SAN ANTONIO, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00772-XR (W.D. Tex.), Mr.
Wiatrek asks the Court to certify a Texas state class of:

   "all current and former employees of Defendants who worked as
   distributors."

The Plaintiff brought this case on behalf of himself and other
employees that have been misclassified as independent contractors
and defrauded by Defendants to avoid paying proper wages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7RziQ7p9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr.
          Keenya Harrold, Jr.
          KENNARD RICHARD PC
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  keenya.harrold@kennardlaw.com


FMS INC: Faces "Torres" Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Inc. The case
is styled as Daniel Torres, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMS Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09235 (D. N.J., May 15, 2018).

FMS Inc. operates as a receivables management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Accord in "Kalen" Suit Has Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services Corporation said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
May 7, 2018, following a hearing on May 4, the court entered an
order preliminarily approving the Class Settlement Agreement in
the Kalen, et al., v. Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg, et al. (Case No. 2:15-CV-01435 WB) case filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and described in our current reports on Form 8-K
filed July 29, 2016, July 28, 2017, November 3, 2017, January 2,
2018 and April 11, 2018.

The order granting the motion, among other things:

     (i) conditionally certifies the settlement class as a
         mandatory class;

    (ii) directs class counsel to provide notice of the
         settlement to the members of the settlement class no
         later than May 15, 2018;

   (iii) directs F&M Trust (the wholly-owned commercial bank
         subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services Corporation)
         to pay the $10 million settlement payment into the class
         counsel's IOLTA account within 10 business days of the
         date of the order, to be held by class counsel subject
         to further court order;

    (iv) directs that briefs in support of final approval of the
         settlement be filed on or before June 12, 2018; and

     (v) sets July 31, 2018 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 3-B of the
         United States Courthouse located at 601 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for a
         fairness hearing on whether a final order approving the
         settlement should be entered by the court.  Any member
         of the settlement class may appear at the fairness
         hearing to show why the settlement should not be
         approved.

The Company recognized the settlement payment as an expense in
the fourth quarter of 2017.  "We expect to fund the settlement
payment out of available resources," the Company said.

Franklin Financial said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 13, 2018, that
the court entered an order setting a hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval on May 4, 2018.  On April 11, 2018, Farmers
and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg ("F&M Trust"), the
wholly-owned commercial bank subsidiary of Franklin Financial
Services Corporation (the "Registrant"), entered into a
Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of March 28, 2018 (the
"Class Settlement Agreement") with the named plaintiffs in the
Kalen, et al., v. Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg, et al. (Case No. 2:15-CV-01435 WB) case filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Also on April 11, 2018, the named plaintiffs filed with the court
a motion for preliminary approval of the Class Settlement
Agreement.  On April 12, 2018, the court entered an order setting
a hearing on the motion for preliminary approval on May 4, 2018.

Franklin Financial Services Corporation operates as the bank
holding company for Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg that provides commercial, retail banking, and trust
services to small and medium-sized businesses, individuals,
governmental entities, and non-profit organizations in
Pennsylvania. It offers various deposit products, including
checking, savings, and time deposit accounts. The company is
based in Chambersburg Pennsylvania.


FUNKO INC: 7 Securities Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------
Funko, 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 is facing seven putative class action
suits over alleged breaches of the Securities Act.

The Company stated, "On November 16, 2017, a purported
stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County
against us, certain of our officers and directors, and the
underwriters of our IPO, entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc.,
et al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the
Superior Court of Washington in and for King County and one in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against us and certain of
our officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et.  al (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against us, certain of our officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against us, certain of our
officers and directors, and ACON.

Additionally, on April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit
Jacobs v. Funko, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege that we violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly
materially misleading statements and by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.
The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory statutory
damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration
paid for our Class A common stock by plaintiff and members of the
putative class, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the
plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the
alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom.  The
Company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett,
Washington.


GEFEN ACF: Faces "Sypert" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gefen ACF, LLC. The
case is styled as Kathleen Sypert, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gefen ACF, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04336 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Gefen ACF, LLC offers retirement homes; senior care services,
namely, assistance to senior citizens seeking to determine
assisted living. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENER8 MARITIME: "Fragpane" and "Mohr" Suits Underway in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Euronav NV 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 is defending two class action
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled, Fragapane v. Gener8 Maritime, Inc. et al. and Mohr
v. Gener8 Maritime, Inc., et al.

On March 8, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Fragapane v. Gener8 Maritime, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-02097
(S.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of the
public stockholders of Gener8, against Gener8, Gener8's
directors, the company and the Merger Sub.

On March 14, 2018, another lawsuit, captioned Mohr v. Gener8
Maritime, Inc., et al, No. 1:18-cv-02276 (S.D.N.Y.), was also
filed against Gener8 and its directors.

The complaints allege that the company's registration statement
on Form F-4 (Registration No. 333-223039) violates Section 14(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 because it omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things, the (i) sales process leading up to the Merger, (ii)
financial projections used by Gener8's financial advisor in its
financial analyses and (iii) inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that were used by Gener8's financial advisor
to support its fairness opinion.

The complaints also allege that Gener8's directors are liable
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons.

The Fragapane complaint further alleges that Gener8's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Gener8's stockholders by
engaging in a flawed sales process, by agreeing to sell Gener8
for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to improper deal
protection terms in the Merger Agreement. The complaints seek,
among other things, injunctive relief against the proposed
transaction with us as well as other equitable relief, damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Euronav said "We believe that the allegations in the complaints
are without merit, and intend to defend them vigorously."

Euronav NV, together with its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
manages a fleet of vessels for the ocean transportation and
storage of crude oil and petroleum products worldwide. The
company operates through two segments, Tankers; and Floating
Production, Storage, and Offloading Operations.


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
In a stipulation proposing a briefing schedule for a putative
class suit in Massachusetts, the filing of any opposition by
plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss is to be done by June 28, 2018,
according to Genocea Biosciences, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

On February 14, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation
proposing a briefing schedule with the following deadlines:
filing of an amended complaint by the lead plaintiffs and counsel
due March 29, 2018; filing of an answer or motion to dismiss by
defendants on May 14, 2018; filing of any opposition by
plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018; and filing of
any reply by defendants in support of a motion to dismiss on July
30, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 14, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation
proposing a briefing schedule with the following deadlines:
filing of an amended complaint by the lead plaintiffs and counsel
due March 29, 2018; filing of an answer or motion to dismiss by
defendants on May 14, 2018; filing of any opposition by
plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018; and filing of
any reply by defendants in support of a motion to dismiss on July
30, 2018.

On March 30, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in the District of Massachusetts, adding Seth
V. Hetherington, former Chief Medical Officer, to the original
named defendants.

The defendants anticipated filing a motion to dismiss by May 14,
2018.

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


GLOBAL POWER: "Budde" Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend a putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v.
Global Power Equipment Group Inc., pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the Company and
certain former officers as defendants.

This action and another action were filed on May 13, 2015 and
June 23, 2015, respectively, and on July 29, 2015, the court
consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. On
May 1, 2017, following the filing of the 2015 Report, the lead
plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint that
names the Company and three of its former officers as defendants.

According to the Company, "It alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of matters related to our restatement
of certain financial periods and claims that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in
certain public disclosures during the putative class period in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder."

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

Global Power said "We are defending, and intend to continue to
defend, against this action."

On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion. On September 22,
2017, defendants filed their reply brief in further support of
their motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2017, the court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss,
allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file an amended
complaint. The court found that, with respect to each of the
defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness.

On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion in opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss, and requested oral argument.
Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their
motion on March 23, 2018. Litigation is subject to many
uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predictable
with assurance.

Global Power said "At this time, we are unable to predict the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may
have on us or our business or operations."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries are comprehensive providers of custom solutions and
maintenance and modification services for customers in the energy
and industrial markets. Including its predecessor entities, the
company had over 50 years of experience providing services that
are critical for the operation of power plants and more than 32
years of experience providing complex outage shutdown services to
operators of nuclear power plants and other industrial
maintenance services. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


HARDINGE INC: Reaches Accord to Resolve Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hardinge Inc. has reached an agreement to resolve a purported
shareholder class action on behalf of a Hardinge shareholder
pending in the New York Supreme Court of Chemung County, the
Company disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2018.

The case was filed April 17, 2018.  The deal was reached May 4,
2018.

The action, captioned Elstein v. Dougherty, et al., Index No.
2018-1412, names as defendants Hardinge and the members of its
board of directors.  The Action alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 12, 2018 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Hardinge Holdings,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and
Hardinge Merger Sub, Inc., a New York corporation and a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquisition Sub"), pursuant
to which Acquisition Sub will merge with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent and Acquisition Sub are
beneficially owned by affiliates of Privet Fund Management LLC
and Privet Fund LP (collectively, "Privet" or the "Sponsor
Entities").  The Action alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an inadequate
sales process that resulted in an unfair price for Hardinge and
by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information
regarding the Merger.  The defendants believe that the Action is
entirely without merit and vigorously deny the allegations that
Hardinge's directors breached their fiduciary duties.

In connection with resolution of the Action, the Company has
agreed to make the following amended and supplemental disclosures
(the "Amended and Supplemental Disclosures") to the proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 16, 2018 (the "Proxy Statement").  The Amended and
Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety.  Defined
terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in
the Proxy Statement.  Plaintiff has agreed that, following the
filing of this 8-K, she will dismiss the Action in its entirety,
with prejudice as to the named plaintiff only and without
prejudice to all other members of the putative class.

The resolution of the Action will not affect the timing of the
special meeting of the Hardinge shareholders, which is scheduled
to be held on May 22, 2018, or the amount of the consideration to
be paid to Hardinge shareholders in connection with the Merger.
The resolution of the Action is not, and should not be construed
as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.
Likewise, defendants do not believe that any further disclosure
regarding the Merger is required under applicable laws other than
that which has already been provided in the Proxy Statement.
Furthermore, nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this
"Report") or the resolution of the Action shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the
disclosures set forth in this Report.  However, to avoid the risk
of the putative shareholder class action delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger, to minimize the substantial expense,
burden, distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation and
to resolve plaintiff's claims asserted in the Action, the Company
has agreed to make these amended and supplemental disclosures to
the Proxy Statement.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/B2C9EP

Hardinge Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, and distributes machine tools in North America,
Europe, and Asia.  The Company was founded in 1890 and is
headquartered in Elmira, New York.


HONOLULU, HI: Wants to Auction to Dispose Abandoned Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: SERVICE MEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT ORDERS, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00191 (D. Hawaii, May 22, 2018), the Plaintiff, CITY
AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, asks the Court to issue a declaratory
judgment stating that the City may auction or otherwise dispose
of the Abandoned Vehicles Case pursuant to SCRA-compliant
procedures.

The City and County of Honolulu includes the island of Oahu,
which has the fourth-largest military work force in the nation
with nearly 40,000 service members stationed on Oahu's military
bases. They serve an average rotation of four years, and most own
and operate motor vehicles that were either shipped to Oahu or
were purchased on Oahu for a very modest price. Near the end of
their rotations, many service members abandon their cars on
public highways rather than shipping them to their next
destination or otherwise properly disposing of them. The City is
now storing over 200 such cars, and new vehicles are being
abandoned at the rate of approximately one per day. The cars
being stored by the City are hereinafter referred to as the
"Abandoned Vehicles".

An actual and immediate controversy exists between the City and
the Class Defendants. These parties have genuine and opposing
interests and those interests are direct and substantial. Under
the SCRA, the City must obtain a court order before disposing of
the Abandoned Vehicles and is thus entitled to a declaratory
judgment as well as such other and further relief as may follow
from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna Y.L. Leong, Esq.
          Ernest H. Nomura, Esq.
          Robert M. Kohn, Esq.
          Karen K. Lee, Esq.
          DEPUTIES CORPORATION COUNSEL
          CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
          530 South King Street, Room 110
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Telephone: (808) 768 5193
          Facsimile: (808) 768 5105
          E-mail: enomura@honolulu.gov
                  robert.kohn@honolulu.gov
                  klee@honolulu.gov


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Younge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT YOUNGE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HUNTINGTON
NATIONAL BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00314-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   a. conditionally certifying the case as a FLSA collective
      action under section 216(b) against Defendant The
      Huntington National Bank on behalf of Plaintiff and others
      similarly situated;

   b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to all former and current Phone Bank Customer Service
      Associates employed by Defendant within three years
      preceding the date of filing of the Complaint to the
      present;

   c. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such present and former employees
      of the pendency of this collective action and permitting
      them to opt into the case by signing and submitting a
      Consent to Join Form;

   d. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of
      such present and former employees that includes their full
      names, their dates of employment, and their last known home
      addresses and personal email addresses;

   e. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
      Court, be sent to such present and former employees within
      30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the
      Roster; and

   f. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
      or email addresses are found for one or more of such
      present or former employees.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: 330 470 4428
          Facsimile: 330 754 1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com


INTEGRATED TECH: Mendez & La Rosa Seek OT & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JORGE L MENDEZ, FELIPE RAUL LA ROSA, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED
TECH GROUP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-22059-FAM (S.D.
Fla., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has employed several
similarly situated employees like Plaintiffs who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Appeal in NY ERISA Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal by class
action plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit Court remains pending.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was
divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology
business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA").

Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or
former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29,
2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals and the matter remains pending.

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. Its
Cognitive Solutions segment offers Watson, a cognitive computing
platform that interacts in natural language, processes big data,
and learns from interactions with people and computers. The
company is based in Armonk, New York.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Hearing on Summary Judgment Set for June 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the hearing on the company's motion
for summary judgment is scheduled for June 14, 2018.

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

A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013.

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

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and
appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part
and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not
to further amend their complaint at that time. The plaintiffs
moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following
opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the
motion on January 21, 2016.

On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. On December 22, 2016, the
court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint. On
February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter
was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The court
denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the
parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the
court entered on July 14, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court
entered a new case schedule, with trial set to begin on October
30, 2018.

On December 6, 2017, plaintiffs moved for approval of a proposed
notice to the class members; the Company partially opposed that
motion. The Court held a hearing regarding the motion on March 8,
2018, and ordered the parties to edit the proposed notice and
submit it to the Court for approval. On March 9, 2018, the
parties submitted a joint proposed notice, which the Court
approved on March 12, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed on
March 23, 2018. The Company will file a reply in support of its
motion on April 23, 2018, and a hearing on the motion is
scheduled for June 14, 2018.

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

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is an American corporation that
manufactures robotic surgical systems, most notably the da Vinci
Surgical System. The da Vinci Surgical System allows surgery to
be performed using robotic manipulators. The company is based in
Sunnyvale, California.


IZEA INC: Faces "Perez" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Perez filed a class action lawsuit against IZEA, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017.

On April 4, 2018, a securities lawsuit, Julian Perez v. IZEA,
Inc., et al., case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company and certain of its executive officers on
behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock. The
plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investors under federal
securities laws.

IZEA said "We believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
We are still in the early stages of this litigation and are
unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."

IZEA creates and operates online marketplaces that connect
marketers with content creators. The creators are compensated by
IZEA for producing unique content such as long and short form
text, videos, photos, status updates, and illustrations for
marketers or distributing such content on behalf of marketers
through their personal websites, blogs, and social media
channels. The company is based in Winter Park, Florida.


J JILL INC: Pension Trust Suit Pending in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
J.Jill, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 3, 2018, that the company has not yet filed a responsive
pleading in the matter, entitled The Pension Trust v. J.Jill,
Inc., et al.

On October 13, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
the Company, several members of its Board of Directors and its
Chief Financial Officer, among others. The complaint was brought
under the Securities Act of 1933 and sought certification of a
class of plaintiffs comprised of all shareholders that acquired
stock issued by the Company in its initial public offering in
March 2017. The plaintiffs sought compensation for losses they
incurred since purchasing the stock.

Following the filing of this lawsuit, two additional, similar
actions were brought in the same court. The three matters were
eventually consolidated, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by
the court. On March 9, 2018, an amended complaint was filed.

The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading in the
matter, entitled The Pension Trust v. J.Jill, Inc., et al., and
no material amount has been accrued.

J.Jill said "The Company believes the claims in the case are
without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously."

J.Jill is a premier omnichannel retailer and nationally
recognized women's apparel brand committed to delighting
customers with great wear-now product. The brand represents an
easy, relaxed, inspired style that reflects the confidence and
comfort of a woman with a rich, full life. J.Jill provides
guiding service through more than 270 stores nationwide and a
robust e-commerce platform. J.Jill is headquartered outside
Boston.


JENIN HOME: Underpays Staff, Ortiz Cortez Claims
------------------------------------------------
CARMELINA ORTIZ CORTEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JENIN HOME FURNISHING LLC,
a California limited liability company; JENIN HOME FURNISHING,
INC., a California corporation; JENIN HOME FASHION INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC706908 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 21, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees in California for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to (1) pay all wages for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay, (2) provide all rest and meal
periods,(3) indemnify for all business expenses, (4) fairly
compete, (5) provide accurate written wage statements, and (6)
timely pay final wages upon termination of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THESPIVAK LAW FIRM
          S6530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivakklaw.com
                  caroline@spivakklaw.com

               - and -

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


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Says "Peters" Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the case filed by Marco Peters
has been concluded.

On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar, along with its directors and
officers at the time of its initial public offering, or the
Individual Defendants, and the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering were named as defendants in a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
Marco Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al., Case No.
11-CV-7133 (S.D.N.Y.).

In an amended complaint filed on June 1, 2012, the plaintiff,
representing a class of all purchasers and acquirers of ADSs of
JinkoSolar between May 13, 2010 and September 22, 2011,
inclusive, alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by making material misstatements or failing to disclose material
information regarding, among other things, JinkoSolar's
compliance with environmental regulations at its Haining
facility.

The amended complaint also asserted claims against the Individual
Defendants for control person liability under Section 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On January
22, 2013, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order
dismissing the amended complaint as against all defendants. The
plaintiff appealed the District Court's Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an
order on July 31, 2014 vacating the District Court's Order and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Defendants filed a further motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On January 22, 2015, JinkoSolar agreed, subject to
court approval, to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, if
approved, will also resolve all related claims against
JinkoSolar's officers and directors as well as the underwriters
involved in JinkoSolar's public offerings during the relevant
period. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the members
of the proposed class will receive a settlement fund of $5.05
million, less any court-approved fees.

JinkoSolar will contribute a portion of the settlement fund, and
JinkoSolar's insurers will fund the remaining portion. JinkoSolar
will not take any charge in connection with the settlement.
JinkoSolar has denied, and continues to deny, the allegations and
is entering into this settlement solely to eliminate the
uncertainty, burden and expense of further protracted litigation.

On March 11, 2016, the District Court entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving such settlement, certifying the proposed class
for settlement purposes, and dismissing the amended complaint
with prejudice.

JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the design, development, production, and marketing of
photovoltaic products in the People's Republic of China and
internationally.


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Llordi" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dhimiter S. Llordi and Natalia
Hoshovsky, on behalf of herself and all others so similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 1882cv00531, was removed from the Norfolk
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on May 22, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-11064 to the proceeding.

Alison Noon, writing for Law360, reported that a class action
bumped up to federal court claimed JPMorgan Chase & Co. has
foreclosed on "hundreds" of houses after homeowners missed three
mortgage payments without attempting to confer with the owners as
required by federal regulation.

Massachusetts residents Dhimiter S. Llordi and Natalia Hoshovsky
claimed JPMorgan failed to conduct face-to-face interviews or
make any reasonable effort to arrange those interviews with
mortgagors before three full monthly installments due on their
mortgages went unpaid, as required under U.S. Housing and Urban
Development regulations.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that
constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.:

          Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP (BOS)
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526 6906
          E-mail: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com


KIMBERLY CLARK: Continues to Defend Bahamas Surgery Center Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Clark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that continues to defend Bahamas
Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al.

Kimberly Clark said, "We are party to certain legal proceedings
relating to our former healthcare business, Halyard Health, Inc.
("Halyard")."

During the first quarter of 2018, in the California consumer
class action Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, et al., the Court reduced the punitive damages award
against Kimberly-Clark from $350 to approximately $19. As a
result, the total compensatory and punitive damages plus pre-
judgment interest awarded against Kimberly-Clark is approximately
$25.

Kimberly Clark said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense
of the Bahamas matter."

"Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into
with Halyard in connection with the spin-off that occurred on
October 31, 2014, Halyard is obligated to indemnify us for legal
proceedings, claims and other liabilities primarily related to
our former health care business. Halyard and Kimberly-Clark have
each filed suits against the other seeking declaratory judgment
regarding the scope of these indemnification obligations. We
intend to vigorously pursue our case against Halyard and to
vigorously defend against their case against us.  Although the
results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with
certainty, we continue to believe that the final outcome of these
matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or
in the aggregate, on our business, financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity."

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


KINDER MORGAN: Agreement in Principle Reached in Easement Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the Union Pacific Railroad
Company Easements Landowner Litigation have reached agreements in
principle to settle all pending lawsuits.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S.
District Court in California against Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UPRR), SFPP, KMGP and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D"
by private landowners who claim to be the lawful owners of
subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or
SFPP for pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR.

Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed in federal
courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These
suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf
of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying
the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in
those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP,
and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" alleging that the
defendants' occupation and use of the subsurface real property
was improper.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were denied by the
federal courts in Arizona and California. The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for interlocutory review of
the decisions on class certification. The New Mexico and Nevada
lawsuits have been stayed. An additional lawsuit was filed in a
U.S. District Court in Arizona by private landowners seeking
recovery for claims substantially the same as those made in the
purported class actions.

During first quarter 2018, the parties reached agreements in
principle to settle all pending lawsuits on terms that are not
material to KMI's results of operations, cash flows or dividends
to shareholders.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend the
Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation.

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

The suit alleges that the merger consideration did not
sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three
derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the
derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and
which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as
much as $700 million. The suit claims that the alleged failure to
obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits
constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The suit also asserts claims against KMI and certain individual
defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or
aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership
agreement. In November 2017, the Court dismissed the suit in its
entirety. Brinckerhoff is appealing the dismissal.

Also in November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate
lawsuit against KMEP and KMI seeking to recover up to $44 million
in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred in connection with the
assertion of derivative claims that Brinckerhoff lost standing to
pursue. On April 9, 2018, the Court dismissed the suit in its
entirety.

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

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: 9th Cir. Revives Class Suit by Natural Gas Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
reversed the order of dismissal of a class action lawsuit and
remanded the case to the U.S. District Court.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P.
and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several
of the cases have been settled or dismissed.

The remaining cases, which are pending in a U.S. District Court
in Nevada, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21,
2015, and the cases were then remanded to the District Court for
further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous
remaining issues. On May 24, 2016, the District Court granted a
motion for summary judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an
industrial consumer in Kansas in which approximately $500 million
in damages has been alleged.

On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the dismissal and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court.
Settlements have been reached in class actions originally filed
in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements received final court
approval and have been paid.

In the Wisconsin class action in which approximately $300 million
in damages has been alleged against all defendants, the U.S.
District Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiff's request
for an interlocutory appeal of this ruling.

Kinder Morgan "There remains significant uncertainty regarding
the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and
the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the
remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and
costs are not currently determinable."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


LA QUNITA: Enters Into Memorandum of Understanding
--------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the lawsuits
entitled:

     -- Cunha v. La Quinta Holdings Inc., et al.,
     -- Rosenblatt v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc., et al., and
     -- Bushansky v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc., et al.

As disclosed in the Company's definitive merger proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
March 20, 2018 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the
"proxy statement"), three putative class action lawsuits were
filed on March 8, 2018, March 9, 2018 and March 19, 2018, by
purported stockholders of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the
merger.

The lawsuits are styled Cunha v. La Quinta Holdings Inc., et al.,
Rosenblatt v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc., et al. and Bushansky v.
La Quinta Holdings, Inc., et al (the "Actions").

All of these complaints allege violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
in connection with the merger. The Rosenblatt complaint names the
Company and its directors as defendants; the Cunha complaint
names the Company and its directors as well as Merger Sub and
Wyndham Worldwide; and the Bushansky complaint names the Company
and its directors as defendants.

The complaints allege that the proxy statement filed by the
Company is materially incomplete and misleading. The complaints
seek, among other relief, either an order enjoining the merger or
rescission if the merger is consummated. The Bushansky complaint
also seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger.

On April 16, 2018, the parties to the Actions (the "Settling
Parties") entered into the confidential Memorandum of
Understanding providing for the settlement of the Actions.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy
statement under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company
has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the confidential Memorandum
of Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the
proxy statement. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.

The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to
deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Actions. The
confidential Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of
the Settling Parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the
Actions.

A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/Jj4def.

La Quinta Holdings Inc. (LQ) is an owner, operator and franchisor
of select-service hotels primarily serving the upper-midscale and
midscale segments. The Company's owned and franchised portfolio
consists of approximately 900 properties representing over 87,500
rooms located in 48 states in the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico,
Honduras and Colombia. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


LARCHWOOD HEALTH: Jackson Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TANISHA JACKSON, 12503 Rexford Ave., Cleveland, OH 44105, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. LARCHWOOD HEALTH GROUP LLC D/B/A LARCHWOOD VILLAGE
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY c/o Statutory Agent Melissa Verzi, 32900
Detroit Road, Ste 100, Avon, OH 44011, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01153 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
Plaintiff's regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over
40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated employees worked more than 40 hours per week, but
Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation for the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek. Rather than paying overtime
compensation, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees were only paid straight time for the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


LE LABO: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Claims
------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LE LABO HOLDING LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04423 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2018), seeks
permanent injunction to cause Le Labo to change its corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lelabofragrances.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff
Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired people. Le Labo denies
full and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under
the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against Le Labo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LM FUNDING: Plaintiffs Withdrew From Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
LM Funding America, 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 plaintiffs in the action
entitled Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v.
LM Funding, LLC, withdrew from a Settlement Agreement.

LM Funding America said "We are a defendant in an action entitled
Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM
Funding, LLC, which was brought before the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade Civil Division on July 31,
2014."

On August 4, 2017, an order by the court was entered on
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement. In the order, the motion of the Plaintiff,
Solaris at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of the certified plaintiff class
("Plaintiffs"), for approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with Defendant LM Funding,
LLC was granted. LMF, despite its belief that it is not liable
for the claims asserted and that it has good defenses thereto,
nevertheless agreed to enter into this Agreement in order to: (1)
avoid any further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of
burdensome and protracted litigation and its consequential
negative financial effects to LM Funding, LLC  operations; (2)
obtain the releases, orders, and final judgment contemplated by
the Settlement Agreement; and (3) put to rest and terminate with
finality all claims that had been or could have been asserted
against LM Funding, LLC by the Plaintiffs arising from the facts
alleged in the lawsuit.

Pursuant to the agreement subsequently reached between counsel,
all required actions and deadlines set forth in the Settlement
Agreement are currently stayed. On March 1, 2018, a continuation
of the abatement was granted until April 2, 2018. As of December
31, 2017, the Company had accrued costs of $505,000 as part of
the Settlement Agreement. The settlement amount was contingent
upon the Company obtaining sufficient financing within the
allotted timeframe of the Settlement Agreement. On April 2, 2018,
the Plaintiffs withdrew from the Settlement Agreement.

LM Funding America said "The Company will pursue certain legal
remedies to defend itself against the allegations."

LM Funding America, Inc., through its subsidiary, LM Funding,
LLC, operates as a specialty finance company. It provides funding
to nonprofit community associations (Associations) primarily
located in the state of Florida, as well as in the states of
Washington, Colorado, and Illinois. The company offers funding to
Associations by purchasing their rights under delinquent accounts
that are selected by the Associations arising from unpaid
Association assessments. The company is based in Tampa, Florida.


LONGFIN CORP: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Longfin Corp. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company is facing four putative
securities class action suits in in the federal courts for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

At the beginning of April  2018, four putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed in the federal courts for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York against Longfin Corp. and its
CEO, Mr. Meenavalli, and (in the case of the second action) CFO,
Mr. Ratakonda.  The actions are:  Reddy v. LongFin Corp. et al.,
18 Civ. 2933 (JGK) (SDNY); Long Chee Min v. Longfin Corp. et al.,
18 Civ. 2973 (VSB) (SDNY); Chauhan v. Longfin et al., 18 Civ.
2010 (MKB) (EDNY); and Miller v. Longfin et al., 18 Civ. 3121
(UA) (SDNY).

According to the complaints, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about Longfin's business, operations, prospects and
performance. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Longfin had material weaknesses in its operations and
internal controls that hindered the Company's profitability; and
(ii) Longfin did not meet the requirements for inclusion in
Russell indices.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs assert causes of action for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.

Longfin Corp, incorporated on February 1, 2017, is a finance and
technology company. The Company is focused on providing trade
finance solutions and physical commodities finance solutions for
finance houses and trading platforms for North America, South
America and Africa regions. The Company's business model includes
importer and exporter financing, financial institution
intermediation, insurance backed trade financing, and Carry trade
finance with FX solutions. The company is based in New York.


LTD FINANCIAL: Dokes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Terri Dokes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial Services, LP, a Texas
limited partnership, and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, a
California limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00761-VEH (N.D. Ala., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover
damages for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act relating to the Defendants' form debt
collection letter.

According to the complaint, Ms. Dokes fell behind on paying her
bills, including a debt she allegedly owed for a Comenity Bank
account. The Defendant sent Ms. Dokes an initial form collection
letter, dated December 8, 2017, demanding payment of this debt.
This collection letter stated: CURRENT CREDITOR: JH PORTFOLIO
DEBT EQUITIES, LLC ORIGINAL CREDITOR: COMENITY BANK The letter
then stated that "Your account with the above named creditor has
been placed with LTD Financial Services, L.P., a debt collector."
Defendants' letter failed to explain what, if any, the difference
was between the "current" and "original" creditor, which "above
named creditor" it was representing, or whether it was
representing both.  Ms. Dokes is informed through counsel that JH
Portfolio likely bought the debt at issue after default and that
LTD was representing only JH Portfolio. Thus, Defendants' letter
failed to state effectively the name of the creditor to whom the
debt is owed. A simple statement that LTD represented JH
Portfolio or that JH Portfolio had bought the debt would have
sufficed to effectively identify the name of creditor to whom the
debt was then owed.  Violations of the FDCPA which would lead a
consumer to alter his or her course of action as to whether to
pay a debt, or which would be a factor in the consumer's decision
making process, are material.

LTD Financial Services, L.P. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
          9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, REESE & SHINN, P.C.
          600 University Park Place Suite 510
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 802 2200
          Facsimile: (205) 802 2209
          E-mail: bbotes@bondnbotes.com


M & A AUTO: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN FERNANDEZ and CONSTANTINO FERNANDEZ on behalf of themselves
and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs, v. M & A AUTO SPA, INC. d/b/a RIVERVIEW HAND CAR WASH
& DETAIL, METHAL FAKHOURY, individually, and AMTHAL FAKHOURY,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03560 (N.D. Ill.,
May 18, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime wages at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate. The
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were paid weekly and
in cash. The Defendants had a practice of writing down the number
of hours Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
          BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
          11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 753 6967
          Facsimile: (888) 826 5848
          E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C.
The case is styled as Lazer Schwartz, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09237 (D. N.J., May 15, 2018).

ML Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt collection law firm with
38 years of experience located in Monticello, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MACTANZ INC: Snider Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Snider, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the
Plaintiffs, v. MACTANZ, Inc. d/b/a Mac and Bob's Restaurant, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00233-EKD (W.D. Va., May 23, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendants
failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby
violating the minimum wage provisions of Section 206 of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly
wage plus tips, which Defendant improperly shared among employees
who may not lawfully participate in a mandatory tip pool.
Therefore, Defendant lost its ability to take a "tip credit" and
owes Plaintiff and Class Members the full minimum wage plus other
damages provided for under the FLSA.

MacTanz operates a restaurant.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          William C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC
          690 Berkmar Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 978 0100
          Facsimile: (434) 978 0101
          E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com

               - and -

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260 0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


MANAGEMENT SOLUTION: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Jackson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA RENE JACKSON, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT SOLUTION, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC706909 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage
under the California Labor Code.

The Defendant is a workforce management solutions company and
assists healthcare organizations with staffing. Essentially, the
company functions as an intermediary between temporary staffing
agencies and the company's clients. The Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all overtime hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week
as required by Labor Code. Defendants' consistently gave
Plaintiff and Class members workloads which required overtime
hours to meet deadlines. However, Defendants required Plaintiff
and Class members to request to work overtime in order to be
paid. This was impractical in practice as work issues would arise
in the evening and would require immediate attention.
Additionally, Defendant did not always have a manager available
to approve overtime instantaneously.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Heather K. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: "Esparza" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnny Esparza, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Maryland MarketSource Inc., a Maryland corporation; Allegis
Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation; and Allegis Group Holdings,
Inc., a Maryland corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
18civ01821, was removed from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on May 18, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-02971 to the proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399 8490
          E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com


MATTERSIGHT CORP: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with NICE
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTERSIGHT CORPORATION,
TENCH COXE, PHILIP DUR, HENRY FEINBERG, JOHN KOHLER, DAVID
MULLEN, MICHAEL MURRAY, JOHN STALEY, NICE SYSTEMS, INC., and NICE
ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00770-UNA
(D. Del., May 18, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in
the event Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
26, 2018, pursuant to which Mattersight Corporation will be
acquired by affiliates of NICE Ltd., NICE Systems, Inc. and NICE
Acquisition Sub, Inc. On April 25, 2018, Mattersight's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger with NICE and NICE Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire
all of Mattersight's outstanding common stock for $2.70 per share
in cash and all of Mattersight's 7% Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock for $7.80 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is
set to expire one minute after 11:59 p.m., New York time, on June
7, 2018.

On May 10, 2018, the Defendants filed a Schedule 14D-
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement.

Mattersight Corporation, formerly known as eLoyalty, is a
publicly traded company that provides SaaS-based enterprise
behavioral analytics software. Its software focuses on customer-
employee interaction and behavior.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


MATTERSIGHT CORP: Ali Balks at Merger Deal With NICE
----------------------------------------------------
RASHID ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTERSIGHT CORPORATION, KELLY
CONWAY, TENCH COXE, PHILIP DUR, HENRY FEINBERG, JOHN KOHLER,
DAVID MULLEN, MICHAEL MURRAY, AND JOHN STALEY, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018-0362 (Del. Ct. of Chancery, May 21, 2018), seeks to
enjoin a tender offer unless and/or until Defendants cure their
breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or recover damages resulting from
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Mattersight Corporation, brings
this action against the Company and its Board of Directors for
their breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the definitive
merger agreement between and among Mattersight, NICE Systems,
Inc., NICE Acquisition Sub, Inc., and NICE Ltd. On April 26,
2018, Mattersight issued a press release announcing that the
Board had caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub has commenced a
tender offer to acquire each share of Company common stock in
exchange for $2.70, as well as each share of Company preferred
stock for $7.80 per share in cash and accrued and unpaid
dividends. In connection with the commencement of the Tender
Offer on May 10, 2018, the Company filed a Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9. The Recommendation Statement is
materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails
to disclose material information regarding the background of the
Proposed Transaction, and the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion.

The Tender Offer will expire at one minute after 11:59 p.m. New
York Time, at the end of June 7, 2018. These material omissions,
mean that Mattersight stockholders cannot make an informed
decision as to whether or not to tender their shares in the
Tender Offer. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties owed to
Mattersight stockholders by the Individual Defendants. The
Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties.

Mattersight Corporation, formerly known as eLoyalty, is a
publicly traded company that provides SaaS-based enterprise
behavioral analytics software. Its software focuses on customer-
employee interaction and behavior.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The interim lead plaintiff has sought more time to respond to the
defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit, McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

In January, February and March 2018, five shareholders of Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) filed separate lawsuits under
the federal securities laws in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas challenging the accuracy of
the disclosures made in the registration statement the company
and a subsidiary of CB&I filed in connection with the Combination
(the "Registration Statement").

The cases are captioned (1) McIntyre v. Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00273 (S.D. Tex.) (the
"McIntyre Action"); (2) The George Leon Family Trust v. Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00314 (S.D.
Tex.) (the "Leon Action"); (3) Maresh v. Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00498 (S.D. Tex.) (the
"Maresh Action"); (4) Patel v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., et
al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00550 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Patel Action"); and
(5) Judd v. Chicago Bridge& Iron Co. N.V., et al., Case No. 4:18-
cv-00799 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Judd Action").

The McIntyre Action, Leon Action, Maresh Action and Judd Action
are asserted on behalf of putative classes of CB&I's public
shareholders, while the Patel Action is brought only on behalf of
the named plaintiff.

All five actions allege violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder based on various alleged omissions of material
information from the Registration Statement.

The McIntyre Action names as defendants CB&I, each of CB&I's
directors, individually, and certain current and former CB&I
officers and employees individually. It seeks to enjoin the
Combination, an award of costs and attorneys' and expert fees,
and damages. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff in the McIntyre
Action filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin CB&I from consummating the Combination.

The Leon Action names as defendants CB&I, certain subsidiaries of
CB&I and McDermott that are parties to the Business Combination
Agreement, each of CB&I's directors, individually, and McDermott
as an alleged control person of CB&I. The Leon Action seeks to
enjoin the Combination (or, in the alternative, rescission or an
award for rescissory damages in the event the Combination is
completed), to compel CB&I to issue revised disclosure, and an
award of costs and attorneys' and expert fees.

The Maresh Action, which was originally filed in Delaware and
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on February 13, 2018, was
re-filed in Texas and names as defendants CB&I and each of CB&I's
directors, individually. Although originally filed as an
individual action, the Maresh Action was refiled as a putative
class action in an amended complaint filed on February 26, 2018.
The Maresh Action seeks to enjoin the Combination (or, in the
alternative, an award for rescissory damages in the event the
Combination is completed) and an award of costs and attorneys'
and expert fees.  The Patel Action names as defendants CB&I and
each of CB&I's directors, individually.

The Patel Action seeks to enjoin the Combination (or, in the
alternative, an award for rescissory damages in the event the
Combination is completed) and an award of costs and attorneys'
and expert fees.

The Judd Action names as defendants CB&I and each of CB&I's
directors individually. The Judd Action seeks to enjoin the
Combination (or, in the alternative, an award for rescissory
damages in the event the Combination is completed) and an award
of costs and attorneys' and expert fees.

On February 23, 2018, CB&I moved for consolidation of the four
then-pending shareholder actions, an order requiring plaintiffs
and their counsel to coordinate their efforts, and for
appointment of a preliminary lead plaintiff and lead counsel in
the putative class actions. On February 26, the plaintiff in the
Maresh Action moved for consolidation of the four then-pending
shareholder actions and for appointment of Maresh as interim lead
plaintiff and the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP as lead
counsel. On March 1, that motion was withdrawn.

On February 28, 2018, the plaintiff in the Leon Action also moved
for consolidation of the four then-pending shareholder actions
and for appointment of Leon as interim lead plaintiff and the law
firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. as lead counsel. On March 2, the
Court consolidated the four then-pending actions (all but the
Judd Action) and granted the Leon Action plaintiff's motion as to
interim lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 9, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On March 15, 2018, after the Judd Action was filed, the
defendants moved for that case to be consolidated with the other
cases.  On March 16, that motion was granted.

On March 16, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint and the interim lead plaintiff
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 29, the
interim lead plaintiff withdrew its motion for a preliminary
injunction.  Motions for permanent lead plaintiff status were due
on April 2, and only the interim lead plaintiff filed such a
motion.  On April 5, the interim lead plaintiff sought an
extension of time to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss
until after such time as a permanent lead plaintiff is appointed.
That motion was granted.

McDermott said, "We believe the substantive allegations contained
in the complaints are without merit, and we intend to defend
against the claims made against us vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, front-end engineering and design,
and module fabrication services for upstream field developments.
It operates through three segments: the Americas, Europe and
Africa; the Middle East; and Asia. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


MDL 2741: "Klodzinski" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Klodzinski, the
Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00505, was transferred on May 18, 2018, from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
02941-VC to the proceeding.

The Klodzinski case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-
02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fidelma L Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457 7728
          Facsimile: (401) 457 7708
          E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT
ADJUSTORS, INC., and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00452-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order May 23, 2018, granting
the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of a class action
settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Pansing will pay:

   $23,320 to class members in the class designated FDCPA
           Fund 1; and

   $75,000 to class members in the class designated NCPA
           Fund 2.

The court has granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $57,000 and for
statutory penalties and incentive payments to the class
representative in the amount of $6,000.

The Court said, "The settlement provides that any funds remaining
from settlement checks un-cashed (i.e., checks not cashed 90 days
after the check date) or other undistributed funds shall be
awarded to the mutually agreed-upon cy pres recipient. The court
approves Legal Aid of Nebraska as the cy pres recipient. At the
final fairness hearing, the plaintiff orally moved for approval
of payments from cy pres funds to seven class members who
submitted claims after the deadline. The defendants are not
opposed to that distribution. The court finds that request should
be approved. The parties have also shown compliance with the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1715, the Settlement Administrator, served written notice of the
proposed settlement on the appropriate state and federal
regulators. No response or objection was received from any
regulatory body. For settlement purposes the court preliminarily
ruled that the proposed class satisfies each of the Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b) prerequisites. The court now finds the
settlement should be granted final approval. The court further
finds that the requirements of due process have been met as to
the method and content of the notice to the class members. The
court has reviewed the notices and proofs of service and finds
them satisfactory. The court further finds that the settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable. In addition to providing some
monetary compensation to class members, the proposed settlement
provides the important benefit of injunctive relief in that the
defendants have altered their business practices. There are no
objections to the settlement. Under the circumstances, the court
finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the
best interests of the class. Accordingly, the court finds that
the proposed settlement should be approved."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xNgqcbb5


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELIN OLSON, JEAN KNUTSON and,
RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A.,
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC, and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00793-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3TtVuDyE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


MEUNDIES INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MEUNDIES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03045 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2018),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the
Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its website,
MeUndies.com, into full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its
implementing regulations, so that MeUndies.com is readily
accessible to and usable by blind individuals.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer.

MeUndies Inc. manufactures and distributes underwear for men and
women. The company offers cheeky briefs, bikinis, boy's shorts,
thongs, bras, and U-back bralette and T-back bralette for
women.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


MGMERK STOCKING: Regis Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY REGIS, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. MGMERK STOCKING, INC., and MARVIN F. GREENWICH,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-14181-KAM (S.D.
Fla., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United States and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired as full time,
non-exempt, hourly employee, to unload building materials and to
perform related work, at different worksites. The Plaintiff was
paid a wage rate of $8.75 an hour. While employed by Defendants,
the Plaintiff worked for up to 75 hours per week without being
properly compensated for overtime hours.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MID-CONTINENT OIL: Castello Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Freddie O. Castello 111, The People of
Louisiana, the Plaintiffs, v. The Army Corps of Engineers,
MID-Continent Oil & Gas Association La. Oil & Gas Association,
LOGA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04507-SM-JCW (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to certify the case as a class
action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aj0dlLEV


MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHMITT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC,
CHRISTOPHER HSU, STEPHEN MURDOCH, MIKE PHILLIPS, KEVIN LOOSEMORE,
NILS BRAUCKMANN, KAREN SLATFORD, RICHARD ATKINS, AMANDA BROWN,
SILKE SCHEIBER, DARREN ROOS, GISELLE MANON, AND JOHN SCHULTZ, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03066 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
acquired Micro Focus American Depositary Shares pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the merger of Micro Focus with Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company, and their subsidiaries, pursuant to
which Micro Focus combined with the software business segment of
HPE.

Micro Focus is an infrastructure software company which develops,
sells, and supports software products and solutions to federal,
airlines, and healthcare internationally.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


MICROSEMI CORP: Faces "Rubin" Class Action
------------------------------------------
Michael Rubin has filed a class action lawsuit against Microsemi
Corporation, the Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 20, 2018, stockholder Michael Rubin filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Rubin v. Microsemi, Case No.
8:18-cv-00653, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
definitive proxy statement filed by the Company on April 19,
2018.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the vote on and closing of the
proposed transaction with Microchip Technology Incorporated,
rescission, damages, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

Microsemi said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
litigation, the Company believes that the allegations in this
action are without merit. Additional lawsuits arising out of or
relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in
the future."

Microsemi Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets analog
and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions in the United States,
Europe, and Asia. The company offers analog mixed-signal
integrated circuits; field programmable gate arrays; system on
chip solutions and application-specific integrated circuits;
power management products; and timing and synchronization
devices, and precise time solutions. The company is based in
Aliso Viejo, California.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Tipton Sues over Dicamba-Tolerant Crop System
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TIPTON, Individually and as PLAINTIFFS Representative of
TIPTON BROTHERS; CHARLES TIPTON, Individually and as
Representative of TIPTON BROTHERS; and TIPTON BROTHERS, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION;
BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and JOHN DOE COMPANIES
A - Z, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02348-SHL-cgc (W.D.
Tenn., May 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages including, but are
not limited to, crop damage, yield loss, total failure of the
crop, and financial ruin to impacted farmers against Defendants
who jointly collaborated to develop and release a defective and
unreasonably dangerous "dicamba-tolerant crop system," which has
directly resulted in massive harm to crops in Tennessee,
Arkansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and other states.

According to the complaint, Defendants' dicamba-tolerant crop
system cannot be safely used for its intended purpose regardless
the degree of care without causing collateral damage to nearby
crops, which are not part of the Defendants' dicamba-tolerant
crop system. Dicamba is a synthetic herbicide, which farmers have
been using for decades to burn down fields in an effort to
control weeds. Due to the volatile nature of dicamba, farmers
could only use dicamba during certain times of the year.

Despite knowledge of the dangers dicamba posed, Monsanto and BASF
jointly collaborated, designed, formulated, developed, tested,
manufactured, marketed, promoted, advertised, released, and
created a dicamba-tolerant crop system designed to combine
Monsanto's dicamba-resistant seeds with Monsanto's dicamba-based
herbicide, BASF's dicamba-based herbicide, and DuPont's dicamba-
based herbicide. This dicamba crop system is for an in-crop,
over-the-top use, which is when a crop is emerging from the
ground, for the first time ever to Tennessee farmers and farmers
across the country at additional times during the crop growing
season where it was previously restricted.

Defendants have intricate knowledge of the agricultural process,
including crops and herbicides. With this superior knowledge of
the agricultural production process and market domination,
Defendants implemented, developed, and released their defective
dicamba crop system on Tennessee farmers.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Bryan Smith, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, LLC
          One Commerce Square, Suite 2600
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: 901 333 1813
          Facsimile: 901 524 1771
          E-mail: bryans@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Paul Byrd, Esq.
          Joseph Gates, Esq.
          PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          415 N. McKinley St. Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: (501) 420 3050
          Facsimile: (501) 420 3128
          E-mail: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
                  joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jerry Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          P.O. Box 500
          Lonoke, AR 72086
          Telephone: (501) 676 5770
          jkelly@kellylawfirm.net

               - and -

          Winston B. Collier, Esq.
          THE COLLIER FIRM
          107 S. 2nd Street
          P.O. Box 534
          Augusta, AR 72006
          Telephone: (870) 347 2100
          E-mail: winston@thecollierfirm.com


MRS BPO: Rottenstein Sues over Debt Collections Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Esther Rottenstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., and John
Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-04455 (S.D.N.Y., May 18,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to October 4, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A.
The Chase obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The alleged Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. obligation is a
"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Chase is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Chase or a
subsequent owner of the Chase debt contracted the Defendant to
collect the alleged debt. Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Service, telephone and internet.

MRS BPO LLC, is a debt collection agency.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501


MY SIZE: Shareholders Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
A court has suspended all the proceedings regarding the class
motion and My Size, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
complaint by Lightcom (Israel) Ltd. until the Israeli Supreme
Court's adjudication in two cases pending before the Supreme
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.

On May 3, 2017, Lightcom (Israel) Ltd., an Israeli company,
alleging that it is a shareholder of the Company, filed a motion
with the Tel Aviv District Court (Financial Division) to approve
an action against the Company and the Company's officers and
directors, as a shareholders' class action.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company's report
dated April 19, 2017 regarding its engagement with the Israeli
Post was false and misleading, and that as a result thereof
financial damages have been incurred by two purported classes of
shareholders: (i) any shareholder who sold Company's shares as of
April 20, 2017 and until April 27, 2017, with respect to damage
directly caused by such sale and (ii) any shareholder which held
shares on April 20, 2017 and subsequent to April 27, 2017 with
respect to damage caused by permanent adverse effect to the
shares' value.

The alleged financial damage caused to members of both classes is
estimated to be NIS18.8 million.  The Company reviewed the motion
initially with its legal counsel and retained an expert to review
and analyze the allegations and data upon which the motion is
based.  After considering the conclusions of a report issued by a
third party expert and an opinion of U.S. legal counsel,
management is of the opinion that the chances that the class
motion will be denied exceed the risk that it will be approved,
In the event that the class motion will be approved, the
complaint will become a class action which will be heard by the
court on its merits.  Should this occur, the Company will respond
to the class motion in the time frame ordered by the court.  On
November 15, 2017 the Company filed its response to the class
motion and a motion to dismiss the class motion.

My Size said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that Court ordered the Company to
respond to the motion to approve an action against the Company by
November 15, 2017.

In its recent report, the Company disclosed that on November 15,
2017, the court ordered the respondent (the original plaintiff)
to respond to the motion to dismiss within 30 days, which
response was filed by the respondent on November 29, 2017.  On
December 28, 2017, the court ordered that a hearing on the
foregoing matter will be held after the ruling on the Company's
appeal before the Nasdaq Hearings Panel regarding the delisting
of the Company's securities from The Nasdaq Capital Market.  On
January 25, 2018, Nasdaq concluded that the Company is in
compliance with all applicable listing standards and as a result,
the scheduled hearing before the Hearings Panel was cancelled and
the Company's common stock continues to trade on The Nasdaq
Capital Market under the symbol "MYSZ".  On January 28, 2018, the
Company informed the court accordingly.

At a preliminary hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss, that
was held on April 26, 2018, the court ordered to suspend all the
proceedings regarding the class motion and the Company's motion
to dismiss, until the Israeli Supreme Court's adjudication in two
cases pending before the Supreme Court, pertaining to similar
issues argued by the Company in its motion to dismiss regarding
the proper choice of law applicable to foreign companies listed
both on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and on Nasdaq.

My Size Inc. is a dual listed publicly traded company whose
common stock are publicly trading on the TASE since September
2005 (under the name Topspin Medical Inc) and on the NASDAQ
Capital Market ("NASDAQ") since July 25, 2016. Since February
2014, the Company also operates via a wholly-owned subsidiary, My
Size (Israel) 2014 Ltd., a company registered in Israel. My Size
Inc. had its office in Airport City, Israel.


NAVIOS MARITIME: Time to Appeal Class Action Ruling Expired
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. 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 time to file an appeal on
the district court's denial on the application of attorney's fees
has expired.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and six of its directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by a
purported holder of Series G American Depositary Shares and
Series H American Depositary Shares.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
contract. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, a declaration regarding certain of the
Company's alleged obligations under the applicable certificates
of designation, the restoration of certain alleged rights to non-
tendering holders if the exchange offer that commenced on
September 19, 2016 was consummated, and an award of plaintiff's
costs.

On November 28, 2016, plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that
the litigation was moot in light of the failure of the consent
solicitation (which did not attain the necessary support from the
holders of Series G American Depositary Shares and Series H
American Depositary Shares). On January 10, 2017, plaintiff's
counsel submitted a motion for attorneys' fees to which the
Company submitted an opposition brief on February 3, 2017, which
requested that the Court deny the request for attorneys' fees in
its entirety. Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney's fees
was fully briefed on February 17, 2017.

On September 26, 2017, the Court issued a decision denying
plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
requiring that any party wishing to restore the case to the
Court's active docket do so by October 10, 2017. No party
requested that the case be restored to the active docket by the
October 10, 2017 deadline.

No appeal of the Court's denial of plaintiff's application for an
award of attorneys' fees has been taken to date and the time to
file an appeal has expired.

Navios Maritime Holdings Inc., is a global, vertically integrated
seaborne shipping and logistics company focused on the transport
and transshipment of drybulk commodities including iron ore, coal
and grain. Navios was created in 1954 by US Steel to transport
iron ore to the US and Europe. Since then, Navios has diversified
geographically and expanded the scope of its business activities
such that Navios currently controls 49 vessels totaling
approximately 5.1 million deadweight tons.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Doshi" Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff has dismissed the "Doshi" putative class action
lawsuit without prejudice, according to Novus Therapeutics,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On August 1, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison,
and Lee H. Kalowski, entitled Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06106 ("Doshi Action").  The plaintiff
sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai securities
between June 24, 2015, and July 25, 2016, and alleges that, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions about Tokai's clinical trials
for its drug candidate, galeterone.

The lawsuit sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On October 3,
2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

On September 28, 2017, this action was consolidated with
Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:16-cv-11963.  On April 26, 2018, the Court found that the Doshi
Action could not proceed as a putative class action because it
lacked a lead plaintiff.  On May 1, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed
the Doshi Action without prejudice.

Novus Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing products for disorders of the ear, nose, and throat
(ENT). The company is based in Irvine, California.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Jackie888" Plaintiff Files Bid to Lift Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jackie888, Inc. seeks to lift the stay of the lawsuit
in the case styled Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796, according to Novus Therapeutics,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On September 22, 2014, Tokai completed the initial public
offering of its common stock (the IPO).  Subsequent to the IPO,
several lawsuits including the Jackie888 Action were filed
against Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L.
Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A.
Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the IPO.  The lawsuits
allege that, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act"), Tokai's registration statement for the IPO
made false and misleading statements and omissions about Tokai's
clinical trials for galeterone.  Each lawsuit sought, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc.
v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai
common stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.  On October 19,
2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on
grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual
defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.
On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff Jackie888 filed a motion to lift the
stay of the lawsuit.

Novus Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing products for disorders of the ear, nose, and throat
(ENT). The company is based in Irvine, California.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: "Garbowski" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs have dismissed the putative class action lawsuit
styled Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:16-cv-11963 without prejudice, according to Novus
Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

On September 22, 2014, Tokai completed the initial public
offering of its common stock (the IPO).  Subsequent to the IPO,
several lawsuits including the Garbowski Action were filed
against Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L.
Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A.
Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of the IPO.  The lawsuits
allege that, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act"), Tokai's registration statement for the IPO
made false and misleading statements and omissions about Tokai's
clinical trials for galeterone.  Each lawsuit sought, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

On September 29, 2016, two purported stockholders of Tokai filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, entitled Garbowski, et al. v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11963
("Garbowski Action").  In addition to the Securities Act claims,
this lawsuit also alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions about Tokai's clinical trials
for galeterone, in violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to
Tokai's IPO as well as a class of purchasers of Tokai common
stock between September 17, 2014, and July 25, 2016.  On
September 28, 2017, this action was consolidated with the Doshi
Action.  On April 26, 2018, the Court found that the Garbowski
Action could not proceed as a putative class action because it
lacked a lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs dismissed the putative class action lawsuit on May
9, 2018.

Novus Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing products for disorders of the ear, nose, and throat
(ENT). The company is based in Irvine, California.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Amends "Wu" Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The "Wu" plaintiff has filed an amended class action complaint,
according to Novus Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.  The class action was remanded to the
Massachusetts State Court on March 27, 2018.

On September 22, 2014, Tokai completed the initial public
offering of its common stock (the IPO).  Subsequent to the IPO,
several lawsuits including the Wu Action were filed against
Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison,
Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III,
and the underwriters of the IPO.  The lawsuits allege that, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"),
Tokai's registration statement for the IPO made false and
misleading statements and omissions about Tokai's clinical trials
for galeterone.  Each lawsuit sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court
Department of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts
("Massachusetts State Court"), entitled Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS ("Wu Action").  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai
common stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.

On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it
was captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-
12550, and assigned to the same judge presiding over the Doshi
and Garbowski Actions.  On December 22, 2016, defendants filed a
motion to consolidate the Wu Action with the Doshi and Garbowski
Actions.

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu
Action to Massachusetts State Court.  On September 28, 2017, the
court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cyan
that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over covered
class actions alleging only Securities Act claims and that such
actions are not removable to federal court.

On March 22, 2018, plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan
decision in support of plaintiff's remand motion.

On March 27, 2018 the Wu Action was remanded to the Massachusetts
State Court.  On May 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint.

Novus Therapeutics is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing products for disorders of the ear, nose, and throat
(ENT). The company is based in Irvine, California.


ONE GROUP: Paid $200,000 to Resolve California Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The ONE Group Hospitality, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the settlement payment
of $0.2 million has been made by the Company in a class action
suit filed in California.

In November 2015, certain employees filed a class action lawsuit
against two of the Company's subsidiaries and Bagatelle LA, an
equity investee of the Company, which has since ceased
operations, (collectively, the "LA Defendants") alleging that the
LA Defendants neglected to conform to California state and local
rest and meal period requirements as well as other employment-
related allegations. In April 2017, the LA Defendants agreed with
the plaintiffs to propose court approval of a class action
settlement to avoid the uncertainty and risk associated with
continued litigation, which agreement was preliminarily approved
by the court.

Accordingly, based on the probability of this matter reaching
final approval, in the second quarter of 2017, the Company
recorded $0.2 million of its share in these costs as settlements
on the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive
loss. In addition, through Bagatelle Investors, the Company
recognized its equity in Bagatelle LA's share of the settlement
costs. Final judgment by the court of this settlement agreement
was entered on September 26, 2017 and the settlement payment of
$0.2 million was made by the Company in October 2017.

The ONE Group Hospitality, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
develops, owns and operates, or licenses upscale, high-energy
restaurants and lounges and provides turn-key food and beverage
services for hospitality venues including hotels, casinos and
other high-end locations globally. The company is based in New
York.


ONE GROUP: Paid $200,000 Installment Payment in NY Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ONE Group Hospitality, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company has paid
the final installment payment of $0.2 million in a class action
filed in New York.

In May 2016, certain employees filed a class action lawsuit
against two of the Company's subsidiaries and Bagatelle NY, an
equity investee of the Company, (collectively, the "NY
Defendants"), alleging that the NY Defendants improperly took tip
credits due to those employees, as well certain other employment-
related allegations.

In May 2017, to avoid the uncertainty, risks and cost associated
with continued litigation, the NY Defendants reached a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs. Such settlement agreement was
preliminarily approved by the court. Accordingly, based on the
probability of this matter reaching final approval, in the second
quarter of 2017, the Company recorded $0.5 million of its share
in these costs as settlements on the consolidated statement of
operations and comprehensive loss.

In addition, through Bagatelle Investors, the Company recognized
its equity in Bagatelle NY's share of the settlement costs
(approximately $0.3 million). Final judgment by the court of this
settlement agreement was entered on November 26, 2017.

The first installment payment of $0.3 million was paid on
December 14, 2017, with the second and final payment of $0.2
million paid on March 1, 2018.

The ONE Group Hospitality, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
develops, owns and operates, or licenses upscale, high-energy
restaurants and lounges and provides turn-key food and beverage
services for hospitality venues including hotels, casinos and
other high-end locations globally. The company is based in New
York.


ORIGIN TAX: Showe-Gai Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA SHOWE-GAI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORIGIN TAX & FINANCIAL
SERVICES, P.C., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04424 (C.D. Cal., May 23,
2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy and causing her to incur unnecessary and
unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2017,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -1014, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to
contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to
Defendant, including without limitation (619) 369-4109.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls. During all relevant times, Defendant did not
possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


PALM BEACH, FL: Paulot Sues School District for Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL PAULOT, GARRY JEAN, FENEL JH PETIT-HOMME, ANGELIA SISTRUNK
and KENNETH PINNOCK, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL
BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-80660-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employs Plaintiffs,
Joel Paulot, Garry Jean, Fenel JH Petit-Homme, Angelia
Sistrunk and Kenneth Pinnock, as School Bus Drivers; as well as
those other employees, who also work as School Bus Drivers for
the Defendant; compensating them on an hourly basis; and the
Employees routinely work more than 40 hours in a work week; but
they are not paid an overtime premium for some of their overtime
hours.

The School District of Palm Beach County is the tenth-largest
public school district in the United States, and the fifth-
largest school district in Florida. The district encompasses all
of Palm Beach County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A.
          110 S.E. 61h Street, Suite 1700
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 527 0570
          Telecopier: (954) 281 5881
          E-mail: labor@markjberkowitz.com


PENSKE MOTOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium Wages, Yamak Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
AHMAD YAMAK, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. PENSKE MOTOR
GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; EL MONTE
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC706910 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premium
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff twice a
month. Because Defendants paid commissions only once a month,
during every other pay period Plaintiff was not paid any
commissions. During some of the pay periods in which Plaintiff
was paid commissions, he did not earn more than half of his pay
from commissions. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 8
hours a day and more than 40 hours a week. He was never paid
overtime premium pay.

The Defendants are automobile dealerships located at various
locations throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 529 5891
          E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

               - and -

          Ziad Elrawashdeh, Esq.
          RAWA LAW GROUP APC
          5843 Pine Ave. Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393 0660
          Facsimile: (888) 250 8844


PETROBRAS: Stichting Petrobras Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. 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 a
class action suit filed by the Stichting Petrobras Compensation
Foundation.

On January 23, 2017, the Stichting Petrobras Compensation
Foundation ("Foundation") filed a class action before the
district court in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, against
Petrobras and its subsidiaries Petrobras International Braspetro
B.V. (PIBBV) and Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF); joint
venture Petrobras Oil & Gas B.V. (PO&G), and some former managers
of Petrobras.

This Foundation allegedly represents an unidentified group of
investors and demands judicial remedies for alleged damages
caused to investors who purchased securities issued by Petrobras
and PGF outside the United States, before July 28, 2015, due to
alleged illegal acts. The Foundation also alleges financial
losses are connected to the facts uncovered by the Lava-Jato
investigation and to purported false and misleading financial
information released by the Company.

Petrobras, PGF, PIBBV and PO&G filed their first response to the
claim on May 3, 2017 (first docket date), presenting the law
firms that will defend these companies and requesting a hearing
to discuss some aspects of the case.

On August 23, 2017, a hearing was held at the District Court in
Rotterdam to establish the timeframe for proceedings. The next
steps are: (i) initial arguments by defendants in November 2017,
(ii) the Foundation's reply in March 2018, and (iii) the oral
hearing on June 28, 2018. The Court ruling is expected to be
presented in September 2018. Petrobras (and other defendants)
presented preliminary defenses in November 29, 2017.

This class action involves complex issues that are subject to
substantial uncertainties and depend on a number of factors such
as the legitimacy of the Foundation as the plaintiffs' attorney,
the applicable rules to this complaint, the information produced
in discovery, analysis by experts, the timing of court decisions
and rulings by the court on key issues. Currently, it is not
possible to determine if the Company will be responsible for the
payment of compensation as a result of this action as this
assessment depends on the outcome of these complex issues.
Moreover, it is uncertain which investors are able to file
complaints related to this matter against the Company.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. operates in the oil, natural gas, and
energy industries. The company's Exploration and Production
segment engages in the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas; and sale of
surplus crude oil and oil products produced in the natural gas
processing plants to the domestic and international markets.


PETROBRAS: June 4 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. 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 district court will hold a
hearing on June 4, 2018, to determine whether to grant final
approval of a Class Action Settlement.

Between December 8, 2014 and January 7, 2015, five putative
securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company, Petrobras International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo"),
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. ("PGF," and collectively with the
Company and PifCo, the "Petrobras Defendants"), certain
underwriters of debt securities (the "Underwriter Defendants"),
among other defendants (the "Defendants"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY" or
the "District Court").

These actions were consolidated on February 17, 2015 (the
"Consolidated Securities Class Action" or "Class Action").

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff, Universities Superannuation
Scheme Limited ("USS"), on March 4, 2015. In sum and substance,
the complaints in the Consolidated Securities Class Action
asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging that in the Company's
press releases, filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") and other communications, the Company made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the value of its assets, the amounts of the Company's
expenses and net income, the effectiveness of the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting, and the Company's
anti-corruption policies, due to the alleged corruption
purportedly committed in connection with certain contracts, which
allegedly artificially inflated the market value of the Company's
securities.

In addition to the Consolidated Securities Class Action, 33
lawsuits were filed by individual investors before the same judge
in the SDNY, and one was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (collectively, the
"Individual Actions"), consisting of allegations similar to those
in the Consolidated Securities Class Action.

Between August 2015 and December 2015, the Company and certain
other defendants made motions to dismiss the complaints and
amended complaints in the Consolidated Securities Class Action
and certain of the Individual Actions. Certain, but not all, of
the claims were definitively dismissed and others were dismissed
but with leave to re-plead. Thus, the actions continued against
the Company and other defendants with respect to certain claims.
Following the motion to dismiss stage, the complaint that was
then considered operative for the subsequent proceedings in the
Class Action was the fourth consolidated amended complaint
("FAC") filed on November 30, 2015 by plaintiff USS, Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii ("Hawaii"), North
Carolina Department of State Treasurer ("North Carolina")
(collectively, "Class Plaintiffs"), and one other plaintiff whose
claims were later dismissed.

The judge scheduled a consolidated trial for the Class Action and
the Individual Actions to begin on September 19, 2016, except
that the judge ordered that any Individual Actions filed in the
SDNY after December 31, 2015 would be stayed in all respects
until after the completion of the trial. Six of the Individual
Actions have been stayed as a result of this order.

On February 2, 2016, the judge granted Class Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, certifying a class under the Securities
Act represented by Hawaii and North Carolina (the "Securities Act
Class") and a class under the Exchange Act represented by USS
(the "Exchange Act Class"). The Securities Act Class was defined,
in relevant part, as all purchasers who purchased or otherwise
acquired debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF,
in domestic transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable
to public offerings on May 15, 2013 and March 11, 2014, and were
damaged thereby. The Exchange Act Class was defined, in relevant
part, as all purchasers who, between January 22, 2010 and July
28, 2015, purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras securities,
including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF on the New
York Stock Exchange or pursuant to other domestic transactions,
and were damaged thereby.

On June 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") granted the Petrobras
Defendants' (and other defendants') motion requesting
interlocutory appellate review of the District Court's class
certification of the Class Action. The Petrobras Defendants (and
other defendants) moved in District Court for a stay of all
District Court proceedings, which the district judge denied on
June 24, 2016 and, on June 27, 2016, the parties filed motions
for summary judgment. The Petrobras Defendants (and other
defendants) then moved in the Second Circuit for a stay of all
District Court proceedings. On August 2, 2016, the Second Circuit
granted the motion to stay all District Court proceedings during
the pendency of the appeal.

Between on or about October 21, 2016 and September 13, 2017,
Petrobras' board of directors approved agreements to settle 21 of
the Individual Actions (the "Settled Individual Actions"),
leaving 13 remaining pending Individual Actions (six of which had
been stayed since filed) (the "Pending Individual Actions"). The
terms of the settlements for the Settled Individual Actions are
confidential and Petrobras denies all allegations of wrongdoing.
The settlements are aimed at eliminating the uncertainties,
burdens and expense of ongoing litigation.

Based on the settlements reached in the Settled Individual
Actions and advanced stages of negotiations in certain other
Pending Individual Actions, the Company charged US$448 million to
the statement of income as other income and expenses (US$ 76 in
2017 and US$ 372 in 2016).

On July 7, 2017, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the class
certification decision in the Class Action and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit
partially granted the appeal by the Petrobras Defendants (and
other defendants), reversing some aspects of the District Court's
ruling and affirming others. Among other issues, the Second
Circuit ruled that the district judge failed to consider whether
the question of whether the transactions occurred in the United
States could be determined through a common set of evidence, and
whether, if not, common issues would predominate over individual
ones. The effect of the Second Circuit's decision was to vacate
the classes certified by the District Court pending additional
proceedings in the District Court on remand.

On July 21, 2017, the Petrobras Defendants (and other defendants)
filed a request for panel rehearing or en banc rehearing with the
Second Circuit regarding portions of the Second Circuit's
decision affirming the District Court's order, which was denied
on August 24, 2017.

On November 1, 2017, the Petrobras Defendants (and other
defendants) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court appealing the Second Circuit's decision. On
November 3, 2017, the Second Circuit granted the Company's
unopposed motion to stay the mandate, which was filed by
Petrobras on August 30, 2017.

At the end of December 2017, the Company signed an agreement in
principle to settle the Consolidated Securities Class Action,
which is still subject to court approval (the "Class Action
Settlement").

The Class Action Settlement is intended to resolve all pending
and prospective claims by purchasers of Petrobras securities in
the United States and by purchasers of Petrobras securities that
are listed for trading or that clear or settle through the
Depository Trust Company in the United States, including the
Pending Individual Actions. Under the Class Action Agreement, the
parties have agreed to the certification, for settlement purposes
only, of a new class defined as all persons who (i) during the
time Period between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras
Securities, including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF,
on the New York Stock Exchange or pursuant to other Covered
Transactions; and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired debt
securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in Covered
Transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13,
2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a
March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States
before Petrobras made available to its security holders an
earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months
beginning after the effective date of the offerings (i.e. before
August 11, 2014 in the case of the May 13, 2013 public offering
and before May 15, 2015 in the case of the March 10, 2014 public
offering). Covered Transactions is defined to mean (i) any
transaction in a Petrobras Security listed for trading on the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"); (ii) any transaction in a Petrobras
Security that cleared or settled through the Depository Trust
Company's book-entry system; or (iii) any transaction in a
Petrobras Security that otherwise qualifies as "domestic" under
the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia
Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010). Excluded from the definition of
Covered Transaction are purchases of any Petrobras Security on
the Brazilian Stock Exchange (B3).

If approved, the Class Action Settlement eliminates the risk of
an adverse judgment which, as Petrobras has previously reported,
could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its
financial situation, and puts an end to the uncertainties,
burdens and costs of protracted litigation.

Under the Class Action Settlement, Petrobras (together with its
subsidiary PGF) has agreed to pay US$ 2,950 to resolve claims in
two installments of US$ 983 and a further installment of US$ 984.
The first installment was paid on March 1, 2018. The second
installment will be paid within 10 days of final approval of the
Class Action Settlement. The third installment will be paid by
the later of (i) six months after final approval, or (ii) January
15, 2019. Accordingly, the Company charged US$ 3,449 to its
statement of income for the last quarter of 2017 as other
expenses and income, taking into account the gross up of tax
related to the Petrobras's portion of the settlement.

On January 16, 2018, United States Supreme Court granted a joint
motion to defer consideration of Petrobras' petition for a writ
of certiorari, pending final approval of the Class Action
Settlement.

A stipulation between the settling parties containing the terms
of the Class Action Settlement was submitted to the District
Court for preliminary approval. On February 23, 2018, the
District Court held a hearing on preliminary approval of the
settlement, and subsequently granted preliminary approval on
February 28, 2018. Notice is being provided to potential class
members who will have an opportunity to opt out of the settlement
and make any objections to the District Court, which the District
Court will then review.

After the notice and objection period, the District Court is
scheduled to hold a hearing on June 4, 2018 to determine whether
to grant final approval of the Class Action Settlement. If final
approval is not granted by the District Court, or if the
settlement does not become final for any other reason, the
Company will return to its position prior to the Class Action
Settlement and, depending on the outcome of the subsequent
litigation, the Company might be required to pay substantial
amounts, which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, its consolidated results of
operations or its consolidated cash flows for an individual
reporting period.

Individuals are seeking measures against Petrobras in Brazil to
annul and/or suspend the Class Action Settlement. No adverse
action has been taken to date against the settlement.

The plaintiffs in the Pending Individual Actions will be eligible
to participate in the settlement. These plaintiffs will also have
the option to opt out of the Class Action Settlement and, if they
do, any such actions will continue.

The Pending Individual Actions involve highly complex issues that
are subject to substantial uncertainties and depend on a number
of factors such as the novelty of the legal theories, the
information produced in discovery, the timing of court decisions,
rulings by the court on key issues, and analysis by retained
experts. Except as set forth above, the Company is unable to
determine at this time whether the plaintiffs in the Pending
Individual Actions will determine to participate or not in the
Class Action Agreement or to make a reliable estimate of eventual
loss, if any, arising from certain Pending Individual Actions if
they determine to opt out of the Class Action Agreement.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. operates in the oil, natural gas, and
energy industries. The company's Exploration and Production
segment engages in the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas; and sale of
surplus crude oil and oil products produced in the natural gas
processing plants to the domestic and international markets.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Document Discovery to be Completed by July 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has ordered that the substantial completion of document
discovery the case, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, by July 18, 2018, according to the Form
10-Q filing of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2018.

Specifically, the Court's scheduling order currently requires the
substantial completion of document discovery for the class cases
by July 18, 2018, with fact discovery ending on June 13, 2019,
class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from
July 15, 2019 to March 16, 2020 and summary judgment to proceed
60 days after the Court rules on motions for class certification.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were brought
against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.  The
complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble
damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce
output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of
January 2008 to the present.  The class plaintiffs have filed
three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct
purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect
purchasers.  The defendants, including PPC, filed motions to
dismiss these actions.

On November 20, 2017, the Court denied all pending motions to
dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by
indirect purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope.
Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete
by June 13, 2019.

In December 2017 and January 2018 four individual direct action
complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. Claxton Poultry Farms,
Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Koch
Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods
Inc., et al; Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; and US Foods Inc. v. Tyson
Foods Inc., et al; Case No. 1:18-cv-00702) were filed by
individual direct purchaser entities, the allegations of which
largely mirror those in the class action complaints.

The Court's scheduling order currently requires the substantial
completion of document discovery for the class cases by July 18,
2018, with fact discovery ending on June 13, 2019, class
certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from July
15, 2019 to March 16, 2020 and summary judgment to proceed 60
days after the Court rules on motions for class certification.

The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the
direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing.  Discovery
will be consolidated.

Pilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States, Mexico and Puerto
Rico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Balks at Bid to File 2nd Amended "Fuller" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and other defendants have filed their
response to the plaintiff's motion for (i) reconsideration of the
Court's dismissal the putative class action with George James
Fuller as the lead plaintiff and (ii) permission to file a Second
Amended Complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC's
stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) the Company
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class
period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting.  The
complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.  On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the
putative class period to November 17, 2017.  PPC and the other
defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff
filed its opposition on July 12, 2017.  PPC and the other
defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and
the other defendants.

On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended
Complaint.  PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the
plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.

Pilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States, Mexico and Puerto
Rico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Oklahoma Suit by Chicken Farmers Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation still faces class action lawsuit in
Oklahoma by chicken farmers, according to Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of
broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other
producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among
other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower
services and depress the price paid to growers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the
Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble
damages.  The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently
filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re
Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the
"Grower Litigation").  The defendants (including PPC) jointly
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September
9, 2017.

The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018,
during which it considered and granted only motions from certain
other defendants challenging jurisdiction.  Oral argument on the
remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April
20, 2018.  Rulings on the motion are pending.

Following the Oklahoma court's dismissal of certain defendants in
January 2018, the plaintiffs filed a separate complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of North Carolina,
consisting of the same allegations but strictly against those
defendants previously dismissed by the Oklahoma court (the "North
Carolina Action").  The plaintiffs sought transfer and
consolidation of the North Carolina Action with the Grower
Litigation in Oklahoma from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation ("JPML").  The JPML has scheduled oral argument on the
motion for May 31, 2018.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against
the Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint
violate the confirmation order relating to the Company's
bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009.  Specifically, the 2009
bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against the Company
based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009.  On March
13, 2018, Pilgrim's notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction.

To date, the plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated
complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's injunction order
or the confirmation order.

Pilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States, Mexico and Puerto
Rico.


PIONEER CREDIT: Lafrenier Sues over Debt Collection Fee
-------------------------------------------------------
TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00785-WED (E.D. Wisc., May
23, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's collection practices
that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Wisconsin Consumer Act.

According to the complaint, on or about December 15, 2017, PCR
mailed a debt collection letter to Plaintiff regarding an alleged
student loan debt placed with PCR. The Plaintiff's student loans
are consumer credit transactions. Collection fees on consumer
credit transactions are prohibited by the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
Student loans are consumer credit transactions. The consumer
credit transaction at issue in Patzka was also a student loan.
The collection fee exceeding 25 percent of the balance is not a
measure of anyone's incidental or consequential damages or a
measure of PCR's costs of collection or otherwise reasonable in
amount. PCR's attempt to collect prohibited collection fees
violates the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

PCR is a national leader in credit recovery on defaulted debt
specializing in government collections.[BN]

          Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

In the lawsuit styled TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00785-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wc0TzkMN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


PLY GEM: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Stockholders Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that plaintiffs' counsel in a
putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware captioned In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2018-0151-AGB,
filed on April 13, 2018, a notice regarding the dismissal of the
Action, and an agreement to pay attorneys' fees (inclusive of
expenses) to counsel for Plaintiffs in the Action.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. manufactures and sells residential and
commercial building products in the United States and Canada. It
operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing, and Stone; and Windows
and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North, Carolina.

A copy of the notice is available at https://goo.gl/w6hKza


PNC BANK: Vare Sues over "Post-Payment" Interests on Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDI VARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-02988-JSC (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin
PNC from continuing its unlawful practice of collecting "post-
payment" interest on loans insured by the Federal Housing
Administration without complying with the uniform provisions of
the promissory notes and the FHA regulations governing these
loans, pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law and
Breach of Contract.

Post-payment interest refers to interest that a lender collects
after the borrower has paid the full unpaid principal of the
loan. For example, if a borrower pays off the loan in full on
August 5, and the lender continues collecting interest for the
remainder of August, the interest collected after August 5 is
post-payment interest.

HUD regulations prohibit lenders from collecting post-payment
interest unless two strict conditions are met: (a) the borrower
makes payment of the full unpaid principal on a day "other than
[the first of the month]" and (b) the lender provides the
borrower with "a form approved by the [FHA]." HUD requires use of
its approved form because the form explains to borrowers, at the
appropriate time, that the lender is seeking to collect post-
payment interest, the terms under which the lender can collect
post-payment interest, and how they can avoid such charges. A
promissory note governs the contractual relationship between
borrowers and lenders, and lenders issuing FHA-insured loans must
include certain uniform provisions in the notes for these loans.
Among other things, the uniform provisions provide that the
lender may collect post-payment interest for the remainder of the
month in which full payment is made, but only "to the extent
permitted by [FHA] regulations."

Instead, PNC uses its own unauthorized form, which is not
approved by HUD and does not fairly disclose the terms under
which PNC can collect post-payment interest or properly explain
how borrowers can avoid such charges. Because PNC does not use
the HUD-approved form as required by both the uniform provisions
of the note, the HUD handbooks and HUD regulations, PNC has no
right to collect post-payment interest from borrowers. Yet PNC
has unlawfully collected post-payment interest from Plaintiff and
the class of borrowers of FHA-insured loans. Through this class
action, Plaintiff seeks to recover the interest unlawfully
collected from those class members.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650 784 4040
          Facsimile: 650 784 4041
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
                  sbrown@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          HDH LAW
          1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: 706 508 4000
          Facsimile: 706 842 6750
          E-mail: adam@ehdhlaw.com
          kevin@ehdhlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703-3515
          Telephone: 608 237 1774
          Facsimile: 608 509 4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com


POLLACK & ROSEN: James Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
TONYA JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF POLLACK & ROSEN,
PA., PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendant(s), Case No. 1:18-cv-22006-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 18,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 15, 2018,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Synchrony Bank. The
Synchrony obligation arose out of transactions involving money,
property, insurance or services. Specifically, Plaintiff used the
alleged Synchrony debt funds primarily for personal, family or
household purposes. The alleged Synchrony obligation is a "debt"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Synchrony is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Defendant
Portfolio, a debt collector and the subsequent owner of the
Synchrony debt, contracted with the Defendant Pollack & Rosen to
collect the alleged debt. Defendants collect and attempt to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Pollack & Rosen is one of Florida's largest collections
firms.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Ste 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217 3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272 7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Madinya Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MADINYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61138-BB (S.D. Fla., May 18,
2018), seeks injunction preventing PRA from continuing to send
communications without properly notifying consumers, pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about February 21, 2018, PRA
sent Plaintiff a Collection Letter, which seeks to collect a
consumer debt incurred for personal, family or household use. The
Plaintiff utilized the credit card at issue to purchase household
items, such as gasoline, groceries etc. The Plaintiff received
the Collection Letter shortly after it was mailed. At the time
PRA sent Plaintiff the Collection Letter, the lender's legal
remedy for collecting on Plaintiff's debt had already expired.

The lawsuit contends that the Plaintiff's debt had become "time-
barred," since the statute of limitations period had already
expired at the time it sent the Collection Letter. Despite this
fact, PRA still attempted to collect Plaintiff's time-barred debt
through issuance of the Collection Letter. Upon information and
belief, PRA purchased Plaintiff's time-barred debt for pennies on
the dollar, and to PRA, any payment by Plaintiff would provide an
immediate positive return on its investment.

PRA, also known as Anchor Receivables Management, manages past-
due accounts. It serves customers through account
representatives. The company was incorporated in 1996 and is
based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 595 6060
          Facsimile: (954) 989 7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and -

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: "Riefe" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE RIEFE, VINCENT WILCHER, and JAMES KNOLL, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00658-DSC
(W.D. Pa., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, PPG Industries employed Plaintiffs
within the meaning of the FLSA. PPG Industries had a policy and
practice of refusing to pay any compensation, including straight
time and overtime compensation, to Plaintiffs for hours worked in
excess of 45 hours per workweek, and discouraging him from
reporting such hours. At the same time, PPG Industries'
management knew that TMs, including Plaintiffs, regularly found
it necessary to work far more than 45 hours per workweek in order
to accomplish all of their job expectations. As a result of PPG
Industries' willful failure to compensate Plaintiffs for all the
hours worked, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, PPG Industries violated the FLSA.

PPG Industries is an American Fortune 500 company and global
supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. With
headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG operates in more
than 70 countries around the globe.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
          Andrew J. Horowitz, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN
          MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566 1500
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1530
          E-mail: bruce.fox@obermayer.com
                  andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com


PRIMERO MINING: Awaits Court Ruling on Appeal in Cal. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Primero Mining Corp. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company expects
a ruling on the appeal made by the plaintiffs sometime in 2018,
in the class action suit filed against the company in the federal
court in the State of California.

In July 2016, the Company and certain officers were served with a
class action lawsuit that was filed earlier in the year in
federal court in the State of California seeking to recover
damages for investors in the Company's common shares under the
U.S. federal securities laws.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action which was
granted on January 30, 2017. The plaintiff's claims were
dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 27, 2017. On July 14, 2017 the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted and the
plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice. Rather than
amend the complaint again, the plaintiffs asked the federal court
to enter final judgment and initiated an appeal of the dismissal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 8, 2017. The
parties have filed their briefs in this appeal and a ruling on
the appeal is expected sometime in 2018.

Primero Mining said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
this class action lawsuit."

Primero Mining Corp. is a Canadian-based precious metals producer
that owns 100% of the San Dimas gold-silver mine. The Company is
focused on becoming a leading intermediate gold producer by
building a portfolio of high quality, low cost precious metals
assets in the Americas.


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend 3226701 Canada, Inc. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated et al.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the court
dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, granting leave
to amend.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business outlook and product
development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The
second amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

Qualcomm said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2017, that on May 8, 2017, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on October
20, 2017, the court entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Company's motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed all
claims as to all defendants other than the Company and Steve
Mollenkopf with prejudice. The court also limited the case to two
statements which it found, at least for pleading purposes, had
stated a claim that could be explored in the discovery process.

In its recent report, the Company said that on November 29, 2017,
the court entered an order granting the remaining portions of the
Company's motion to dismiss. On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

QualComm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing our intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights.


QUALCOMM INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the court has not yet ruled on the motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the company.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The complaints alleged, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and
omissions of material fact in connection with certain allegations
that the Company is or was engaged in anticompetitive conduct.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

Qualcomm said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2017, that on May 4, 2017, the court consolidated
the two actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017,
the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the
same basic relief. On September 1, 2017, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The hearing
on that motion was scheduled for December 4, 2017.

In its recent disclosure, the Company said the court has not yet
ruled on the motion.  The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit.

QualComm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing our intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights.


QUALCOMM INC: Trial on Consumer Class Suit Set for Jan. 2019
------------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that trial is scheduled to begin January 19,
2019, in the Consumer Class Action Lawsuit.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the Company in the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices. Twenty-two such cases
remain outstanding. In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that had been
filed in the Southern District of California to the Northern
District of California. On May 15, 2017, the court entered an
order appointing the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel, and on May 25,
2017, set a trial date of April 29, 2019.

Qualcomm said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2017, that on July 11, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company violated
California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by,
among other things, refusing to license standard-essential
patents to its competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of
its baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license
the Company's entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive
deals with companies including Apple Inc., and charging
unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the Company's
commitments to standard setting organizations.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as
well as an order that the Company be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In its recent report, the Company said that on November 10, 2017,
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, except to the extent that certain claims seek
damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Trial is scheduled
to begin on January 19, 2019.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

QualComm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing our intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights.


QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
QualComm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to face consumer class
action lawsuits in Canada.

Since November 9, 2017, five consumer class action complaints
have been filed against the Company in Canada alleging various
violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection laws.
The claims are similar to those in the FTC and U.S. consumer
class action complaints. The complaints seek unspecified damages.
The Company has not yet answered the complaints.

QualComm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing our intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights.


REX ENERGY: Sept. 12 Supplemental Hearing on Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy 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 hearing regarding the
supplemental motion for class certification has been scheduled
for September 12, 2018 in a litigation related to proposed Oil
and Gas Leases in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania

Rex Energy said "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case").
The named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf
of themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008,
and each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and
order for payment and delivered the documents to representatives
of Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them on
behalf of the Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring
the rights of the parties with respect to these proposed leases,
as well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys" fees."

On May 9, 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that no contracts were formed between
the Company and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on May 16, 2012.
On May 3, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior
Court reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against the company in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed
class action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the
"Billotte case") and another on behalf of a group of individually
named plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the
Billotte case contained the same claims as those set forth in the
Cardinale case.

The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are similar
to those in the Cardinale and Billotte cases and the plaintiffs
in Meeker would be included in a class under the Cardinale and
Billotte cases if one were certified.

These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons
in light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency
of the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases
were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale
case. When the Cardinale case was remanded, it was consolidated
with the Billotte case. The Meeker case has not been consolidated
with the Cardinale and Billotte cases.

On June 19, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Cardinale case.
On July 6, 2015, the trial court issued an order denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs served
notice of their appeal of that decision in August 2015. In June
2016, oral argument was conducted before a three-judge panel of
the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On January 17, 2017, the
Superior Court vacated the trial court's order denying class
certification and remanded the case to the trial court for a
redetermination of whether class certification is proper in the
case.

On January 31, 2017, the Company filed an Application for
Reargument Before En Banc Court and/or Panel Reconsideration,
which was denied by the Superior Court on March 21, 2017. On
April 20, 2017, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance of
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was denied on
November 20, 2017.

The case has been remanded to the trial court for further
consideration. The trial court entered a scheduling order setting
a briefing schedule for plaintiffs to file a supplemental motion
for class certification. A hearing regarding the supplemental
motion for class certification has been scheduled for September
12, 2018.

Rex Energy said "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
against these claims. At this time we are unable to express an
opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or provide an estimate of potential losses."

Rex Energy Corporation is an independent natural gas, natural gas
liquid ("NGL") and condensate company operating in the
Appalachian Basin. The company is focused on drilling and
exploration activities in the Marcellus Shale, Utica Shale and
Upper Devonian ("Burkett") Shale.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces "Takata" Shareholder Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company has been slapped with a class
action suit entitled, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al.

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Riot Blockchain,
Inc.'s shareholders in the United District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders that purchased Riot Blockchain, Inc. stock from
November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018.

The complaint alleges that Riot Blockchain, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors (John O'Rourke and Jeffrey G.
McGonegal) made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding Riot Blockchain, Inc.'s business plan in connection
with its cryptocurrency business. The complaint requests damages
in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action,
and other unspecified relief.  The company and the individual
defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently
filed by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District
States Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot
Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v.
Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440),
respectively.  Mr. Roy's complaint also names Barry Honig, an
investor in Riot Blockchain, Inc., as a defendant.

On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for
administrative purposes.  On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court
entered on the same date.

Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company. The
Company focuses on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain
businesses, as well as supports blockchain technology companies.
Riot Blockchain also maintains its existing biotechnology
business segments. The company is based in Castle Rock, Colorado.


RLJ LODGING: Securities Suit in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
RLJ Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the case entitled, In Re FelCor Lodging
Securities Litig., Case No. 1:17-cv-1786 has been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs

The Company and several affiliated entities were named as
defendants in four putative shareholder class action lawsuits
filed in connection with RLJ's merger with FelCor.

The first case, Assad v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-01744 (D. Md.) (the "Assad Lawsuit"), named as
defendants the Company and certain affiliated entities, as well
as FelCor, its former directors, and FelCor LP. The Assad Lawsuit
was filed on June 26, 2017 in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland (the "Maryland Court").

The second case, Bagheri v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01892 (the "Bagheri Lawsuit"), named as
defendants the Company and certain affiliated entities, as well
as FelCor, its former directors, and FelCor LP. The Bagheri
Lawsuit was filed on July 17, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas but was subsequently
transferred to the Maryland Court.

The third case, Johnson v. FelCor Lodging Trust Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01786 (D. Md.) (the "Johnson Lawsuit"), named as
defendants FelCor and its former directors. The Johnson Lawsuit
was filed on June 28, 2017 in the Maryland Court.

The fourth case, Sachs Investment Group v. FelCor Lodging Trust
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01933 (D. Md.) (the "Sachs
Lawsuit"), named as defendants FelCor and its former directors.
The Sachs Lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2017 in the Maryland
Court.

Each of the lawsuits allege violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") arising in connection
with the filing of the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (the "Registration Statement") that was filed in connection
with the Company's merger with FelCor. The plaintiffs in the
lawsuits sought, among other things, damages, rescission of the
Mergers, changes to the Registration Statement, an award of
attorney's fees, and declaratory relief stating that the
defendants violated the Exchange Act.

On July 21, 2017, the plaintiff in the Johnson Lawsuit filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Mergers.
On August 8, 2017, however, the plaintiff withdrew that motion
and represented that certain supplemental disclosures made by
FelCor had addressed the basis for its preliminary injunction
request.

On August 10, 2017, an order was entered consolidating the three
original Maryland cases under the caption In Re FelCor Lodging
Securities Litig., Case No. 1:17-cv-1786 (the "Consolidated
Action"). The Assad Lawsuit was designated as the lead case for
the Consolidated Action. On September 28, 2017, the Bagheri
Lawsuit was also consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On August 11, 2017, the Maryland Court entered an order regarding
the selection of a Lead Plaintiff for the Consolidated Action. No
stockholder moved for appointment and no Lead Plaintiff was
appointed by the Court.

On October 26, 2017, the plaintiff and defendants in the Bagheri
Lawsuit filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice. The Maryland Court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit that same day, and ordered the clerk to close the case.

On November 2, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Assad, Johnson, and
Sachs lawsuits filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice. The Maryland Court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit that same day.

RLJ Lodging Trust is a self-advised and self-administered
Maryland real estate investment trust ("REIT") that acquires
primarily premium-branded, focused-service and compact full-
service hotels. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland.


ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Whitehead" Class Lawsuit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that it "continues to vigorously
defend itself" against the claim asserted in the putative class
action captioned Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
et al., No. 1:17-cv-10025.

On January 6, 2017, a purported stockholder of Inotek filed the
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  An amended complaint was filed on July 10, 2017,
and a second amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2017.

The second amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 against the Company, David Southwell, and Rudolf
Baumgartner based on allegedly false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding Inotek's phase 2 and phase 3 clinical
trials of trabodenoson.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages for purchasers of Inotek's
common stock between July 23, 2015 and July 10, 2017, as well as
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs opposed the motion
on December 5, 2017, and the defendants filed a reply on January
16, 2018.

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a multi-platform biotechnology
company focused on the development of first or best-in-class gene
therapies for rare and devastating pediatric diseases.


RPM PIZZA: "Payne" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Payne and Mariah Trepagnier, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RPM Pizza, LLC; RPM
Pizza Midwest, RPM Pizza Ventures, LLC; RPM Pizza Ventures II,
LLC; LLC; Doe Corporations 1-10; Glenn Mueller; and Richard
Mueller, III, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01541-TWP-MJD
(S.D. Ind., May 18, 2018), seeks appropriate monetary,
declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful
failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly-situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Indiana Wage Payment Act, and the Indiana Wage
Deduction Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and
willfully violated the FLSA, the WPA, and the WDA by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers
at the Defendants' stores, including Plaintiffs, have been
subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices,
including policies and practices with respect to wages and
reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.

RPM Pizza operates franchises of Domino's Pizza in the United
States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Jay Meisenhelder, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT & CIVIL RIGHTS LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
          650 North Girls School Road, Suite B20
          Indianapolis, IN 46214
          Telephone: (317) 231 5193
          Facsimile: (317) 982 5463
          E-mail: jaym@ecrls.com

               - and -

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


RUSHMORE SERVICE: Faces "Torres" Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Service
Center, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Torres, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09236
(D. N.J., May 15, 2018).

Rushmore Service Center LLC or RSC is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   TODD D. MUHLSTOCK, Esq.
   BAKER SANDERS LLC
   100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Email: ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com


SAVANNAH, GA: "Milie" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MILIE, TERRY ALBERTS, JR., MATTHEW CAPLES, BRIAN COYNE,
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, CHRISTOPHER HANKS, SHAWN HARTL, FRANCIS LANG,
LAWRENCE LILIENTHAL, JR., RYAN MARQUEZ, MATTHEW MIRAGLIA, CHAD
OSTERLUND, MICHAEL SCHONFELD, NICHOLAS JOHN ZBIKOWSKI, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAVANNAH, GA, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00117-LGW-GRS (S.D. Ga., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover
compensation, damages, and equitable relief under to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are employed by the
Defendant as firefighters. In the 3 years preceding the filing of
this complaint, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have
been denied request to use compensatory time, such that they were
not permitted by Defendant to use compensatory time within a
reasonable time after making the request, and in many cases, were
not permitted to use compensatory time at all.

Savannah, a coastal Georgia city, is separated from South
Carolina by the Savannah River.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Herman, Esq.
          BARRETT & FARAHANY
          1100 Peachtree St., NE Ste. 500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (912) 303 7717
          Facsimile: (404) 214 0125
          E-mail: Charles@JusticeAtWork.com


SEADRILL LTD: Suit over Rosneft Transaction Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Seadrill Limited 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
consolidated class action suit related to the Rosneft
transaction.

In December 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
Fuchs et al. v. Seadrill Limited et al., No. 14-cv-9642
(LGS)(KNF), was filed in U.S. Federal District Court in the
Southern District of New York, alleging, among other things, that
Seadrill and certain of our executives made materially false and
misleading statements in connection with the payment of
dividends.

In January 2015, a second purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Heron v. Seadrill Limited et al., No. 15-cv-0429
(LGS)(KNF), was filed in the same court on similar grounds.

In March 2015, a third purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Glow v. Seadrill Limited et al., No. 15-cv-1770
(LGS)(KNF), was filed in the same court on similar grounds.

On March 24, 2015, the court consolidated these complaints into a
single action. On June 23, 2015 the court appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel and ordered the co-lead plaintiffs
to file a single consolidated amended complaint by July 23, 2015.

The amended complaint was filed on July 23, 2015 alleging, among
other things, that Seadrill, North Atlantic Drilling Ltd and
certain of their executives made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the payment of dividends, the
failure to disclose the risks to the Rosneft transaction as a
result of various enacted government sanctions and the inclusion
in backlog of $4.1 billion attributable to the Rosneft
transaction. The defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on October 13, 2015. The plaintiffs, in turn, filed
their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on November 12, 2015
and the defendants' Reply Brief was served on December 4, 2015.

Seadrill said "Although we intend to vigorously defend this
action, we cannot predict the outcome of this case, nor can we
estimate the amount of any possible loss."

Seadrill Limited, an offshore drilling contractor, provides
offshore drilling services to the oil and gas industry worldwide.
The company operates through three segments: Floaters, Jack-up
Rigs, and Other.


SELLAS LIFE: Suit on Abstral(R) Promotional Practices Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sellas Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the suit against Galena
Biopharma, Inc. on its promotional practices on Abstral(R) is
still ongoing.

On February 13, 2017, a putative stockholder securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey captioned, Miller v. Galena Biopharma,
Inc., et al.

On February 15, 2017, a putative stockholder securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey entitled, Kattuah v. Galena Biopharma,
Inc., et al.

The actions assert that the defendants failed to disclose that
Galena's promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl
sublingual tablets were allegedly improper and that Galena may be
subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged
failures rendered Galena's statements about its business
misleading.

Two groups of stockholders and one individual stockholder filed
three motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on April 14, 2017
and April 17, 2017.

Subsequently, one of the stockholders groups withdrew its motion
for lead plaintiff status and the individual stockholder notified
the Court that he does not object to the appointment of the
remaining stockholder group, GALE investor group, as lead
plaintiff. On July 17, 2017, the Court approved the GALE investor
group as named lead plaintiff and its counsel as lead and liaison
counsel. The Court also consolidated both actions. An amended
complaint was filed on October 6, 2017.

On December 15, 2017, Galena and the former officers and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
plaintiffs have responded to a former officer's motion to dismiss
on February 13, 2018 and will respond to Galena's and the other
former officers' and employees' motion to dismiss on March 2,
2018.

Sellas Life said "Galena and the former officers and employees
are expected to file a reply in April of 2018. Thereafter, Galena
will take the matter under advisement. It is not known when the
Court will issue a ruling in this matter."

Sellas Life Sciences Group, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on novel cancer
immunotherapeutics for a broad range of cancer indications. The
company is based in New York.


SELLAS LIFE: Settlement Hearing to Continue, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Sellas Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court has ruled in
favor of the Company and continued the settlement hearing for 90
days, in the case captioned as, In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C.
A. No. 2017-0423-JTL.

On April 27, 2017, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Patel
vs. Galena Biopharma, Inc. et al., CA No. 2017-0325-JTL seeking
relief under Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
(DGCL) and alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by Galena's
former board of directors and former interim chief executive
officer regarding proposals to amend Galena's certificate of
incorporation to increase the amount of authorized shares of
common stock and effectuate a reverse stock split at the July
2016 and October 2016 stockholder meetings, respectively.

On June 2, 2017, an amended verified complaint was filed along
with a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 5, 2017,
Galena filed a verified petition under Section 205 of the DGCL
and a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 8, 2017, the
Court denied a request by the plaintiff to schedule a preliminary
injunction motion and ordered a prompt trial on both the
plaintiff and Galena's claims.

On June 20, 2017, the Court consolidated the claims into In re
Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL. On July 10,
2017, the Court ordered that the trial of the claims be held on
August 28, 30 and 31, 2017. On July 24, 2017, Galena entered into
a binding settlement term sheet, which the Court enforced on
November 30, 2017, over the objection of the plaintiff. On
December 8, 2017, the Court set the hearing on the settlement for
March 15, 2018. On December 11, 2017, the Court also granted an
order validating the ratification votes at the special
stockholder meeting held on July 6, 2017 and the certificate of
amendments filed by Galena for the increase in authorized shares
in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016 as well as for the reverse stock
split in 2016.

On February 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed his brief in support of
the settlement as well as his request for attorneys' fees and an
incentive award. On March 1, 2018, the former directors and
former interim chief executive officer responded to plaintiff's
brief. On February 28, 2018, the former directors and former
interim chief executive officer requested the Court continue the
date of the hearing to approve the settlement as the Company was
working with the staff of the SEC to obtain the no-action letter
required by the binding settlement term sheet. The Plaintiff
objected to such continuance. On March 15, 2018, the Court ruled
in favor of the Company and continued the settlement hearing for
90 days.

Under the terms of the settlement, the class will receive a
settlement payment of $1.3 million, in addition to attorney fees
in an amount to be approved by the Court. The settlement payment
of $1.3 million consists of $50,000 in cash to be paid by the
Company or its insurers and $1,250,000 in unrestricted shares of
the Company's common stock ("Settlement Stock"), which valuation
will be based on the volume-weighted average closing price for
the 20 trading days immediately preceding the day before the
transfer of the Settlement Stock to the settlement fund pursuant
to the terms and conditions of the settlement.

The Company anticipates that the Settlement Stock will be issued,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, in a
transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. Any amounts
awarded by the Court for attorneys' fees will be paid in part by
the settlement fund and in part by the Company's insurance
carriers. Upon the effectiveness of the proposed settlement, the
individual defendants will be released from the claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the class action by class
members participating in the settlement.

Sellas Life Sciences Group, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on novel cancer
immunotherapeutics for a broad range of cancer indications. The
company is based in New York.


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: "Renner" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Sequans Communications, S.A. 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 and other
defendants were given until May 24, 2018, to answer, move or
otherwise respond to the class action complaint.

On August 9, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned
Andrew Renner v. Sequans Communications S.A., Georges Karam, and
Deborah Choate (Case 1:17-cv-04665) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on purported
misrepresentations regarding Sequans' revenue recognition policy
in the Company's Form 20-F annual reports filed on April 29, 2016
and March 31, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
costs and fees.

On August 10, 2017, an almost identical class action complaint
captioned Kevin Shillito v. Sequans Communications S.A., Georges
Karam, and Deborah Choate (Case 2:17-cv-04707) was filed in the
same court. On September 28, 2017, the Shillito action was
consolidated with the Renner action.

On October 10, 2017, candidates to be lead plaintiff filed
motions to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February
6, 2018 the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"CAC") on April 9, 2018, which did not significantly alter the
allegations made in the earlier pleadings.

Pursuant to a prior stipulation and order, the Company, Mr. Karam
and Ms. Choate have until May 24, 2018 to answer, move or
otherwise respond to the CAC.

Sequans Communications S.A., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in fabless designing, developing, and supplying 4G LTE
semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband applications.


SHELTER MUTUAL: "Whitaker" Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donald K. Whitaker, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 42-BCV-
16-00082, was removed from the Circuit Court of Logan County,
Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Fort Smith) on May 23, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02091-PKH to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. P. K. Holmes, III.

Shelter Insurance is a mutual insurance company which focuses on
Auto, Property, Business, and Life Insurance. It operates in
fifteen U.S. states and the headquarters is in Columbia,
Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Donald K. Whitaker:

          William Gene Horton, Esq.
          NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, PA
          5434 Walsh Lane
          Rogers, AR 72758
          P.O. Box 184
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 464 8269
          Facsimile: (479) 782 5184
          E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com

Attorneys for Shelter Mutual Insurance Company:

          Sarah E. Greenwood, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374 5906
          E-mail: sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com


SIGMA DESIGNS: 3 Class Suits Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------
Sigma Designs, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 3, 2018, that the company is facing three class action
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On March 15, 2018, a complaint captioned Ann Noyes v. Sigma
Designs, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01645-WHO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants Sigma, certain members of the
Company Board and Silicon Labs. This action purports to be a
class action brought by a shareholder alleging, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 by filing
a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy
statement on February 23, 2018.

The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the
proposed transactions or to rescind the transactions or award
rescissory damages in the event the transactions are consummated.
An award of rescissory damages could reduce the amount of cash
available for distribution to shareholders in any liquidation
that Sigma might undertake following the Asset Sale.

A second complaint, making similar allegations, captioned David
Speiser v. Sigma Designs, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01670-WHO,
was filed in the same court on March 16, 2018.

On March 27, 2018, a third complaint, captioned Robert Stein v.
Sigma Designs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-1879-JSW, was filed
in the same court, making similar allegations regarding the
definite proxy statement filed on March 19, 2018.

Sigma Designs, Inc. is a global integrated system-on-chip ("SoC")
solutions provider offering intelligent platforms for use in a
variety of home entertainment and home and industrial control
appliances. The company is based in Fremont, California.


SINOVAC BIOTECH: Defends Class Lawsuit over Amalgamation Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sinovac Biotech Ltd. defends itself against a putative class
action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
related to its definitive amalgamation agreement, according to
the Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2018, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "On June 26, 2017, we entered into a definitive
amalgamation agreement, or the Amalgamation Agreement, with
Sinovac (Cayman) Limited, or Parent, and Sinovac Amalgamation Sub
Limited, or Amalgamation Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.  On March 26, 2018, we amended the Amalgamation Agreement
to extend its termination date to April 26, 2018.  On April 26,
2018, we further amended the Amalgamation Agreement to extend its
termination date to May 26, 2018.  Pursuant to the Amalgamation
Agreement, Parent will acquire Sinovac Biotech Ltd. for cash
consideration equal to US$7.00 per common share.  Subject to the
terms and conditions of the Amalgamation Agreement, at the
effective time of the amalgamation, Amalgamation Sub will be
amalgamated with and into Sinovac Biotech Ltd., with Sinovac
Biotech Ltd. continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent, or the Amalgamation."

On July 12, 2017, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York against the Company, its directors, and certain
entities related to the Amalgamation.  The complaint alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, entering into a self-dealing transaction at a price
below fair value and failing to take steps to maximize the value
of the Company.  The complaint also alleges that the Company
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
completion of the Amalgamation, rescission of the Amalgamation to
the extent it is implemented, damages, and attorneys' fees.  The
Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit; however, the
Company cannot determine as to whether an ultimate unfavorable
outcome is either probably or remote, nor reasonably estimate the
amount or range of the potential liability for this case at this
stage.

Sinovac Biotech Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
research, development, manufacture, and commercialization of
vaccines against human infectious diseases in the People's
Republic of China.  The Company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


SLDL LLC: Underpays Machine Operators, Rojas Claims
---------------------------------------------------
JAIME ROJAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLDL, LLC d/b/a MID-CO FIELD
SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01634 (S.D. Tex., May
18, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, all Machine Operators and all other
nonexempt employees employed by Mid-Co are similarly situated to
Plaintiff because they (1) have similar job duties; (2) regularly
work in excess of 40 hours per week; (3) are not paid overtime
for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week as required by
29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1) and (4) are entitled to recover their
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs from Mid-Co pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Proviso of "Garfield" Case Dismissal Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the stipulation of dismissal in
the case, Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al., has been approved.

On February 16, 2017, a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit captioned Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al., Case No. C17-
00284, or the Lawsuit, was filed in Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa against the company and
certain of its officers and directors. The Lawsuit alleged,
generally, that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our stockholders by seeking to sell control of the
company through an allegedly defective process, and on unfair
terms. The Lawsuit also alleged that defendants failed to
disclose all material facts concerning the merger with
Essentialis to stockholders. The Lawsuit sought, among other
things, equitable relief that would have enjoined the
consummation of the merger, compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 28, 2017, the company settled the Lawsuit by making
certain supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on February 28, 2017 in connection with the
plaintiff's agreement to voluntarily dismiss plaintiff's claims
in the Lawsuit. The company also agreed to pay $175,000 in
attorney's fees. This amount was accrued as a current liability
on the balance sheet as of December 31, 2016, and recorded as a
general and administrative expense on the statement of operations
for the year ended December 31, 2016. The stipulation of
dismissal was approved by the court on April 14, 2017.

Soleno Therapeutics Inc operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company develops novel therapeutic and diagnostic products for
allergic rhinitis. Soleno also develops a novel diagnostic device
for the detection of hemolysis. The company is based Redwood
City, California.


STAGE STORES: Laman Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
---------------------------------------------------------
LINDA LAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STAGE STORES, INC. d/b/a BEALLS, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01640 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime premium compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the FLSA, on behalf of
herself and all current and former Store Managers as well as
other similarly situated current and former employees holding
comparable positions but different titles, who work or worked for
Stage Stores at their Bealls locations within the United States
who will opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA. Stage Stores
violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other
Collective Action Members overtime premium compensation for hours
worked over 40 in any workweek.

Stage Stores is a department store company specializing in
retailing brand name apparel, accessories, cosmetics, footwear,
and housewares throughout the United States. The corporate office
is located in Houston, Texas.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Collective:

          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
          E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


STAMPS.COM INC: "Lopez" Class Action in Calif. Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. still defends itself in a putative class action
complaint filed by Juan Lopez and Nicholas Dixon, according to
the Company'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.

The Company said, "On February 8, 2018, a putative class action
complaint was filed against us in a case entitled Juan Lopez and
Nicholas Dixon v. Stamps.com, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01101, in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, alleging wage and hour claims on
behalf of our current and former "non-exempt" hourly call center
employees.  The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  We expect to defend this case
vigorously.  Due to the preliminary nature of the case, an
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, cannot be
determined."

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States.  The Company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998.  Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.


STATEWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Carrick" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statewide Credit
Services, Corp. The case is styled as Brian Carrick, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Statewide Credit Services, Corp. doing business as: Schwartz,
Schwartz & Associates, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02883 (E.D.
N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Statewide Credit Services Corp (SCS) is a debt collection agency
located in Garden City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


STATEWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statewide Credit
Services, Corp. The case is styled as Howard Dash, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Statewide Credit Services, Corp. doing business as: Schwartz,
Schwartz & Associates, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02884 (E.D.
N.Y., May 15, 2018).

Statewide Credit Services Corp (SCS) is a debt collection agency
located in Garden City, New York.BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SURGERY PARTNERS: Delaware Suit over New Preferred Shares Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Surgery Partners, Inc. continues to defend itself against a suit
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported Company
stockholder relating to the Company's August 31, 2017
transactions, 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 31, 2017, (i) the Company completed the sale and
issuance of 310,000 shares of the Company's preferred stock,
designated as 10.00% Series A Convertible Perpetual Participating
Preferred Stock (the "Series A Preferred Stock") to BCPE Seminole
Holdings LP ("Bain"), a fund advised by an affiliate of Bain
Capital Private Equity, at a purchase price of US$1,000 per share
in cash (the "Preferred Private Placement"), and (ii) Bain
completed its purchase of 26,455,651 shares (the "Purchased
Shares") of the Company's common stock from H.I.G.  Surgery
Centers, LLC ("H.I.G.") at a purchase price of US$19.00 per share
in cash (the "Private Sale").  As of August 31, 2017, the
Purchased Shares represented approximately 54.2% of the Company's
outstanding common stock.  As a result of the Preferred Private
Placement and the Private Sale, Bain became the controlling
stockholder of the Company, holding Series A Preferred Stock and
common stock that collectively represent approximately 65.7% of
the voting power of all classes of capital stock of the Company
as of August 31, 2017, and H.I.G. and its affiliated investment
funds no longer own any capital stock of the Company.  The
Preferred Private Placement and the Private Sale are referred to
collectively as the "Transactions."

On December 4, 2017, the Company, certain current and former
members of the Company's board of directors, H.I.G. Capital LLC
and certain of its affiliates and Bain Capital Private Equity,
L.P. and certain of its affiliates and advised funds
(collectively, the "Defendants") were named as defendants in a
suit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware
Action") by a purported Company stockholder relating to the
Transactions.  The plaintiff in the Delaware Action claims that
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Transactions, and that, in the alternative, Bain Capital
aided and abetted those purported breaches.  The plaintiff in the
Delaware Action purports to assert those claims on the Company's
behalf, as well as on behalf of a putative class of Company
stockholders and requests that the Court award monetary damages
to the purported class and/or the Company.  On January 2, 2018
the defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss all of the
claims asserted in that suit.  Briefing on that motion was slated
to conclude on or about May 21, 2018.

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

Surgery Partners, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
surgical facilities in the United States.  The Company operates
through three segments: Surgical Facility Services, Ancillary
Services, and Optical Services.  Surgery Partners, Inc. was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 24, 2018, that the company has filed a summary judgment
and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin against the company alleging that a 2003 transaction
between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of its assets to C&S that
were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated
and are proceeding in the United States District Court in
Minnesota.

The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the company and C&S purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England
plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate
Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including
granting Midwest plaintiffs' request to seek class certification
for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying New England
plaintiff's request to add an additional New England plaintiff
and denying plaintiff's request to seek class certification for a
group of New England retailers.

In September 2015, the New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th
Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New
England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of
New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit
occurred on May 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District
Court granted Midwest plaintiffs' motion to certify five Midwest
distribution center classes, only one of which sued us (the non-
arbitration Champaign distribution center class).

On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied the New England
plaintiff's appeals seeking to join an additional New England
plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class
certification of a smaller New England class. At a mediation on
May 25, 2017, the company reached a settlement with the non-
arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which is the one
Midwest class suing the company. The company and the Midwest
plaintiffs have entered into a settlement agreement and the court
granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017.

The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by us; (2) release of all Midwest
plaintiffs' claims against us related to the allegations and
transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could
have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution
center class; and (3) payment by us of $9. There is no
contribution between us and C&S, and C&S did not settle the
claims alleged against it and on April 19, 2018, a jury returned
a verdict in favor of C&S determining that there was no
conspiracy between Supervalu and C&S to restrain trade.

The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is
pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims
against us, which at this time are determined as remote. On
February 15, 2018, the company filed a summary judgment and
Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification. The hearing on the motions was scheduled for
May 16, 2018.

Supervalu Inc. together with its subsidiaries operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. The company
is based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Security Data Breach Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 24, 2018, that the plaintiff in the case, In Re:
SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, has
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the company relating to the criminal intrusions
into its computer network that the company announced in fiscal
2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in
the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under
the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on
November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice,
holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they
had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the
company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On
April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the
8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, the compant filed a cross-appeal
to preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the
plaintiffs' complaint.

On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14
out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th
Circuit did not consider the company's cross-appeal and remanded
the case back for consideration of the company's additional
arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff.

On October 30, 2017, the company filed its motion to dismiss the
remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed
a motion to amend its complaint. The Court held a hearing on the
motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District
Court denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted the
company's motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff
appealed to the 8th Circuit.

Supervalu Inc. together with its subsidiaries operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. The company
is based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


SYNACOR INC: Disputes Claims in N.Y. Securities Class Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. 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 Company and its officers dispute the
claims in a putative securities class action lawsuit and "will
defend vigorously against any allegations of wrongdoing."

The Company and two of its executive officers were recently named
as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed
April 4, 2018 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint makes various
allegations regarding statements related to the contractual
arrangement between the Company and AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"), and the
effect of that arrangement on the Company's revenue.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and other costs.
The case is still in its initial stage and a lead plaintiff has
not yet been appointed.

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises.  The Company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc.
and changed its name to Synacor, Inc. in July 2001.  Synacor,
Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Buffalo, New
York.


TELENAV INC: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for Final Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has scheduled the final approval hearing of the class
action settlement in the "Gergetz" suit for September 6, 2018,
according to Telenav, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA.  The complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of a class, and it alleges that Telenav caused unsolicited
text messages to be sent to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to
July 26, 2016.  Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages
under the TCPA law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and
an injunction to prevent any future violations.

Telenav said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the Company moved to dismiss the
complaint on November 21, 2016, and trial was scheduled for
January 2020.

In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that a hearing
was held on December 21, 2017.  A settlement has been reached and
the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement on March 5, 2018.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement on April 30,
2018.  The court scheduled the final approval hearing for
September 6, 2018.

The Company said, "The proposed settlement will be paid by our
technology errors and omissions liability insurance policy, after
payment of our deductible of US$250,000.  We accrued the
US$250,000 deductible payment in the nine months ended March 31,
2018, and recorded this amount as general and administrative
expense in our consolidated statement of operations."

Telenav is a provider of connected car and location-based
platform products and services. The company utilizes its
automotive navigation platform and its advertising platform to
deliver such products and services. The company is based in Santa
Clara, California.


TRANSUNION: "Walsh" Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the case Edward J. Walsh, Jr.
v. Trans Union, LLC has been stayed.

In connection with the settlements agreed to by the industry with
the various State Attorneys General in 2014, 2015 and 2016,
TransUnion and the other nationwide consumer reporting agencies
agreed to implement enhanced public record collection, matching
and reporting standards that are to be phased in over a 3-year
period. In 2017, the industry reminded all users of consumer
reports that, as a result of these enhanced standards, a
significant number of civil judgments and tax liens would be
expunged from files and fewer civil judgments and tax liens would
be reported in the future until federal, state or county offices
created compliant programs.

As a result of the voluntary actions being taken by the industry,
plaintiff lawyers are now seeking to advance claims that are
solely focused on public record collection. In particular, these
claims allege two common legal theories and allege some form of
class action status. The theories are: (1) the nationwide
consumer reporting agency failed to disclose to consumers the
sources of public record information contained in their consumer
reports by failing to identify as a source the vendor(s) engaged
by that consumer reporting agency to collect public record
information from government entities; and (2) the nationwide
consumer reporting agency failed to timely update civil judgment
and tax lien records based on its obligation to have reasonable
procedures to assure maximum file accuracy.

In the first quarter, a new matter, Edward J. Walsh, Jr. v. Trans
Union, LLC (6:18-cv-00166, Middle District of Florida, filed
February 2, 2018), was filed that names TransUnion, alleges a
legal violation of this nature and asserts a class claim.

TransUnion said, "In the first quarter of 2018, we agreed to
settle and have accrued an estimate for all of the pending public
records matters other than the Walsh matter, which was stayed
pending final approval of the broader settlement, on terms that
will not have a material impact on our financial condition or
results of operations."

On March 23, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for August
29, 2018. If the settlement is not ultimately approved by the
Court, TransUnion believes it has valid defenses to each of these
actions and will continue to defend them vigorously.

TransUnion is a leading global risk and information solutions
provider to businesses and consumers. The company provides
consumer reports, risk scores, analytical services and
decisioning capabilities to businesses. The company is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: MOU to Settle Individual Claims Still Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding to resolve the individual claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against
Tribune Media Company is still 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.

On May 8, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sinclair Broadcast Group,
Inc. ("Sinclair"), providing for the acquisition by Sinclair of
all of the outstanding shares of the Company's Class A common
stock ("Class A Common Stock") and Class B common stock ("Class B
Common Stock" and, together with the Class A Common Stock, the
"Common Stock") by means of a merger of Samson Merger Sub Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Sinclair, with and into Tribune Media
Company (the "Merger"), with Tribune Media Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Sinclair.

In July 2017, following the initial filing of the proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") by each
of Sinclair and the Company with the SEC relating to the Merger,
four purported Tribune Media Company shareholders (the
"Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against the
Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, and, in
certain instances, Sinclair and Samson Merger Sub, Inc.
(collectively, the "Parties") in the United States District
Courts for the Districts of Delaware and Illinois.  The actions
are captioned McEntire v. Tribune Media Company, et al., 1:17-cv-
05179 (N.D. Ill.), Duffy v. Tribune Media Company, et al., 1:17-
cv-00919 (D. Del.), Berg v. Tribune Media Company, et al., 1:17-
cv-00938 (D. Del.), and Pill v. Tribune Media Company, et al.,
1:17-cv-00961 (D. Del.) (collectively, the "Actions").  These
lawsuits allege that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted
material information and was materially misleading in violation
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule
14a-9 and generally seek, as relief, class certification,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or
rescissory damages, and unspecified damages.

On September 15, 2017, the Parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to resolve the individual claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs.  The MOU acknowledges that the
Company, in part in response to the claims asserted in the
Actions, filed certain supplemental disclosures with the SEC on
August 16, 2017 and that the Company, solely in response to the
Actions, communicated to four third parties that participated in
the sale process and twenty-three third parties that have signed
confidentiality agreements in connection with potential
divestitures that the "standstill" obligations of such third
parties were waived.  The Parties further agreed that the Company
would make the additional supplemental disclosures, which are set
forth in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the
SEC on September 15, 2017.  Further, the MOU specifies that
within five business days of the closing of the Merger, the
Parties will file stipulations of dismissal for the Actions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which will
dismiss Plaintiffs' individual claims with prejudice, and dismiss
the claims asserted on behalf of a purported class of the
Company's shareholders without prejudice.

The Company said, "The MOU will not affect the timing of the
Merger or the amount or form of consideration to be paid in the
Merger."

Tribune Media Company, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified
media and entertainment company.  The Company was founded in 1847
and is headquartered in Chicago Illinois.


TWILIO INC: "Flowers" Class Suit Still Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. 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 court has not yet finalized a schedule for notice
to potential class members, additional discovery, summary
judgment motions, or trial for the "Flowers" class action.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled
Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc.  The complaint alleges that the
Company's products permit the interception, recording and
disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint.
On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer
in part and granted it in part, with leave to amend by August 18,
2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law.  The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint.

Twilio said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that discovery has begun in the case,
and a hearing on the class certification motion was set for
December 2017.

In its recent report, the Company said that following a period of
discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
on September 20, 2017.  On January 2, 2018, the court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's class
certification motion.  The court certified two classes of
individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or
received certain communications involving the accounts of three
of the Company's customers that were recorded.

Twilio Inc. provides a Cloud Communications Platform that enables
developers to build, scale and operate communications within
software applications through the cloud primarily as a pay-as-
you-go service.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manning Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIUS MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02931-JSC
(N.D. Cal., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover injunction requiring
Uber to cease sending unsolicited text messages to consumers from
whom Uber does not have consent, as well as an award of actual
and/or statutory damages and costs.

This case challenges Uber's practice of sending unsolicited text
messages to consumers that have never had any relationship with
Uber. Uber's unsolicited texts violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227, and caused Plaintiff and
putative members of the Classes to suffer actual harm, including
the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy
that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment
of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data,
memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms. The text messages are also sent regardless of whether a
consumer has their cell phone number registered on the National
Do Not Call Registry.

Uber is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and
transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          David S. Ratner, Esq.
          DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP
          33 Julianne Court
          Walnut Creek, CA 94595
          Telephone: (917) 900 2868
          Facsimile: (925) 891 3818
          E-mail: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Motions for Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to Consolidate Cases and to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel are pending in the case, Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01620 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21,
2018).  The competing motions were filed by John Kho, who is
represented by David Rosenfeld, Esq.; and by Xiya Qian, who is
represented by Jeremy Lieberman, Esq.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that on February 21, 2018, a purported
class action, captioned Paul Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620 (the "Vanderheiden Action"), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers.  The Vanderheiden Action complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements,
including purported overstatements of the Company's online
community user engagement metrics and accounts receivable.

On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the "Qian Action") and
John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the
"Kho Action", together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian
Action, the "Class Actions"), respectively, were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Plaintiff Xiya Qian has moved to be appointed lead plaintiff, and
Plaintiff John Kho has opposed Plaintiff Qian's motion and sought
to have himself appointed lead plaintiff.  Reply briefs in
further support of the motions to serve as lead plaintiff were
due May 14.

Within ten days of the Court's order appointing lead plaintiff
and lead counsel, Plaintiffs are required either to inform
Defendants that a consolidated class action complaint will be
served within 60 days or notify Defendants that one of the
original complaints will be the operative complaint, and
defendants will have 60 days thereafter in which to respond.

Ubiquiti Networks said, "While the Company believes that the
Class Actions are without merit and plans to vigorously defend
itself against these claims, there can be no assurance that the
Company will prevail in the lawsuits.  The Company cannot
currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
that it may experience in connection with these litigations."

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for
service providers, enterprises, and consumers worldwide.  The
Company was formerly known as Pera Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. in 2005.  Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


UNDER ARMOUR: Faces "Murray" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Under Armour Inc.
The case is styled as Rebecca Elizabeth Murray, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Under
Armour Inc, a Maryland corporation and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04032 (C.D. Cal., May 15,
2018).

Under Armour, Inc. is an American company that manufactures
footwear, sports, and casual apparel. Under Armour's global
headquarters are located in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Drop Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Under Armour, Inc. and other defendants to dismiss
the amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action
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.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (the "Court") were consolidated under
the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Action").  On August 4, 2017,
the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action, North East
Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officers,
Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and
Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Section 20(a) control person liability
under the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended
Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.  The class period identified in the Amended Complaint
is September 16, 2015 through January 30, 2017.

The Amended Complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), in connection with the Company's public offering of senior
unsecured notes in June 2016.  The Securities Act claims are
asserted against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the
registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made
and the underwriters that participated in the offering.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials
utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or
misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of
the Company's products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which is still pending
with the Court.

Under Armour said, "The Company believes that the claims asserted
in the Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.  However, because of the inherent
uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is
unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the
outcome of this matter."

Under Armour, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
markets, and distributes branded performance apparel, footwear,
and accessories for men, women, and youth primarily in North
America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and
Latin America.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00789-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d
541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


VALE SA: Holders of Samarco Bonds File Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company faces a putative class action
suits in the federal courts of New York brought by holders of its
securities and by holders of Samarco's bonds, each under U.S.
federal securities laws.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in civil class action suits in federal courts in New
York brought by holders of its securities and by holders of
Samarco's bonds, each under U.S. federal securities laws. The
plaintiffs allege that the company made false and misleading
statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the risks of
the operations of Samarco's Fundao dam and the adequacy of the
related programs and procedures. The plaintiffs have not
specified an amount of alleged damages in these actions.

Vale S.A. is one of the largest metals and mining companies in
the world, based on market capitalization. The company is the
world's largest producer of iron ore and iron ore pellets and the
world's largest producer of nickel.


VALE SA: Suit over Fundao Dam Collapse Still On Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. 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 securities class action in the U.S.
Federal Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
the company's responsibility for the Fundao dam collapse, is
still in discovery phase.

Vale and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a
securities class action in the U.S. Federal Court for the
Southern District of New York brought by holders of Vale's ADRs
under U.S. federal securities laws.

In March 2017, the Judge issued a ruling dismissing a significant
part of the claims against the company and the individual
defendants, and allowing the case to continue based on more
limited claims. The claims that were not dismissed relate to
certain statements contained in our 2013 and 2014 sustainability
reports concerning risk mitigation plans, policies and
procedures, and certain statements made in a conference call in
November 2015 concerning our responsibility for the Fundao dam
collapse. This lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase.

Vale S.A. is one of the largest metals and mining companies in
the world, based on market capitalization. The company is the
world's largest producer of iron ore and iron ore pellets and the
world's largest producer of nickel.


VALE SA: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. 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 will not commence until after
the court rules on the defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

Vale, together with Samarco and BHPB, was named as defendant in
class action alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws
brought by holders of bonds issued by Samarco in the U.S. Federal
Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants filed
a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, and a decision on this
motion is still pending. Discovery will not commence until after
the court rules on the defendants' pending motion.

Vale S.A. is one of the largest metals and mining companies in
the world, based on market capitalization. The company is the
world's largest producer of iron ore and iron ore pellets and the
world's largest producer of nickel.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Incurs $1.5MM in Tobacco-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC has incurred tobacco product liability legal
expenses and costs totaling US$1,508,000 for the three months
ended March 31, 2018, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes.

The cases have generally fallen into the following categories:
(i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on
behalf of individual plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii)
lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle
ruling ("Engle progeny cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases
primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised
programs for ongoing medical monitoring, as well as cases
alleging that use of the terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights"
constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice, common law
fraud or violation of federal law, purporting to be brought on
behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and
(iv) health care cost recovery actions brought by various foreign
and domestic governmental plaintiffs and non-governmental
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures
allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of
profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery Actions").

The Company said, "The future financial impact of the risks and
expenses of litigation are not quantifiable.  For the three
months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, Liggett incurred tobacco
product liability legal expenses and costs totaling US$1,508,000
and US$3,137,000, respectively.  The tobacco product liability
legal expenses and costs are included in the operating, selling,
administrative and general expenses and litigation settlement and
judgment expense line items in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations.  Legal defense costs are expensed as
incurred."

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged
in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: 80 Claims Still Pending in Engle Progeny Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that approximately 80
plaintiffs' claims remain pending in state court related to the
Engle Progeny Cases.

In May 1994, the Engle Case was filed against Liggett and others
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The class consisted of all
Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered,
presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical
conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking." In
July 1999, after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the jury
returned a verdict against Liggett and other cigarette
manufacturers on certain issues determined by the trial court to
be "common" to the causes of action of the plaintiff class.  The
jury made several findings adverse to the defendants including
that defendants' conduct "rose to a level that would permit a
potential award or entitlement to punitive damages." Phase II of
the trial was a causation and damages trial for three of the
class plaintiffs and a punitive damages trial on a class-wide
basis before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase I.
In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of
US$12,704,000 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in
proportion to the respective plaintiff's fault.  In July 2000,
the jury awarded approximately US$145,000,000,000 in punitive
damages, including US$790,000,000 against Liggett.

In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed
the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to
decertify the class.  The judgment in favor of one of the three
class plaintiffs, in the amount of US$5,831,000, was overturned
as time barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to
the other two class plaintiffs.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision
vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class
should be decertified prospectively, but determined that the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
Engle progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among
other diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive;
(iii) that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were
defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants
concealed material information knowing that the information was
false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact
concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v)
that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding
the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with
the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent.  The
Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members
to proceed to trial on individual liability issues and
compensatory and punitive damages issues.  In December 2006, the
Florida Supreme Court added the finding that defendants sold or
supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not
conform to the representations made by defendants.  In October
2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition
for writ of certiorari.

Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in
Engle, which decertified the class on a prospective basis and
affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages
award, former class members had until January 2008 in which to
file individual lawsuits.  As a result, Liggett and the Company,
and other cigarette manufacturers, were sued in thousands of
Engle progeny cases in both federal and state courts in Florida.
Although the Company was not named as a defendant in the Engle
case, it was named as a defendant in substantially all of the
Engle progeny cases where Liggett was named as a defendant.

Engle Progeny Settlement I.  In October 2013, the Company and
Liggett entered into a settlement with approximately 4,900 Engle
progeny plaintiffs and their counsel ("Engle Progeny Settlement
I").  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to
pay a total of approximately US$110,000,000, with approximately
US$61,600,000 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in
installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015.  In
exchange, the claims of more than 4,900 plaintiffs, including the
claims of all plaintiffs with cases pending in federal court,
were dismissed with prejudice against the Company and Liggett.
Due to the settlement, in 2013, the Company recorded a charge of
US$86,213,000 of which approximately US$25,000,000 is related to
certain payments discounted to their present value using an 11%
annual discount rate.  The installment payments total
approximately US$48,000,000 on an undiscounted basis.  The
Company's future payments will be approximately US$3,400,000 per
annum through 2028, with a cost of living increase beginning in
2021.  In December 2017, Liggett pre-paid the 2018 and 2019
installment payments.

Engle Progeny Settlement II.  In December 2016, the Company and
Liggett entered into an agreement with 124 Engle progeny
plaintiffs and their counsel ("Engle Progeny Settlement II").
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay
US$17,650,000, US$14,000,000 of which was paid on December 7,
2016 with the balance of US$3,650,000 to be paid in equal
quarterly payments starting in January 2018, with 5% interest.
As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of
US$17,650,000 in the fourth quarter of 2016.  In December 2017,
Liggett prepaid the remaining settlement payments.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlements, approximately 80 plaintiffs' claims remain pending
in state court.  Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged
in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Personal Injury Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 purported personal injury class action
Young v. American Tobacco Co. remains stayed.

In November 1997, the class action was commenced on behalf of
plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who,
though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed
to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  No class
certification hearing has been held.  The case has been stayed
for a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years.
The stay order entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending
the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the
court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged
in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Personal Injury Class Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 purported class action Parsons v. AC & S
Inc. is still stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three
of the defendants.

In February 1998, the class action was commenced on behalf of all
West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.
The complaint seeks to recover US$1,000,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the class.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged
in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: 65 Individual Tobacco Cases Pending vs. Liggett
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that subsidiary Liggett Group LLC could be a
defendant in approximately 65 individual cases related to In Re:
Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases).

In "In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases)," A West
Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual
smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of
certain "common" issues.  Liggett was severed from trial of the
consolidated action.

In May 2013 the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs'
claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that
ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should
have included instructions on how to use them.  The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings.  The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim.

In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the
ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs
had potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants
which could be pursued in a second phase of the trial.

In October 2017, the trial court vacated the case management
orders for the second phase based on notice from the non-Liggett
parties of a settlement with those remaining plaintiffs.  With
respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and
plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given
the outcome of the first phase of the trial.

In May 2016, the trial court ruled that the case could proceed
against Liggett.  Liggett requested that the trial court certify
the matter for review by the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, but the trial court refused.  A scheduling order was
entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings
and discovery is underway.

In December 2017, the court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to
confirm all remaining plaintiffs with claims against Liggett and
provide information detailing smoking history and information
regarding the claimed smoking related injuries sustained by each.
Plaintiffs' counsel was directed to dismiss all other plaintiffs
from the litigation.  The court further directed plaintiffs and
Liggett to submit an amended scheduling order with a proposed
trial date at the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019.  In
addition, the court agreed that it would entertain a renewed
motion by Liggett regarding the impact of the final judgment in
favor of co-defendants on the claims against Liggett and whether
those claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In March and April 2017, Liggett moved to dismiss a number of
plaintiffs' claims on various grounds.  The court granted the
motions as to approximately 25 plaintiffs and reserved ruling as
to other claims until additional information is provided by
plaintiffs.  The parties have been ordered to mediate, but a date
has not been selected.  It is estimated that Liggett could be a
defendant in approximately 65 individual cases.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged
in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VERU INC: Suit over Aspen Park Acquisition Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. still faces a consolidated lawsuit related to its
acquisition of Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, 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 Company said, "In connection with the APP Acquisition, two
purported derivative and class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which
were captioned Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case
No. 2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-
CH-14488.

"On January 9, 2017 these two lawsuits were consolidated.  On
March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members
of our board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition and the members of our board of directors after the
closing of the APP Acquisition.

"The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
such breaches, by consummating the APP Acquisition in violation
of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting
requirements and by causing us to issue the shares of our common
stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former stockholders of
APP pursuant to the APP Acquisition in order to evade the voting
requirements of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law.

"The consolidated complaint also alleges that Mitchell S.
Steiner, a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Veru and a co-founder of APP, and Harry Fisch, a director of
Veru and a co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in receiving
shares of our common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock in the
APP Acquisition.

"Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Acquisition,
money damages, disgorgement of the shares of our common stock and
Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner and Dr. Fisch, and
costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees.

"On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

"On August 15, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing
without prejudice the claims that the post-acquisition directors
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
pre-acquisition directors and that Dr. Steiner and Dr. Fisch were
unjustly enriched.

"The court did not dismiss the claims that the pre-acquisition
directors breached their fiduciary duties and the claims that
Veru consummated the APP Acquisition in violation of the
Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting
requirements, and the action is continuing as to those claims.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

"Veru believes that this action is without merit and is
vigorously defending itself.  No amount has been accrued for
possible losses relating to this litigation as any such losses
are not both probable and reasonably estimable."

Veru Inc. operates as a urology and oncology biopharmaceutical
company.  It operates through two segments, Commercial; and
Research and Development.  The Company was formerly known as The
Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July
2017.  Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vipshop Holdings Limited 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 consolidated class action suit
filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has been concluded.

The Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors
were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Heller v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-03870-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on May 19, 2015) and Schwartz
v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-
05097-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on June 30, 2015).

The complaints in both putative class actions allege that certain
of the Company's financial statements and other public
disclosures contained misstatements or omissions and assert
claims under the U.S. securities laws. On September 15, 2015, the
court consolidated the two actions, and appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel for the consolidated action. On November 24, 2015, the
lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without
Prejudice which was entered by the court, voluntarily dismissing,
without prejudice, all claims in the consolidated action.

Vipshop Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as
an online discount retailer for various brands in the People's
Republic of China.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Amended "Goetz" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class
action styled Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No.
1:17-cv-1289) remains pending, according to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

In the putative class action filed September 8, 2017, the
plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent
other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly
situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and
other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its
fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by
charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that
"Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5
administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive
fees.  The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are
without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of
February 8, 2018.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (VRIAC") is a stock
life insurance company domiciled in the State of Connecticut.
VRIAC and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, "the
Company") provide financial products and services in the United
States. VRIAC is authorized to conduct its insurance business in
all states and in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.


WALMART INC: "Velasquez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Carlos Velasquez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-
00019280-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of CA,
County of San Diego, to the to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on May 18, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01004-L-BLM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge M. James
Lorenz.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762 1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

Attorneys for Walmart Inc.:

          Michelle C Doolin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550 6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550 6420
          E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com


WEI LING CHINESE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wei Ling Chinese
Restaurant LLC. The case is styled as Dionicio Melchor Gomez also
known as: Nicho individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wei Ling Chinese Restaurant LLC doing
business as: Taste Good, Wei Jun Wu, Diana Wu, Xiu Ghou and Jane
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04308 (S.D. N.Y., May 15,
2018).

Wei Ling Chinese Restaurant LLC doing business as: Taste Good is
a Chinese Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. still defends itself against a class
action complaint by a group of investors, according to Benchmark
2018-B2 Mortgage Trust's Form 10-D/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2018.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a
civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ("Wells Fargo
Bank") in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on
July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS
trusts.  On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice.
That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District
Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the
bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal
Court Complaint").  In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to
voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was
granted.

As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint
is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against
RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York
Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor
plaintiffs.

The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that
the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of
action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged
failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of
mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations
and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of
default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care
following alleged events of default.  Relief sought includes
money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.  Other cases alleging similar
causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and
other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these
and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank
are proceeding before the same District Court judge.

A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state
court by a different plaintiff investor.  On January 19, 2016, an
order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint
in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction
over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the
District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints
as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and
three amended complaints have been filed.  On December 17, 2016,
the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the
Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state
court (the "State Court Complaint").

In September 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("Royal Park"),
one of the plaintiffs in the District Court cases against Wells
Fargo Bank, filed a putative class action complaint relating to
two trusts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and money
damages based on Wells Fargo Bank's indemnification from trust
funds for legal fees and expenses Wells Fargo Bank incurs or has
incurred in defending the District Court case filed by Royal
Park.

The Company said, "With respect to the foregoing litigations,
Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible
impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS
trusts."

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the Certificate Administrator for
Benchmark 2018-B2 Mortgage Trust.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Says Class Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company is presently defending a number
of lawsuits in federal and state courts in the U.S. related to
the manufacture and sale of its products which include class
action allegations, and have and may become involved in similar
actions in other jurisdictions.

These lawsuits allege claims which include negligence, breach of
contract, breach of warranty, product liability and safety
claims, false advertising, fraud, and violation of federal and
state regulations, including consumer protection laws.

Whirlpool said, "In general, we do not have insurance coverage
for class action lawsuits. We are also involved in various other
legal actions in the U.S. and other jurisdictions around the
world arising in the normal course of business, for which
insurance coverage may or may not be available depending on the
nature of the action. We dispute the merits of these suits and
actions, and intend to vigorously defend them. Management
believes, based upon its current knowledge, after taking into
consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such suits and
actions, and after taking into account current litigation
accruals, that the outcome of these matters currently pending
against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse effect, if
any, on our financial statements."

Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool"), the number one major
appliance manufacturer in the world, was incorporated in 1955
under the laws of Delaware as the successor to a business that
traces its origin to 1898. Whirlpool manufactures products in 15
countries and markets products in nearly every country around the
world. The company is based in Benton Harbor, Michigan.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Shanklin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery on the third amended complaint in a putative class
action lawsuit, which was filed by former Wilhelmina model Alex
Shanklin and others, is continuing, according to Wilhelmina
International, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation").  The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the
Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on
behalf of models and the use of model images.  Other parties
named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other
model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  On August 11, 2014,
the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other
of the model management defendants.  Further, on March 3, 2014,
the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of
the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
generally describing the claims asserted therein against the
model management defendants, and stating that the case "may
involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also
enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which
dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and
then Third Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the
plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.  The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the
plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not
independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and
that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several
respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to
pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required
thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not
providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages
and deductions therefrom were computed.  The Third Amended
Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action,
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to
most of the plaintiffs' claims, and oral argument on the motion
was heard by the Court in June 2016.  The Court entered a
decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion
to  dismiss on May 26, 2017.  The Court (i) dismissed three of
the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the
conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and
unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii)
permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some
plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to
continue, within a limited time frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina have appealed the decision and the
appeal was argued on April 10, 2018.  On August 16, 2017,
Wilhelmina filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, and
discovery in this action is continuing.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion
model management and complementary business activities.  The
business of talent management firms, such as Wilhelmina, depends
heavily on the state of the advertising industry, as demand for
talent is driven by Internet, print and television advertising
campaigns for consumer goods and retail clients.  The company is
based in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Little Now Sole Plaintiff in "Pressley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, 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 Shawn Pressley has
asked to withdraw from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was
brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn
Pressley and others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York
State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  The Amended Complaint, asserting
essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action,
was filed on August 16, 2017.

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was argued on April 20, 2018.
Discovery is proceeding in this case, and Ms. Pressley has asked
to withdraw from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole
named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley
Litigation are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc.'s primary business is fashion
model management and complementary business activities.  The
business of talent management firms, such as Wilhelmina, depends
heavily on the state of the advertising industry, as demand for
talent is driven by Internet, print and television advertising
campaigns for consumer goods and retail clients.  The company is
based in Dallas, Texas.


WMIH CORP: Faces "Franchi" Class Suit over Nationstar Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WMIH Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Franchi v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-01170-B, related to its merger agreement with Nationstar
Mortgage Holdings Inc., according to WMIH Corp.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On February 12, 2018, WMIH, its wholly-owned subsidiary Wand
Merger Corporation (Merger Sub) and Nationstar Mortgage Holdings
Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions
set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into Nationstar
(the "Nationstar Transaction" or the "Merger"), with Nationstar
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of WMIH.

The Company said, "On May 8, 2018, a purported class action
lawsuit, styled as Franchi v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01170-B, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas naming
Nationstar, WMIH, Wand Merger Corporation and the individual
members of the Nationstar board of directors as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
by disseminating a false and misleading registration statement.
The lawsuit seeks a variety of equitable and injunctive relief
including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the
Merger, rescinding the Merger to the extent already implemented,
directing the defendants to disseminate a registration statement
that does not contain any untrue statement of material fact,
declaring the defendants violated the Exchange Act, and awarding
plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.  The defendants believe
this lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against it."

WMIH Corp., through its subsidiary, WM Mortgage Reinsurance
Company, Inc., engages in legacy reinsurance business with
respect to mortgage insurance operated in runoff mode.  The
company was formerly known as WMI Holdings Corp. and changed its
name to WMIH Corp. in May 2015.  WMIH Corp. was founded in 1889
and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


XEROX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Relating to Fuji Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to face litigation relating to the
proposed transaction to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.,
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 2018, five complaints, including four putative class
actions (which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox
shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County ("Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to
combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox ("Fuji Transaction") (refer to Note
20 - Fuji Xerox Transaction and Recent Developments).  All of the
complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM
Holdings Corporation ("Fujifilm").  The complaint in one of the
actions also names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former
Chief Executive Officer of Xerox.  The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that Xerox's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in negotiating, approving, and purportedly making false
and misleading disclosures about the Fuji Transaction, and that
Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches.  The complaint in one
of the actions further alleges that Xerox and the director
defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly failing to
disclose information about the joint venture agreements between
Xerox and Fujifilm.  The lawsuits seek injunctive relief
preventing the proposed transactions, and/or additional
disclosures by Xerox's directors, unspecified damages from
Xerox's directors, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as other
relief.

Another complaint filed by Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder,
against Xerox and its directors in the same Court on March 2,
2018 alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
refusing Mr. Deason's request for a waiver of the deadline for
nomination of a new slate of Xerox directors, and seeks to enjoin
Xerox and its directors from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-
laws, thereby allowing Mr. Deason to proceed with the
nominations, as well as costs, fees, and other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoin
Xerox from "taking any further action to consummate the change of
control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on
January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims
asserted in the underlying action;" (ii) enjoin Xerox from
enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring
shareholders to nominate directors for election at the 2018
annual shareholder meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii)
require Xerox to waive such advance notice bylaw provision to
permit the noticing of a slate of director nominees for election
at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting, and denying defendants'
motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement")
with Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, among others, that would have
resolved the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox's
2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as well as the ongoing
litigation brought by Mr.  Deason against Xerox and its directors
related to the proposed Fuji Transaction.  The agreement expired
by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the
lower Court's decision and order.  Defendants also moved the
appellate court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be
heard on an expedited basis.  At a hearing before the appellate
court on May 7, 2018, the appellate court ruled that the appeals
would be heard on an expedited basis and granted a partial
interim stay allowing Xerox and Fujifilm to take steps to seek
regulatory approvals related to the Fuji Transaction pending a
ruling from the appellate court on defendants' motions to stay
pending appeal.

The Company said, "Xerox believes the lawsuits are meritless and
will vigorously defend them.  At this time, however, it is
premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in these litigations.  Should
developments cause a change in our determination as to an
unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or
settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs, including an inability to close the proposed
transactions."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document
management systems and solutions worldwide.  The Company was
founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Fund Appeals Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported securities class action, which was
initiated by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, has filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit from a court order dismissing the case,
according to Xerox Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The case is Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A.
Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and
Mary Scanlon.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed the purported securities
class action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns,
Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel
(collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock.  The
complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees.  Other, similar lawsuits may follow.
On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order
setting out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for
defendants' response to that complaint following the Court's
appointment of lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff.  On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an
amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and
seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater
and Mary Scanlon as defendants.  On June 30, 2017, defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the motions were
fully briefed on October 13, 2017.

On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order
granting the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a
judgment of dismissal and closed the case.  On April 20, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend against this
matter.  At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation.  Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document
management systems and solutions worldwide.  The Company was
founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut.


YELP INC: Securities Class Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, 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 January 18, 2018, a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations on February 9,
2017.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief."

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects people with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The Company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


ZTO EXPRESS: Stay of Birmingham Retirement System's Suit Lifted
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. 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 motion to lift the stay and
remand the case entitled, City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., has been
granted.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial
public offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants")
have been named as defendants in the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et
al., 01-CV-2017-902004.00 (Cir. Ct. Jefferson County Ala., filed
on May 16, 2017).

On June 28, 2017, the company removed the Alabama Action to the
federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and
the Underwriter Defendants joined in the removal. On July 14,
2017, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System filed a
Motion to Remand the Alabama Action back to state court. On
August 4, 2017, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
submitted a joint Motion to Change Venue, requesting the court to
transfer the Alabama Action to the federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On August 29, 2017, the court issued an order staying the
proceedings of the Alabama Action pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees
Ret. Fund, and denying without prejudice City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System's Motion to Remand and the company
and the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Change Venue.

On April 17, 2018, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System filed a motion to lift stay and remand the Alabama Action
back to state court, which motion was granted by the court on
April 18, 2018.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
express delivery and other value-added logistics services in
China. It offers delivery services for e-commerce merchants,
traditional merchants, and other express service users, as well
as through business partners. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Shanghai, the People's
Republic of China.


ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Stay "Guo" and "McGrath" Suits Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. 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 court has granted the company
and the underwriter defendants' motion to stay the cases Guo v.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., and McGrath v. ZTO Express
(Cayman) Inc., et al.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial
public offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants")
have been named as defendants in  Guo v. ZTO Express (Cayman)
Inc., et al., 17 Civ. 03676 (Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca., filed on
August 11, 2017)(the "Guo Case") and  McGrath v. ZTO Express
(Cayman) Inc., et al., 17 Civ. 03805 (Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca.,
filed on August 21, 2017)(the "McGrath Case").

On September 15, 2017, the company removed the Guo Case and
McGrath Case to the federal District Court for the Northern
District of California and the Underwriter Defendants consented
to the removal. Also on September 15, 2017, the company and the
Underwriter Defendants filed a joint motion to transfer in the
Guo Case and McGrath Case, requesting the court to transfer the
two cases to the federal District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On September 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand
these two cases back to state court. On December 22, 2017, the
court granted plaintiffs' motions to remand and denied the
company and the Underwriter Defendants' joint motion to transfer.

On February 15, 2018, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
filed a joint motion to stay the Guo Case and McGrath Case in
state court. On April 16, 2018, the court decided to grant the
company and the Underwriter Defendants' motion to stay, with the
formal order to be prepared, signed and filed.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
express delivery and other value-added logistics services in
China. It offers delivery services for e-commerce merchants,
traditional merchants, and other express service users, as well
as through business partners. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Shanghai, the People's
Republic of China.


ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Nurlybayev" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. 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's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint entitled, Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express (Cayman)
Inc., et al., remains pending before the court.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial
public offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants")
have been named as defendants Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express (Cayman)
Inc., et al., 1:17-cv-06130 (S.D.N.Y., filed on August 14,
2017)(the "New York Action").

On October 16, 2017, three sets of purported shareholders filed
motions to appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs of the purported
plaintiff class and appoint their designated counsel as lead
counsel. On November 13, 2017, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On January 8, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. On February 20, 2018, the company and the Underwriter
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which remains pending before the Court.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
express delivery and other value-added logistics services in
China. It offers delivery services for e-commerce merchants,
traditional merchants, and other express service users, as well
as through business partners. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Shanghai, the People's
Republic of China.


                            *********


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  * * *