CAR_Public/180626.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, June 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 127



                            Headlines


ADT INC: Wireless Encryption Settlement Proceedings Stayed
ADT INC: Five IPO-Related Suits Underway in Florida
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Investors' Consolidated Suit Concluded
AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
AEGEAN MARINE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit

AEGEAN MARINE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
AFFILIATE ASSET: Faces "Alidowlatabadi" Suit in N.D. Texas
AMP: Class Action Battle Opens With Jurisdiction Stoush
APPLE INC: "Mills" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Every Watch Has 'Defect,' Class Action Lawsuit Says

ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Eli Lilly Merger
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Cable Modem Consumer Suit Still Ongoing
ATLANTA, GA: Wheelchair Users Sue Over Condition of Sidewalks
BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Underway
BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan-Related Suit Underway

CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: "Kristensen" Hits Autodialed Marketing Calls
CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Faces "Marquez" Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Suit
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Summary Disposition Bid Pending

CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Court Ruling on Show Cause Order Pending
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Claim of Appeal in "Nicholl" Suit Filed
CINCINNATI: Suit Involving Hospital Worker OT Gains Traction
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Underway
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Dismisses Electrical Workers' Suit

COMERICA BANK: Baker Sues for Fraud, Duty Breach, Negligence
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defrauded Students Obtain Debt Relief
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Likely to Revive Slave Labor Suit
CPI CARD: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class
CRIMSON WINE: Class Action Settlement Underway

DAVID LERNER: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Court of Appeals Revives Teacher Pension Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
ECLINICALWORKS: Goodson Junk Fax Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
EHEALTH INC: Settlement of Calif. Suits Preliminarily Approved

EHEALTH INC: Wage and Hour Suit Underway in California
ETSY INC: Dismissal in "Altayyar" Suit Affirmed by 2nd Cir.
ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes & Weiss Suits Still Stayed
FLUOR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
FORD MOTORS: Judge Lambasts Proposed Deal in Touchscreen Suit

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Order Signed Class Action
FYZICAL LLC: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
GENER8 MARITIME: "Fragapane" and "Mohr" Suits Pending in S.D.N.Y.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Pleads Not Guilty to Rape, Sexual Act Charges
HEATH NET: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in C.D. California

vHEALTH NET: Faces "Steinley" Suit in C.D. California
HERC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Securities Suit Underway
HOBBY LOBBY: Sued Over Table Price Dispute
HORIZON PHARMA: "Schaffer" Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling
INDIANA: "Henson" Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Appeal Underway in Connecticut Class Suit
JAZZERCISE INC: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
JEREMY NELSON: Attorney Seeks to Reclassify Suit as Class Action
LA QUINTA: Appeal in "Beisel" Case Underway
LA QUINTA: Parties in Merger Suits Ink MOU

LEARNING EXPRESS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Trial on Shareholders' Suit Set for October
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 19
LENDINGCLUB CORP: "Moses" Suit in Early Stages
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action

MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
MDL 2804: Judge Allows Los Angeles County to Join Opioid Suit
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Faces Two Class Suits in Pennsylvania
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Maestri" Suit in S.D. Florida
MICHIGAN: DHS Faces Mental Health Care Class Action

NAPW INC: Faces "Bayne" Suit in E.D. New York
NETGEAR INC: Sued Over Wireless Network Range Extenders
NEUBERGER BERMAN: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
OPTHOTECH CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Micholle" Suit Due July 27

ORBOTECH LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over KLA-Tencor Merger
ORLANDO, FL: Court Rejects Red Light Class Action
PAGEUP: Could Face Class Action Over Potential Data Mishandling
PRESTIGE LAWNS: Faces "Carlo" Suit in S.D. New York
QUALCOMM INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Complaint

QUALITY CARE: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters' Suit Underway
RABOBANK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Debt Collection
RAPID7 INC: Says Litigation Accrual Increased to $600,000
REINS INT'L: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
RECRO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit

REV GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RIPPLE LABS: Hit With New California Class Action
RITE AID: Aklile Files Suit Over Albertsons Merger
RPX CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
S. RICCI: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York

SAN DIEGO, CA: Homeless RV Owners' Class Suit Survives First Test
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Defendants Mull Appeal in "Baker" Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Suit Underway
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Mazurek" Suit
SONY CORP: Canada High Ct. to Hear Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit

SOUND TRANSIT: Faces $240-Mil. Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTH CAROLINA: Major Development Brewing in Stucco Lawsuit
SUNLIGHT SUPPLY: "Martin" Suit Asserts Illegal Termination
SUNOPTA INC: Awaits Prel. Approval of Settlement in "De Jesus"
SUNRUN INC: Motion to Approve "Slovin" Settlement Due July 10

SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Fink et al. Suits in California
TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Files Lawsuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Stockinger" Suit in N.D. California
TRACKER MARINE: Court Upholds Couple's Suit

TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Class-Action Suit
TURTLE BEACH: Asks Nevada Supreme Court to Reverse Ruling
UNITED STATES: Central American immigrants File Class Action
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Visa Delays
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Bond Hearings for Immigrant Detainees

UNITED STATES: DA Nurse Practitioners Get Class Action Status
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: ED to Probe Handling of Sex Abuse Reports
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Now Face 11 Sex Abuse Lawsuits
VALEANT PHARMA: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Suit
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Still Ongoing

WASHINGTON: Suit Seeks Addiction Treatment in Whatcom County Jail
WILLBROS GROUP: Aug. 2 Fairness Hearing Set in Securities Suit
WORLEY & OBETZ: Files Bankruptcy, Faces Class-Action Suit
* Crawford & Co Announces Deal to Sell Garden City Group to Epiq
* Wealthy Investors Attempt to Cash in on Class Action Lawsuits





                            *********


ADT INC: Wireless Encryption Settlement Proceedings Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 court has stayed the settlement proceedings in the
Wireless Encryption Litigation pending an appellate ruling on a
related legal issue.

The Company is subject to five class action claims regarding
wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems.
Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases are in Federal Court
(in districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both
of the remaining two cases are in Florida State Court (both in
Palm Beach County Circuit Court).

Each of the five plaintiffs brought a claim under the respective
state's consumer fraud statute alleging that The ADT Corporation
("The ADT Corporation" refers to The ADT Security Corporation
(formerly named The ADT Corporation) and each of its consolidated
subsidiaries prior to the consummation of the ADT Acquisition)
made misrepresentations and material omissions in its advertising
regarding the unencrypted wireless signal pathways in certain
security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation.

The complaints in all five cases further allege that certain
security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation are not secure
because the wireless signal pathways are unencrypted, and can be
easily hacked.

On January 10, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all five class
action lawsuits. On October 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to class members
was issued November 16, 2017, and the settlement is currently in
the administration process.

A fairness hearing regarding the settlement was conducted on
February 1, 2018. The Court took the matter under advisement and
subsequently stayed the settlement proceedings pending an
appellate ruling on a related legal issue. The deadline for
filing claims expired on February 26, 2018. The settlement
administrator will not pay any claims until the Court enters an
order granting final approval of the settlement.

ADT Inc. is a provider of monitored security, interactive home
and business automation, and related monitoring services in the
United States (or "U.S.") and Canada. The company is based in
Boca Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Five IPO-Related Suits Underway in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 is defending against five shareholder
class action suits in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock were
filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and early May
2018.

The actions are entitled Goldstrand Investments Inc. v. ADT Inc.,
Krebsbach v. ADT Inc., Katz v. ADT Inc., Sweet v. ADT, Inc., and
Lowinger v. ADT Inc. Plaintiffs in each case allege the purchase
of ADT common stock in or traceable to the IPO, assert claims for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"), and seek to represent a class of similarly situated
shareholders.

Plaintiffs in all five cases name ADT Inc. and various ADT
officers, directors, and IPO underwriters, including Apollo
Global Securities, LLC, as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration
statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false
and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with
respect to litigation involving ADT, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, competitive pressures ADT faced, and ADT's
customer acquisition costs. Additionally, two plaintiffs allege
that the defendants misled investors with respect to false alarm
pressures.

The Company has not been served in these matters.

ADT Inc. is a provider of monitored security, interactive home
and business automation, and related monitoring services in the
United States (or "U.S.") and Canada. The company is based in
Boca Raton, Florida.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Investors' Consolidated Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, 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. District Court has
entered an order dismissing the consolidated federal action with
prejudice.

In July 2015, three securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
("U.S. District Court"), each on behalf of a purported class of
investors who acquired the company's publicly traded securities
between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015.

The lawsuits asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act") and alleged that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omitted
allegedly material information related to, among other things,
the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101, a product candidate
which is no longer being developed, and the prospects of AVA-101.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
other costs.

In December 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the company, its board of directors, underwriters
of the company's January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock
offering, and two of its institutional stockholders, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo ("San Mateo Superior Court").

The complaint alleged that, in connection with the company's
follow-on stock offering, the defendants violated the Securities
Act by allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements and by allegedly omitting material information related
to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA- 101 and the prospects of
AVA-101. The complaint also sought unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On March 16, 2017, the company agreed to settle the actions and
the settlements are now final. The total settlement amount paid
was $13.0 million, of which $1.0 million was contributed by the
company to cover its indemnification obligations to the
underwriters.

The company's insurers paid the remainder. The company and the
defendants have denied and continue to deny the claims alleged in
the actions, and the settlement does not assign or reflect any
admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant.

Notice of the settlement was provided to shareholders in the fall
of 2017, and no shareholder objected to the settlement. On
January 19, 2018, the San Mateo Superior Court entered a judgment
and order finally approving the settlement. And on February 5,
2018, the U.S. District Court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated federal action with prejudice.

Adverum is a clinical-stage gene therapy company targeting unmet
medical needs in serious rare and ocular diseases. The company is
based in Menlo Park, California.


AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.
between April 28, 2016 and June 4, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Aegean
shareholders' investment losses.

To join the Aegean class action, and/or if you have information
relating to this matter, please visit our AEGEAN SHAREHOLDER PAGE
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aegean had improperly accounted for approximately $200
million of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2017; (2)
Aegean failed to maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aegean's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 4, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Aegean revealed "that
approximately $200 million of accounts receivable owed to the
Company at December 31, 2017 will need to be written off," as
"[t]he transactions that gave rise to the accounts receivable
("the Transactions") may have been, in full or in part, without
economic substance and improperly accounted for in contravention
of the Company's normal policies and procedures." Aegean further
revealed that "[a] number of individuals employed by the Company
across multiple functions who are believed to have been involved
in the Transactions have been terminated or placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome of [an] investigation.
The Company has reported its preliminary findings to the SEC and
the Department of Justice and intends to cooperate with any
resulting investigations."

On this news, Aegean's stock fell $2.18 per share, or over 75%,
from its previous closing price to close at $0.70 per share on
June 5, 2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 6, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


AEGEAN MARINE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Aegean Marine
Petroleum Network Inc. ("Aegean Marine " or the "Company") (NYSE:
ANW) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean Marine securities between
April 28, 2016 and June 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/anw.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aegean had improperly
accounted for an approximate $200 million of accounts receivable
as of December 31, 2017; (2) Aegean failed to maintain effective
internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) consequently,
defendants' statements about Aegean's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/anw or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss
in Aegean Marine you have until August 6, 2018 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


AEGEAN MARINE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-
05165, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean
securities between April 28, 2016 and June 4, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its
top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aegean securities between
April 28, 2016, and June 4, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have
until August 6, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. supplies and markets refined
marine fuel and lubricants to ships in port and at sea. The
Company also owns and operates a fleet of bunkering tankers in
multiple jurisdictions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aegean had
improperly accounted for an approximate $200 million of accounts
receivable as of December 31, 2017; (ii) Aegean failed to
maintain effective internal control over financial reporting; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Aegean's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2018, Aegean Marine announced an internal review of
its financial reporting.  Then, on June 4, 2018, Aegean Marine
announced its preliminary findings from the review, including
that "approximately $200 million of accounts receivable at
December 31, 2017 will need to be written off."  Aegean Marine
further advised investors that certain "transactions that gave
rise to the accounts receivable . . . may have been, in full or
in part, without economic substance and improperly accounted for
in contravention of the Company's normal policies and
procedures."

On this news, Aegean Marine's share price fell $2.15, or 75.43%,
to close at $0.70 on June 5, 2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


AFFILIATE ASSET: Faces "Alidowlatabadi" Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affiliate Asset
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Alireza Alidowlatabadi and
Roya Ashtiani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00501-O (N.D. Tex., June 19, 2018).

Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Walt D Roper, Esq.
   The Roper Firm PC
   3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
   Dallas, TX 75204
   Tel: (214) 420-4520
   Fax: (214) 856-8480
   Email: walt@roperfirm.com


AMP: Class Action Battle Opens With Jurisdiction Stoush
-------------------------------------------------------
Anna Prytz, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the investor class action campaign against AMP has kicked off
with a battle over which court should hear the case as a fifth
claim has been lobbed against the embattled company.

Maurice Blackburn lodged its foreshadowed claim meaning the
wealth management giant is now facing five class actions from
aggrieved shareholders after admitting during the banking royal
commission that it charged customers for financial advice that
was never given and then lied to the corporate watchdog.

Law firms Phi Finney McDonald, Shine Lawyers and Slater and
Gordon have filed their proceedings in the Federal Court of
Australia in Melbourne while a class action filed by Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan is already under way in the NSW
Supreme Court.

At a case management hearing in Melbourne's Federal Court for the
Phi Finney McDonald and Shine Lawyers cases on Friday, AMP and
opposing counsels agreed that the matters should be consolidated
into one proceeding but were divided on which court should hear
the case.

AMP's barrister Elizabeth Collins, SC, said her client wanted to
transfer all actions to the NSW Supreme Court.

"We are hopeful these class actions can be consolidated in the
Supreme Court in Sydney, which already has a well-progressed
timeline, to provide the most efficient process and greater
certainty for all involved," AMP said in a statement.

"AMP is vigorously defending all proceedings."

Justice John Middleton said on June 8 while the matter of where
the case would be heard was up in the air nothing else could
proceed.

He ordered the application for a transfer hearing to be held on
August 14 in Sydney. The NSW Supreme Court is due to hold its
second hearing on June 15.

Justice Middleton said he was pleased all parties agreed the
matters should be heard by one judge as to do otherwise would
"waste everyone's time, money and resources".

Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions Andrew Watson
said the importance of the case was broader than just the
investors.

"The resolution of issues surrounding the AMP competing class
actions holds significance not only for the affected shareholder
participants whose interests and recoveries are paramount, but
also it will have an impact on the broader Australian class
action regime more generally," Mr Watson said.

Slater and Gordon has said its class action is open to investors
who acquired shares between June 7, 2012 and April 15, 2018.

The fees for no service scandal has stripped more than $2 billion
from AMP's market value and has seen it dropped from the index of
the 20 largest companies on the Australian Securities Exchange.

It also claimed the scalps of its chief executive Craig Meller
and chairman Catherine Brenner.

In a statement AMP said it would is set to file its defence on 20
July.

AMP is seeking to have these class actions consolidated in the
Supreme Court of NSW, which has the broadest class period and a
timetable to progress the matter. In our view this provides the
most efficient process and greater certainty for all
involved.[GN]


APPLE INC: "Mills" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Judy Mills, Judith Dean, Carla Compagnone and
Kenneth L. Buck, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00780, (D. N.J., January 18, 2018), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April
24, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02436.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages arising from
Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating
their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS
11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance
of these devices; restitution of illegally acquired money;
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and such other and further relief
resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent
omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone, notes
the complaint.

Mills owns an iPhone 6, which was purchased new approximately
three years ago from Verizon Wireless. Dean owned an iPhone 6,
which was purchased new several years ago. Both phones were
covered by written warranties.

Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [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 -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


APPLE INC: Every Watch Has 'Defect,' Class Action Lawsuit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Reisinger, writing for Fortune, reports that Apple is facing
a class-action lawsuit that alleges that every Apple Watch it has
ever produced has a big problem.

In a lawsuit, a Colorado man is seeking $5 million on behalf of
himself and others, as well as a request that Apple acknowledge a
fault in the screen design in every Apple Watch it's ever
released, according to Patently Apple, which obtained a copy of
the complaint.

"The Watches all contain the same defect and/or flaw, which
causes the screens on the Watches to crack, shatter, or detach
from the body of the Watch (the "Defect"), through no fault of
the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase," the
complaint reads, according to the report. It claims that the
first-, second, and third-generation Apple Watches have had the
problem since their initial launch in 2015 and Apple has so far
not acknowledged the problem.

The complaint accompanies pictures of Apple Watches that have had
their screens come off.

Apple Watch hasn't been without fault. The company has
acknowledged two problems with the original "Series 0" models
that can cause their batteries to swell and back covers to fall
off under certain conditions. The Series 2 and Series 3 have also
had minor problems with their batteries and screens,
respectively. Apple hasn't said how widespread the problems are,
but its Support forums include several complaints about them. The
company has extended its limited warranty for those defects.

A detaching screen, however, is not something that Apple has
acknowledged. And while it's unclear what might have caused the
screen to detach in some circumstances, an expanding battery
could cause the problem.

The class action lawsuit accuses Apple of violating business acts
and warranties. Whether this will actually turn into anything,
however, is unknown.

Apple did not immediately respond to a Fortune request for
comment. [GN]


ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Eli Lilly Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Armo Biosciences too cheaply through an
unfair process to Eli Lilly, for $50 a share or $1.6 billion,
shareholders say in a federal class action.

The case is ALBERT PERRON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC.,
PETER VAN VLASSELAER, XIANGMIN CUI, CARL GORDON, PIERRE LEGAULT,
NAIYER RIZVI, BETH SEIDENBERG, and STELLA XU, Defendants, Case
No. ______ (N.D. Calif.).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     David E. Bower, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
     Culver City, CA 90230
     Tel: (213) 446-6652
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

Of counsel:

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: 212-971-1341
     Fax: 212-202-7880
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Cable Modem Consumer Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Arris International plc 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 itself
in the case, In Re ARRIS Cable Modem Consumer Litigation, C.A.
5:17-cv-01834, Northern District of California.

On March 31, 2017, Carlos Reyna, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated filed a putative class action lawsuit against
ARRIS alleging that the SB6190 modem which includes the Intel
Puma 6 chipset is defective. Other state court complaints have
been filed, but are stayed pending the outcome of the California
action. The plaintiff alleges violation of the California Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair
Competition Law.

ARRIS said "It is premature to assess the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, we
may be required to pay damages."

ARRIS is a global leader in entertainment, communications and
networking technology. The company is based in Suwanee, Georgia.


ATLANTA, GA: Wheelchair Users Sue Over Condition of Sidewalks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Times reports that three wheelchair users are suing the
city of Atlanta, saying the poor condition of sidewalks and
crosswalks can make it difficult or impossible to get around in
the city.

The lawsuit seeks class action status, saying Atlanta is
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. It accuses the
city of a "systemic failure to maintain sidewalks that are
equally accessible to persons with mobility impairments."

When asked for comment, city public affairs officials said by
email that they were looking into it.

The lawsuit filed says disabled people have to contend with
sidewalks that are broken, uneven or obstructed by trees, utility
poles and construction. They can also find themselves unable to
cross intersections when curb ramps are missing or broken. [GN]


BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock 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 plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit by investors in certain
iShares ETFs.

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of
its advisory affiliates, and the directors and certain officers
of the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court. The lawsuit was
filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the "ETFs"), and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws,
purportedly by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses
issued by the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the
event of a "flash crash."

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January 6, 2017,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing that complaint.

On September 18, 2017, the court dismissed the lawsuit. On
December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
lawsuit.

BlackRock, Inc. (together, with its subsidiaries, unless the
context otherwise indicates, "BlackRock" or the "Company") is a
leading publicly traded investment management firm with $6.317
trillion of AUM at March 31, 2018. With approximately 14,000
employees in more than 30 countries, BlackRock provides a broad
range of investment, risk management and technology services to
institutional and retail clients worldwide. The company is based
in New York.


BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan-Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock 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 is seeking dismissal of the
Amended Complaint in a purported class action lawsuit brought in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
by a former employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k)
Plan participants and beneficiaries.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee
and various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a
former employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan
(the "Plan") participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from
April 5, 2011, to the present.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed peer funds, focused disproportionately on active
versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated with
investment options managed by BlackRock.

While the complaint does not contain any specific amount in
alleged damages, it claims that the purported underperformance
and hidden fees cost Plan participants more than $60 million. On
October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, adds as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees. The Amended Complaint also includes a new purported
class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust
Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC. Specifically, the plaintiffs
allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the CTFs, engaged in self-
dealing by, most significantly, selecting itself as the lending
agent on terms that plaintiffs claim were excessive.

The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and are vigorously defending the action. BlackRock moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 8, 2017.

BlackRock, Inc. (together, with its subsidiaries, unless the
context otherwise indicates, "BlackRock" or the "Company") is a
leading publicly traded investment management firm with $6.317
trillion of AUM at March 31, 2018. With approximately 14,000
employees in more than 30 countries, BlackRock provides a broad
range of investment, risk management and technology services to
institutional and retail clients worldwide. The company is based
in New York.


CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: "Kristensen" Hits Autodialed Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kristensen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Assessment Group Inc.,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-03416 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2018), seeks damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Capital Assessment Group is an online financial services company.
It contacted Kristensen in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase their services using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming calls, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, 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
            abacon@toddflaw.com


CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Faces "Marquez" Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centerplate of
Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. The case is styled as
Renee Marquez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Centerplate of
Delaware, Inc., Centerplate, Inc. a Delaware Corporation and Does
1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18567402 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 19, 2018).

Centerplate, Inc. is a food and beverage corporation serving
entertainment venues in North America, and the UK.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Richard Edward Quintilone II, Esq.
   Quintilone & Associates
   2974 El Toro Rd Ste 100
   Lake Forest, CA 92630
   Tel: (949) 458-9675
   Fax: (949) 458-9679
   Email: req@quintlaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's appeal to the Ninth
Circuit in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is still
pending.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares), and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants.

Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its
stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized
mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund
assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a
fundholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief,
costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of a putative class of
investors who held shares as of August 31, 2007, and a putative
class of investors who purchased the shares between September 1,
2017 and February 27, 2009.

Plaintiff's federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiff's state law claims were dismissed. On August 8, 2011,
the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims with prejudice.

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued a ruling on
March 9, 2015 reversing the district court's dismissal of the
case and remanding the case for further proceedings. Plaintiff
filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and in
decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the court
dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed to
the Ninth Circuit, where the case remains pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan
holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries (collectively
referred to as "Schwab" or the "Company"), in wealth management,
securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and
financial advisory services. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab 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
itself in the Crago Order Routing Litigation.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity
orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as
defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed
orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December
31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to
amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14,
2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations,
and intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan
holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries (collectively
referred to as "Schwab" or the "Company"), in wealth management,
securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and
financial advisory services. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Summary Disposition Bid Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that a ruling on the defendants'
motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C) (10) in the
City of Livonia case from the court is awaited.

On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer
Bancorp, Inc. ("Talmer"). The actions are styled Regina Gertel
Lee v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 2016-
151642-CB and City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Chemical Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB.

These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of
Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and the
Corporation (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaints
allege, among other things, that the directors of Talmer breached
their fiduciary duties to Talmer's shareholders in connection
with the merger by approving a transaction pursuant to an
allegedly inadequate process that undervalues Talmer and includes
preclusive deal protection provisions, and that the Corporation
allegedly aided and abetted the Talmer directors in breaching
their duties to Talmer's shareholders.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants have
been unjustly enriched. Both complaints seek various remedies on
behalf of the putative class (consisting of all shareholders of
Talmer who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant).
They request, among other things, that the Court enjoin the
merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon
terms, direct the Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary
duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is
already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and
disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW")
served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an
alleged conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under
actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the
defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material information
about the proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
relating to the proposed merger.

These two cases were consolidated as In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB, per an order
entered on May 12, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs in
this consolidated action again amended their complaint, adding
additional factual allegations, adding KBW as a defendant, and
asserting that KBW acted in concert with the Corporation to aid
and abet breaches of fiduciary duty by Talmer's directors.

The Defendants all filed motions for summary disposition seeking
dismissal of all claims with prejudice. The Court issued an
opinion and order on those motions on May 4, 2017 and granted
dismissal to the Corporation, but denied the motions filed by KBW
and the individual defendants. KBW and the individual defendants
filed an application seeking leave to appeal the Court's ruling
to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That application was denied by
the Michigan Court of Appeals on August 16, 2017.

On June 8, 2017, the Defendants filed a notice with the Court
that the plaintiffs had failed to timely certify a class as
required by the Michigan Court Rules. Upon the filing of that
notice, the City of Livonia case became an individual action
brought by the two named plaintiffs, and cannot proceed as a
class action. On October 19, 2017, the Defendants filed motions
for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C) (10) in the City of
Livonia case, again seeking the dismissal of the case. A hearing
on those motions was held on April 11, 2018. A ruling from the
court is awaited.

KBW and the individual defendants all believe that the claims
asserted against each of them in the above-described consolidated
action are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
these consolidated lawsuits.

Chemical Financial Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Midland, Michigan, that was incorporated in the
State of Michigan in August 1973. The company's common stock is
listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "CHFC." The company is
based in Midland, Michigan.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Court Ruling on Show Cause Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial 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 parties in the case
entitled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical
Financial Corporation, et al., are awaiting a court ruling on
plaintiff's show cause order on why the stay should not be
lifted.

On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed
the City of Livonia state court action filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229.
The plaintiff purports to bring this action "individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests
certification as a class action.

The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among other
things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests
for relief that include, among other things, that the Court
enjoin the proposed transaction unless and until additional
information is provided to Talmer's shareholders, declare that
the Defendants violated the securities laws in connection with
the proposed merger, award compensatory damages, interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other
relief as it deems just and proper.

Talmer, the Corporation, and the individual defendants all
believe that the claims asserted against each of them in this
lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit.

On October 18, 2016, the Federal Court entered a stipulated order
staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues
rulings on motions for summary disposition In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB. Following the
Oakland County Circuit Court's denial of the Motions by KBW and
the individual defendants and their ensuing application for leave
to appeal that ruling, the Federal Court issued an order
extending the stay of this action. On November 13, 2017, the
Federal Court issued an Order Directing Plaintiff To Show Cause
Why The Stay Should Not Be Lifted. On January 8, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a reply to the show cause order, and asked that
the stay be continued. The Defendants oppose continuation of the
stay, and filed a reply to that effect on January 22, 2018.
Further action by the Court is awaited.

Chemical Financial Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Midland, Michigan, that was incorporated in the
State of Michigan in August 1973. The company's common stock is
listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "CHFC." The company is
based in Midland, Michigan.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Claim of Appeal in "Nicholl" Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial 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 plaintiffs in the case
Kevin Nicholl v Gary Torgow et al, filed a claim of appeal from
the Court's opinion and order confirming that the class
allegations in the Nicholl case are stricken, and the Nicholl
case will proceed as an individual action only.

In response to the failure of the City of Livonia case to qualify
as a class action, on July 31, 2017, the same attorneys who filed
the City of Livonia action field a new lawsuit in the Oakland
County, Michigan Circuit Court, based on the Talmer transaction.

That case is styled Kevin Nicholl v Gary Torgow et al, Case No.
2017-160058-CB. The Nicholl case makes substantially the same
claims as were brought in the City of Livonia case, and seeks
certification of a shareholder class. The Nicholl case has been
assigned to Judge Wendy Potts, the same judge presiding over the
City of Livonia case. On November 22, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint purporting to add the City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System and Regina Gertel Lee as additional
named plaintiffs in the case.

The Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in the
Nicholl case based on the failure of the plaintiffs to timely
file a motion to certify a class. On April 2, 2018, the Court
entered an opinion and order confirming that the class
allegations in the Nicholl case are stricken, and the Nicholl
case will proceed as an individual action only. On April 23,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal from the Court's
April 2, 2018 opinion and order.

As in the City of Livonia case, the Defendants previously filed
motions for summary disposition in the Nicholl case, seeking
dismissal of the Nicholl case. Argument on these motions was
heard on April 11, 2018, together with arguments on the summary
disposition motions of the Defendants in the City of Livonia
case. A ruling from the Court is awaited.

On January 3, 2018, the plaintiffs in the City of Livonia case
filed a Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
Defendants filed an opposition to that motion. The Court has not
yet ruled on that motion, pending ruling on the Defendant's
summary disposition motions in the City of Livonia and Nicholl
cases.

Chemical Financial Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Midland, Michigan, that was incorporated in the
State of Michigan in August 1973. The company's common stock is
listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "CHFC." The company is
based in Midland, Michigan.


CINCINNATI: Suit Involving Hospital Worker OT Gains Traction
------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett J. Brunsman, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier,
reports that a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit
involving a nurse practitioner at the Cincinnati VA Medical
Center that accuses the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs of
failing to pay overtime related to electronic medical records
since 2006.

Judge Elaine Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington granted certification June 7 in an action brought by
class representative Audricia Brooks, a nurse practitioner at the
Cincinnati VA, and others on behalf of nurse practitioners and
physicians assistants at 85 different facilities.

David Cook, Esq., and Clement Tsao, Esq., of the Cincinnati law
firm Cook & Logothetis are among attorneys working on the
lawsuit, which was filed in 2012 by David Cook.

Cook, who was named counsel for the class by the judge, estimated
that as many as 10,000 VA employees could be represented in the
class action lawsuit.

"It is wrong for any employer to expect people to work for free,"
said Cook, founder and managing principal of Cook & Logothetis.

The Cincinnati VA didn't immediately provide a comment on the
ruling to the Business Courier.

The suit seeks compensation for employees who worked overtime
processing electronic and computer patient records using VA
facility computers, VA laptops and sometimes personal computers.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants say the work is
considered mandatory, according to their attorneys. Those who
failed to complete the assignments reportedly were subject to
disciplinary measures for poor time management.

The Business Courier previously reported that some nurses at the
Cincinnati VA claimed they weren't granted overtime but worked
extra hours regardless out of concern for patients.

Other attorneys working on the case are Douglas Richards, Esq.,
of Lexington, Robert Stroop, Esq., of Mooney Green in Washington,
Michael Hamilton, Esq., of the Nashville office of Provost
Umphrey and Guy Fisher, Esq., of the Provost Umphrey office in
Beaumont, Texas.

"These health care professionals dedicate their time for the
well-being of our veterans, and by law, are entitled to overtime
when they are required to work beyond their work schedules,"
Hamilton said.

"We believe this lawsuit to be critical for veteran patient
safety and health," Hamilton added. "To expect these employees to
work extended hours without overtime pay is wrong. With the class
certification, we can now proceed onto the next step in this
lawsuit."

With total expenses of nearly $444 million, the Cincinnati VA is
the seventh-largest hospital in the region.

The hospital in Corryville has a staff of 2,300 and treats about
43,000 veterans who live in 17 counties in Southwest Ohio,
Northern Kentucky and Southeast Indiana. It operates a medical
center in Fort Thomas as well outpatient clinics in Bellevue,
Florence, Lawrenceburg, the city of Hamilton, Clermont County's
Union Township and the Brown County village of Georgetown.[GN]


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Underway
--------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, 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 plaintiff's appeal in the case,
Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., remains pending.

The plaintiff in the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA,
Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
has appealed the court's determination that class certification
and PAGA representative action are not appropriate.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting
time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims.

The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation
or the range of potential loss.

Cinemark Holdings is a leader in the motion picture exhibition
industry, with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay. The
company is based in Plano, Texas.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Dismisses Electrical Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, 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 court has entered an order dismissing
the Electrical Workers' action on the basis of the settlement in
the Medina case.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension
and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis,
filed a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers,
directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo (the "Electrical
Workers Court").

The Electrical Workers Complaint purported to be asserted on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased stock in the July 2015
Offering. The complaint asserted claims under certain provisions
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") relating to
a July 2015 follow-on offering of Clovis securities (the "July
2015 Offering") based on substantially similar allegations to
those asserted in the Medina Action. On June 30, 2016, the
Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
new allegations (the "Amended Complaint").

On April 10, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Electrical Workers Action on the basis of the Medina Settlement.

Clovis Oncology, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer
agents in the United States, Europe and additional international
markets. The company is based in Boulder, Colorado.


COMERICA BANK: Baker Sues for Fraud, Duty Breach, Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Baker, Cornerstone Growth, LP, Dennis Ryan, Carole Ryan,
Leona Pomroy, and all others similarly situated v. Comerica Bank
and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-03533 (C.D. Calif., April 26,
2018), relates to a large investment fraud allegedly perpetrated
by real estate developer Robert H. Shapiro and his Woodbridge
group of companies.

The action is brought by Plaintiffs in Florida, Nevada, and
Colorado who invested in Woodbridge, and asserts class action
claims against Comerica for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Mark Baker is a citizen of the State of Florida and resides in
Weston, Florida. The Plaintiff has invested more than $400,000
with Woodbridge.

Cornerstone Growth LP is a limited partnership with its principal
place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Cornerstone Growth
invested $50,000 with Woodbridge.

Dennis and Carole Ryan are citizens of the State of Florida and
reside in Vero Beach, Florida. The Ryans invested $500,000 with
Woodbridge.

Leona Pomroy is a citizen of the State of Colorado and resides in
Colorado Springs, Colorado. Ms. Pomroy invested $50,000 with
Woodbridge.

The Defendant Comerica Bank is a Texas banking association with
its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  Comerica is
chartered in the State of Texas and subject to supervision and
regulation by the Texas Department of Banking under the Texas
Finance Code.  Comerica Bank is also a member of the Federal
Reserve System under the Federal Reserve Act and thus subject to
federal regulations. Comerica Bank is a subsidiary of Comerica
Incorporated, which is incorporated under Delaware law and
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
      Ken A. Remson, Esq.
      WESTERMAN LAW CORPORATION
      1875 Century Park East, Ste 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 698-7880
      E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
              kremson@jswlegal.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defrauded Students Obtain Debt Relief
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that California has secured $67 million in private loan debt
relief for students defrauded by Corinthian Colleges, but many
others still owe millions in federal loans under a Trump
administration policy.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on June 14 announced a
deal with private lender Balboa Student Loan Trust to forgive the
outstanding debt of 35,000 California students who attended the
now-defunct Corinthian Colleges.

"Thousands of defrauded Corinthian students will receive a letter
in the mail informing them that their loans have been fully
forgiven," Mr. Becerra said.  "We hope this delivers some measure
of closure and peace of mind."

Corinthian Colleges declared bankruptcy in April 2015 and shut
down 100 college campuses after federal and state investigators
found it misled students about post-graduation job prospects and
the transferability of class credits.

Under the settlement announced on June 14, Balboa will forgive
millions in loan debt and refund more than $500,000 in loan
payments made since Aug. 1, 2017, along with $84,000 in payments
made prior to that date.  The company will also delete all
negative credit reporting marks associated with the loans.

The deal builds on a prior settlement with private lender
Aequitas Capital Management, which agreed to provide $51 million
in debt relief to defrauded students in California last August.

During a press conference on June 14, Mr. Becerra went on to urge
U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos to "follow
through on her end" and forgive the federal loan debt of more
than 60,000 former Corinthian students in the U.S.

"I call for Besty Devos to do her job, do the right thing for
these defrauded Corinthian students," Mr. Becerra said.

California sued Ms. Devos last December for refusing to provide
full and immediate debt relief to defrauded students.  That
month, Ms. Devos rolled out a new "average earnings" rule that
would force borrowers to pay back at least some loan debt based
on their income.

In May, a federal judge abolished the "average earnings" rule and
ordered the Department of Education to stop collecting on those
loans, but the same judge refused on June 11 to revive an Obama-
era policy that promised full debt forgiveness to defrauded
students.

Those rulings were issued in a class action filed by former
Corinthian students, separate from California's lawsuit.

On June 11, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim indicated that she
might dismiss California's lawsuit for lack of standing because
it has not shown the federal government's student loan payment
policies directly harm the state.

During the June 14 press conference, California Deputy Attorney
General Bernard Ardavan Eskandari insisted that the Department of
Education's "failure to fulfill its promises" reduces the number
of students eligible for loans to attend state colleges and
inflicts economic harm on tens of thousands of California
citizens.

"We feel quite strongly California has a direct injury here, and
we hope the judge agrees," Mr. Eskandari said.

Last year, Ms. Devos announced a review that could lead to a full
rollback of Obama administration rules that require for-profit
colleges to disclose data showing rates of gainful employment
among graduates to students and in their promotional materials.

"Since their creation under the previous administration, gainful
employment regulations have been repeatedly challenged by
educational institutions and overturned by the courts,
underscoring the need for a regulatory reset," Ms. Devos said
when announcing the regulatory review last June.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Likely to Revive Slave Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Ninth Circuit judge indicated on June 12 she might favor
reviving a lawsuit accusing Costco of misleading consumers about
slave labor in its supply chain for prawns.

Reversing dismissal of the Costco suit would be a stark departure
from another recent Ninth Circuit ruling, Hodson v. Mars, which
found companies have no duty to disclose the use of slave labor
in their supply chains.

Ninth Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder admonished a Costco lawyer
during oral arguments on June 12: "You may be losing one member
of the panel here in trying to say you can publicly announce you
have a code of conduct that means you don't tolerate this kind of
thing, that that nevertheless means you're not representing that
you try to police it."

Costco says that its code of conduct on its website, which
"prohibits human rights abuses" in its supply chain, does not
guarantee that its products are untainted by slave labor.

The corporate policy does not mean "there are never any instances
in which there's a violation of that code of conduct," Costco
attorney Craig Stewart told the Ninth Circuit panel on June 12.

Lead plaintiff Monica Sud sued Costco in August 2015 after The
Associated Press published a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation
of the widespread use of slave labor in Southeast Asia's
multibillion-dollar fishing industry.

Plaintiff's lawyer Derek Howard told the Ninth Circuit that the
Costco case is distinct from Mars: it's about an affirmative
misrepresentation, not an act of omission, he said.

"Mars was strictly an omission case," Mr. Howard said.  "Costco
was representing to the public that there was no taint in its
supply chain."

Asked if Costco's code of conduct is an "affirmative
representation" or an "aspirational statement," Howard said
that's a question of fact that must be decided at trial.

Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald Gould posed a hypothetical question:
If Costco stated in its policy that it does not tolerate bribery,
but someone in its supply chain bribed a local official, would
that make the company liable for misleading consumers?

Mr. Howard replied that Costco would not be liable for the "lone
act" of one individual, but when it comes to buying prawns
tainted by slave labor, "the Costco machinery is engaged in
importing billions of dollars of seafood."

"I don't see it comparable or feasible that with this amount of
commerce, Costco is not aware," Howard said.  "We contend that
Costco knows exactly what's going on."

U.S. District Judge Jeffery White dismissed Sud's suit against
Costco with prejudice in January 2017.  Judge White found that
because Sud failed to claim she had read the company's code of
conduct before buying prawns, she could not have relied on the
allegedly false and misleading statement.

Costco's lawyer argued that the dismissal must be upheld because
plaintiffs can't sue over a misrepresentation that they never saw
or relied on.

"If they didn't see it, they couldn't possibly have been misled
by it," Mr. Stewart said.

Mr. Howard countered that his client can sue Costco for future
purchases of prawn products because as a Costco member, she has
the right to buy prawns "with the confidence that she is not
suffering from a misrepresentation."

Costco attorney Stewart said there are no facts to support that
claim.  He said the plaintiffs are making "a leap" based on news
reports that revealed some fishing vessels off the coast of
Thailand use slave labor.

"There's no basis for thinking that every prawn that comes out of
Thailand is tainted by whatever degree of human trafficking and
slave labor," Stewart told the appeals court.

According to Costco's code of conduct, when it discovers a
violation of its supply standards, the company "will respond in a
manner commensurate with the nature and extent of the violation,"
which may result in a remediation plan or termination of the
supplier.

Mr. Stewart told the Ninth Circuit on June 12 that Costco prefers
"working with the supplier to correct the violations, rather than
immediately terminating the relationship."

Judge Schroeder replied: "In other words, you're going to
tolerate this kind of thing."

Mr. Stewart: "We're going to work with our suppliers to remedy
the problem."

The panel asked both sides to submit 7-page briefs within 21 days
on how the recent ruling in Hodson v. Mars affects the Costco
case.

Visiting Fourth Circuit Judge Albert Diaz joined Judge Schroeder
and Judge Gould on the panel.  All three circuit judges were
appointed by Democratic presidents.


CPI CARD: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that lead plaintiff in the case, In Re CPI Card
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531
(S.D.N.Y.), has filed his motion for class certification.

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

The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and
costs.

In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard
and VISA chip cards (collectively, 'EMV cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels;
and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions
artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued
pursuant to the IPO.

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

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied by the Court on October 30,
2017. On January 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the
amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his
motion for class certification.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and is
defending the Class Action vigorously. Given the current stage of
the matter, the range of any potential loss is not probable or
estimable and no liability has been recorded as of March 31, 2018
or December 31, 2017.

CPI Card Group Inc. is engaged in the design, production, data
personalization, packaging and fulfillment of Financial Payment
Cards which the company defines as credit cards, debit cards and
prepaid debit cards issued on the networks of the Payment Card
Brands (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and Interac
(in Canada)) in the United States and Canada. The company is
based in Littleton, Colorado.


CRIMSON WINE: Class Action Settlement Underway
----------------------------------------------
Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that preliminary approval of a class action
settlement was scheduled for May 18, 2018, with final approval
expected within the next three months.

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

The settlement does not contain any admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. The
preliminary approval of the settlement by the court is scheduled
for May 18, 2018, with final approval expected within the next
three months.

Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. It operates
through two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. The
company is based in Napa, California.


DAVID LERNER: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Lerner
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05544 (S.D.
N.Y., June 19, 2018).

David Lerner Associates is a privately held securities
broker/dealer, with clients' assets totaling approximately $6
billion.[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


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Court of Appeals Revives Teacher Pension Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Tucker, writing for the Daily Report, reports that
teachers who contend the DeKalb County Board of Education
illegally ended contributions to their retirement fund have won a
victory with the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Presiding Judge John Ellington wrote for a panel that included
Judge Charlie Bethel and Senior Judge Herbert Phipps in a June 1
decision reversing DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory
Adams, who tossed out the teachers' case.

The teachers "contend that the court's order was erroneous
because the evidence shows the existence of an enforceable
'governmental promise' that required two years' notice before
reducing or suspending funding," Ellington said. "We agree and
reverse the judgment of the superior court on the issue of
liability."

The panel remanded the case to DeKalb Superior Court to consider
the teachers' claims. They have asked for summary judgment in
their favor and for certification of a class action for the
teachers.

The teachers' legal team includes Michael Terry, Esq. --
terry@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, who made their
case at oral arguments before the panel, as well as Jason Carter,
Esq. -- carter@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant and former Gov. Roy
Barnes, Esq., and John Salter, Esq., of the Barnes Law Group.

Barnes Law Group released the following statement from plaintiff
Elaine Gold:

"Ever since the district broke its promise to us in 2009 they
have fought tooth and nail -- for almost ten years. The
district's decision to bully teachers instead of doing what was
right has dragged this case out. We feel so happy that a court
finally said that what the district has been doing is wrong and
that the district has to keep its promises."

The school district was represented by Allegra Lawrence-Hardy,
Thomas Bundy III, Lisa Haldar and Leslie Bryan of Lawrence &
Bundy.

The defense attorneys deferred to the school district, which
emailed this response: "The District received the decision of the
Georgia Court of Appeals in the Gold case. The District is
reviewing the decision carefully and considering its next steps."

Ellington gave a detailed history of the DeKalb teachers' pension
program, which was created like those of other school districts
that opted during the 1970s to create an alternative to Social
Security retirement benefits. The dispute dates to 2009 and the
Great Recession, when then-Gov. Sonny Perdue announced a 3
percent reduction in state funding for all Georgia school
systems.

"In an effort to manage the expected loss of up to $20 million in
state funding and the resulting budget deficit, the board decided
to suspend contributions" to the teachers retirement plan,
Ellington said. "Although the board notified employees that
funding of the [retirement] plan would be suspended, it did not
give two years' notice prior to suspending funding."

Ellington pointed to "evidence in the record from which a fact-
finder could infer" that the school board was aware that
suspending funding to the retirement plan without the required
two-year notice violated its own policies.

Furthermore, Ellington said, "There is no evidence in the record
that the district has restored any funding." He said that, in
June 2010, the school board "amended its by-laws and policies to
remove the two-year notice provision."

The board disputed the two-year notice requirement, but the
teachers argued that failing to meet it made the budget cuts
illegal. The $20 million on the line for the year the
contributions were cut, multiplied by the 10 years of budgets
since, could mean $200 million or more is at stake in the case.

The case is Elaine Gold et al. v. DeKalb County School District,
No. A18A0526.[GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-
05104, is on behalf  of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank
securities between March 20, 2017 through May 30, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Deutsche Bank securities
between March 20, 2017, and May 30, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until August 6, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Deutsche Bank is a global financial service provider delivering
commercial, investment, private, and retail banking. The Bank
offers debt, foreign exchange, derivatives, commodities, money
markets, repo and securitization, cash equities, research, equity
prime services, loans, convertibles, advice on M&A and IPO's,
trade finance, retail banking, asset management, and corporate
investments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank's
internal control environment and infrastructure were materially
weak and deficient; and (ii) as a result, Deutsche Bank's
statements about the Company's business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 31, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S.
Federal Reserve has designated Deutsche Bank's U.S. business to
be in "troubled condition," citing concerns "about its controls
around measuring financial exposure to clients and valuing
collateral that backed loans."  The article further reported that
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has added Deutsche
Bank's subsidiary Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas to its
"problem banks" list of at-risk institutions.

On this news, Deutsche Bank's share price fell $0.49, or 4.24%,
to close at $11.08 on May 31, 2018.

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


ECLINICALWORKS: Goodson Junk Fax Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Goodson & Company, Ltd. Attorneys and
Counselors at Law, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v.
EClinicalWorks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00034, (S.D.
Ohio, January 19, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 24, 2018 under
Case No. 18-cv-00995.

Goodson & Company is a law practice in Cincinnati, Ohio.
EClinicalWorks, LLC is a Massachusetts corporation that sells
practice management software. EClinicalWorks promoted its
products via fax to Goodson & Company to its office facsimile
machine in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Junk Fax Prevention Act, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George D. Jonson, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      2100 Society Bank Center
      36 E. Seventh St.
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 241-4722
      Email: gjonson@mrjlaw.com

             - and -

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501
      Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

             - and -

      Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 241-4722
      Email: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com

Eclinicalworks is represented by:

      Eric P. Schroeder, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
      1 Atlantic Center, 14th Floor
      1201 W Peachtree St. NW
      Atlanta, GA 30309-3488
      Tel: (404) 572-6894
      Fax: (404) 420-0894
      Email: eric.schroeder@bryancave.com

             - and -

      Ted T. Martin, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP, Suite 3200
      312 Walnut St.
      Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
      Tel: (513) 443-6712
      Email: tmartin@bakerlaw.com


EHEALTH INC: Settlement of Calif. Suits Preliminarily Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, 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 court has entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement in the class action suits in California.

On January 26, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint alleges that the
company negligently failed to take necessary precautions required
to protect from unauthorized disclosure of personally
identifiable information contained on 2016 Form W-2s for current
and former employees.

The complaint purports to allege causes of action against us for
negligence, violation of Section 17200 et seq. of the California
Business & Professions Code, declaratory relief and breach of
implied contract. The complaint seeks actual damages, punitive
damages, statutory damages, costs, including experts' fees and
attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
prescribed by law and equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief as appropriate.

In April 2017, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the company in the Superior Court of State of
California, County of Santa Clara, relating to the same
circumstances.  The second complaint purports to allege causes of
action against the company for negligence, violation of
California Customer Records Act (California Civil Code Section
1798.80 et seq.), violation of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (California Civil Code Section 56 et
seq.), invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts,
breach of confidentiality and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 et seq.).

The causes of action for violations of the California Customer
Records Act and the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act were dismissed without prejudice. The second
complaint seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution,
disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief,
costs, including experts' fees and attorneys' fees and costs of
prosecuting the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as prescribed by law.

eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that in July 2017, the company
entered into a binding settlement term sheet where the company
and the plaintiffs in each of the above-described cases agreed to
enter into a settlement, pursuant to which the company would
receive a release of all claims that were or could have been
alleged related to the unauthorized disclosure at issue in each
of the cases. In exchange for the release, the company agreed to
(i) pay, subject to an aggregate cap of $250,000, up to $2,500 to
each impacted individual for reasonable, documented out-of-pocket
losses or expenses related to the data security incident; (ii)
offer to individuals who signed up for identity theft protection
that the company offered at the time of the incident a one-year
extension of the identity theft protection; (iii) offer to
individuals who did not sign up for identity theft protection
that the company offered at the time of the incident three-years
of identity theft protection; and (iv) not oppose a request by
class counsel for attorneys' fees, costs and class representative
enhancements of up to $245,000 in the aggregate.

In its recent SEC report, the Company said that in December 2017,
the company entered into a joint stipulation for settlement of
class action consistent with the settlement term sheet.  The
court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on
April 23, 2018. As a result, notice of the settlement will be
sent to members of the class informing them of the settlement and
the possible relief available to them thereunder.  The settlement
is subject to final approval of the court after the notice has
been sent to the class and after a hearing before the court.

eHealth said "As of March 31, 2018, we maintained an accrual in
our consolidated financial statements for estimated potential
damages and other amounts we expect to be required to pay in
connection with the matter."

eHealth, Inc. a leading private health insurance exchange for
individuals, families and small businesses. The company is based
in Mountain View, California.


EHEALTH INC: Wage and Hour Suit Underway in California
------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, 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 face a wage-and-
hour suit in California.

On April 6, 2018, a former California employee ("Plaintiff")
filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento (the
"Complaint").  Plaintiff's Complaint is filed pursuant to the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA"), purportedly on behalf of all current and former hourly-
paid or non-exempt employees who work or have worked for us in
California.

The Complaint alleges that the company violated a number of wage
and hour laws with respect to these non-exempt employees,
including, among other things, the failure to comply with
California law as to (i) the payment of overtime wages; (ii) the
payment of minimum wages; (iii) providing uninterrupted meal and
rest periods, (iv) the payment of wages earned during employment
and owed upon the termination of employment; (v) providing
complete and accurate wage statements, (vi) keeping of accurate
payroll records; and (vii) the proper reimbursement  for
necessary business-related expenses and costs.

The Complaint seeks allegedly unpaid wages, civil penalties and
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Discovery has not yet
commenced.

eHealth said "We cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or
the amount of potential damages, because the case is at a
preliminary stage."

eHealth, Inc. a leading private health insurance exchange for
individuals, families and small businesses. The company is based
in Mountain View, California.


ETSY INC: Dismissal in "Altayyar" Suit Affirmed by 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, 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 Second Circuit has
affirmed the judgment of dismissal of the District Court in the
case, Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and certain officers.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015
through and including May 10, 2015.

It asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement and
actions taken by third-party brands against Etsy sellers for
trademark or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended class action complaint alleging false or
misleading statements or omissions with respect to substantially
the same topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint
adds certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants,
expanded the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to
August 4, 2015, inclusive, and asserted violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "xchange Act).

The amended complaint sought certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

On April 5, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 24, 2017, the court entered a judgment
dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice,
based on an opinion filed March 16, 2017. On August 2, 2017,
Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. On April 24, 2018, the Second Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the District Court.

Etsy, Inc. operates Etsy.com, a commerce platform to make, sell,
and buy goods online and offline primarily in the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany. It
provides various seller services and tools that are designed to
help entrepreneurs for starting, managing, and scaling their
businesses. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.


ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes & Weiss Suits Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, 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 court has granted the company's motion to stay the
consolidated actions.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed
in the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors, and
underwriters. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

As in the Altayyar litigation, the complaint alleges
misrepresentations in the Company's Registration Statement on
Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.
The complaint seeks certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

On December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants
moved to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors, and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. On
December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and Weiss
actions.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against these consolidated actions. In
light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and
is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. On
February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to stay
the consolidated actions.

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

Etsy, Inc. operates Etsy.com, a commerce platform to make, sell,
and buy goods online and offline primarily in the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany. It
provides various seller services and tools that are designed to
help entrepreneurs for starting, managing, and scaling their
businesses. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.


FLUOR CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Fluor Corporation (NYSE:FLR) between August 14,
2013 and May 3, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fluor investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Fluor class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1353.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fluor's bidding process for gas-fired power projects
was flawed; (2) Fluor had improperly estimated the gas-fired
projects; (3) consequently, Fluor would face craft productivity,
equipment, and other execution issues; (4) Fluor would incur
multiple charges impacting quarterly results; (5) Fluor would
ultimately decide to discontinue the pursuit of the gas-fired
power market; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about
Fluor's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 24, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


FORD MOTORS: Judge Lambasts Proposed Deal in Touchscreen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
overseeing a long-running class action alleging touchscreens in
Ford vehicles are defective and unsafe has rebuked plaintiffs'
lawyers over what he called a "problematic" settlement proposal.

In an order on June 7, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San
Francisco said plaintiffs had failed to submit any estimates of
the potential amount of recovery, the size of the class or the
minimum and maximum value of class claims. [GN]


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Order Signed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Jenkins, writing for Metro News, reports that those who were
affected by the Kanawha Valley's water contamination a few years
ago seem unlikely to get as much settlement money as expected.

The 2014 Elk River chemical spill and water emergency affected
hundreds of thousands of residents in parts of nine West Virginia
counties.

A federal judge signed a final order on June 8, releasing $151
million in settlement funds.

U.S. District John Copenhaver wrote that the high percentage of
response by class members in the filing of claims will result in
residents receiving less in settlement money than originally
anticipated.

"What is quite clear is that there will not be sufficient funds
to pay the entirety of the amounts that were presented in the
class notice as being the projected claim recoveries,"
Copenhaver's order stated.

"The likelihood, as seen at this juncture, is that he recoverable
amount on the allowed claims will be in the range of twenty
percent less than the projected figures set forth in the class
notice to file claims."

The claim forms filed totaled about $162 million.

The settlement amount from West Virginia American Water Company
and Eastman Chemical was $151 million.

"The Settlement Administrator has been overwhelmed by the filing
of some 87,000 simple residential forms (also containing claims
of 126,000 additional residents) as well as some 6,750 simple
business and government claims, and 2,700 individual review
claims," Copenhaver said.

The original class was made up of 224,000 residents and 8,000
businesses.

Class counsel Kevin Thompson says no one saw a response like this
coming.

"What this really shows is that it shows corporate America that
people in places like Charleston are not going to stand for
having their water polluted," he said. "I don't care how complex
the claim form is. I don't care how long the litigation has to
take."

The framework for minimum claim payments originally approved for
those filing simple claims were as follows:

   * Residential households - $550 + $180 per additional resident

   * Shut down business claims - $1,875 plus 4% of annual revenue
up to $41,875

   * Lodging business claims - $5,000 to $64,000 based on annual
revenue

   * Other businesses - $1,875

   * Nonprofit organizations - $1,875

A 20-percent reduction would mean $110 less on the residential
household claim -- a new total of $440.

Copenhaver's final order also spells out the attorneys involved
in the case would also get less -- from the preliminary approval
of 25 percent down to 22 percent.

The process of going through the claims to make sure they were
filed by those eligible to be part of the class continues. The
order says those denied can file an appeal within 30-days after
notification.

The lawsuit alleges West Virginia American Water Company was
prepared for what happened just a short distance upstream from
its Kanawha Valley Plant on the Elk River in Charleston when the
chemical MCHM spilled from the Freedom Industries tank farm.
Eastman Chemical was sued because it was the maker of MCHM. Both
agreed to settle but neither admitted fault. Both companies have
blamed Freedom Industries. That company went bankrupt shortly
after the spill.

The spill of MCHM on the Elk River contaminated drinking water
for more than 300,000 residents in parts of nine West Virginia
counties on Jan. 9, 2014, creating a water emergency.[GN]


FYZICAL LLC: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fyzical, LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fyzical, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05579 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2018).

FYZICAL LLC is a physical therapy franchise organization that
offers prescribed physical therapy, balance centers, and physical
fitness services. It provides physical therapy to help consumers
with balance problems, general rehabilitation, and athletic
training services. The company's services include orthopedic
rehabilitation, neurological rehabilitation, sports injuries,
auto and work injuries, aquatic therapy, and massage therapy. It
also offers assessment and evaluation programs, gait training and
balance programs, manual therapy, and functional therapy
services. FYZICAL LLC was founded in 2012 and is based in
Sarasota, Florida.[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: "Fragapane" and "Mohr" Suits Pending in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gener8 Maritime, 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 is facing the cases, 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 the Company, against the Company,  the
Company's directors, Euronav and 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 the Company and its directors.

The complaints allege that the registration statement on Form F-4
filed by Euronav 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 the Company's financial advisor in its
financial analyses and (iii) inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that were used by the Company's financial
advisor to support its fairness opinion.

The complaints also allege that the Company's directors are
liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling
persons. The Fragapane complaint further alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, by
agreeing to sell the Company 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 Euronav as well as
other equitable relief, damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Gener8 Maritime, Inc. is a U.S.-based provider of international
seaborne crude oil transportation services, resulting from a
transformative merger in 2015 between General Maritime
Corporation, a well-known tanker owner, and Navig8 Crude Tankers
Inc., a company sponsored by the Navig8 Group, an independent
vessel pool manager.


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Pleads Not Guilty to Rape, Sexual Act Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News, citing Tom Hays of The Associated Press, reports
that Harvey Weinstein pleaded not guilty on June 5 to rape and
criminal sex act charges in New York.

The hearing in Manhattan comes after a grand jury indicted the
former movie mogul on charges involving two women.

One alleged victim, who has not been identified publicly, told
investigators that Mr. Weinstein cornered her in a hotel room and
raped her.  The other accuser, former actress Lucia Evans, has
gone public with her account of Mr. Weinstein forcing her to
perform oral sex at his office in 2004.  The Associated Press
does not identify alleged victims of sexual assaults unless they
come forward publicly.

Dozens more women have accused him of sexual misconduct ranging
from harassment to assault.

The 66-year-old Mr. Weinstein has denied all allegations of
nonconsensual sex.  His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, has challenged
the credibility of his alleged victims and says his client is
confident he is going to clear his name.

Mr. Brafman called the rape allegation "absurd," saying that the
accuser and Mr. Weinstein had a decade-long, consensual sexual
relationship that continued after the alleged 2013 attack.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. has said it was
predictable that Mr. Weinstein's camp would attack the integrity
of the women and of the legal system.

Mr. Vance, a Democrat, came under public pressure from women's
groups to prosecute Mr. Weinstein after declining to do so in
2015, when an Italian model went to police to say Weinstein had
groped her during a meeting.

Police set up a sting in which the woman recorded herself
confronting Mr. Weinstein and him apologizing for his conduct.
But Mr. Vance decided there was not enough evidence to bring
charges.

Mr. Weinstein is out on $1 million bail.


HEATH NET: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heath Net, Inc. The
case is styled as Patricia Mitchell, individually as successor in
interest to Chase Frei, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Heath Net, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance
Co., Health Net of California, Inc., Managed Health Network, Inc.
and Centene Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05499 (C.D. Cal.,
June 20, 2018).

Health Net, Inc. provides managed health care services through
health and government-sponsored managed care plans in the United
States. It operates through Western Region Operations and
Government Contracts segments. The company offers various health
care services, including ambulatory and outpatient physician
care, hospital care, pharmacy services, behavioral health, and
ancillary diagnostic and therapeutic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


vHEALTH NET: Faces "Steinley" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Net, Inc.
The case is styled as Kathleen Steinley, Martin Harold Steinley
and Martin Alexander Steinley, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Health Net, Inc., Health
Net Life Insurance Co., Health Net of California, Inc., Managed
Health Network, Inc. and Centene Corp., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05458 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2018).

Health Net, Inc. provides managed health care services through
health and government-sponsored managed care plans in the United
States. It operates through Western Region Operations and
Government Contracts segments. The company offers various health
care services, including ambulatory and outpatient physician
care, hospital care, pharmacy services, behavioral health, and
ancillary diagnostic and therapeutic services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


HERC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings 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 plaintiffs have taken appeal from a
court ruling in the case entitled, In re Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

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

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative
class period and made allegations that were not substantively
very different than the allegations in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint which included additional allegations, named
additional then-current and former officers as defendants and
expanded the putative class period to extend from February 14,
2013 to July 16, 2015. In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to
dismiss the third amended complaint.

The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff because of
challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court
granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add
the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016. Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24,
2016.

In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the
individual defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice. In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and, in October 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit issued a briefing schedule. Briefing was completed
in February 2018, and consideration of the matter has tentatively
been scheduled for June 12, 2018.

Herc Holdings Inc. is engaged principally in the business of
renting equipment. Ancillary to its principal business of
equipment rental, the company also sells used rental equipment,
sells new equipment and consumables and offers certain service
and support to its customers. The company is based in Bonita
Springs, Florida.


HOBBY LOBBY: Sued Over Table Price Dispute
------------------------------------------
Jake Newby, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a
Baldwin County, Alabama, man and more than 100 others have filed
a class-action lawsuit against Hobby Lobby Inc., claiming the
chain retail store broke Florida law by advertising discounts
that were not actually provided to its customers.

Steven Marcrum became a class member in the suit after an
experience he had on March 2, 2017, at the Pensacola Hobby Lobby
on North Davis Highway. Marcrum filed the complaint based on a
dispute over a small table at a pricing difference of $21.60.

The plaintiffs in the class-action case are seeking more than
$5,000,000 from Hobby Lobby for "engaging in a systemic scheme of
falsely advertising merchandise discounts and 'never-ending'
sales," according to Marcrum's complaint.

In March of last year, Marcrum tried to buy a table marked as
"Always 30-percent off" for a regular price of $83.99. Marcrum
tried to use a "40-percent off of 'one item at regular price
only'" coupon, which he thought would make the final price of the
table $50.39.

But when he went to check out at the register, the 40-percent
discount was taken off of a price of $119.99, meaning Marcrum was
responsible for $71.99.

Attorneys representing Marcrum claim that the $119.99 was a
"price made up by Hobby Lobby, and only used to calculate 40-
percent off discounts."

"No customer ever pays $119.99 for the piece of furniture Mr.
Marcrum purchased," the complaint claimed, explaining that the
store's "Furniture is always 30-percent off" marking is
misleading.

The complaint said that the coupon controversy was not unique to
Marcrum and the table, claiming that many items were marked as
"Always on sale," yet the "40-percent off" discount was always
taken from a price for which Hobby Lobby never sells items.

The complaint claims that Hobby Lobby's signage and
advertisements attempting to justify the artificial price are
deceptive.

The "scheme" applies to clipped coupons, coupons printed from the
store's website and coupons downloaded onto smart phones,
according to Marcrum's attorneys.

According to 2018 Florida Statutes, "... Unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby
declared unlawful."

The complaint goes on to state that Hobby Lobby cannot claim that
it does not know that advertising "permanent" or "never-ending"
sales is not misleading and that this suit is not the first time
Hobby Lobby has encountered controversy over its advertising.

"In 2014, it agreed to pay civil penalties in an action brought
by the State of New York's Attorney General over 'never-ending'
sales," the complaint stated.

Hobby Lobby did not immediately respond to the News Journal's
request for comment.

Marcrum's complaint was filed on June 4 with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida's Pensacola Division.
His attorneys did not return calls to the News Journal requesting
comment.[GN]


HORIZON PHARMA: "Schaffer" Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs in the
case Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., filed a notice of
appeal of the District Court's ruling to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action
lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the
"Officer Defendants").

On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions under
Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al.  On June 3, 2016, the
court appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel.

On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiff
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidated
complaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016,
including additional current and former officers, the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwriters
involved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the
"Underwriter Defendants") as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company and the Officer
Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and/or
misleading statements about, among other things: (a) the
Company's financial performance, (b) the Company's business
prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c) the Company's sales and
promotional practices, and (d) the Company's design,
implementation, performance, and risks associated with the
Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program.

The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the Director
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the
Company's April 2015 public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of damages allegedly sustained by
plaintiffs and the putative class, including a reasonable
allowance for costs and attorneys' fees.

On November 14, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition
to the motion to dismiss on December 21, 2016. On January 18,
2018, the District Court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims against
all defendants, and denied the plaintiffs any further opportunity
to amend their complaint.  On February 16, 2018, plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal of the District Court's ruling to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on researching, developing and commercializing
innovative medicines that address unmet treatment needs for rare
and rheumatic diseases.


INDIANA: "Henson" Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ron Carter
Commissioner, IDOC. The case is styled as Timothy G Henson, on
his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ron Carter Commissioner, IDOC, Ron Neal
Warden, ISP and George Payne Deputy Warden, ISP, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00474-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind., June 19, 2018).

Ron Carter is a Commissioner of the Indiana Department of
Correction.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Appeal Underway in Connecticut Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that appeal in a customer
class action suit in Connecticut is underway.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the
purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged
"flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close
out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts
that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other
things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On February 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action complaint. On September 28, 2016, the Court issued
an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing
the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff
leave to amend. On October 5, 2016, the Court entered judgment in
the Company's favor.

On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed motions for leave to file an
amended complaint and to vacate or amend judgment. On November
14, 2016, plaintiff also filed a motion to disqualify the
district judge. The Company opposed all three motions. In
memoranda of decision dated August 29, 2017 and September 5,
2017, the Court denied the motions.

On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed the order of dismissal
and subsequent judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. On January 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed his
appellate brief. The Company filed its opposition brief on April
10, 2018.

The Company believes that the appeal, like the original
complaint, lacks merit. Further, even if the Court's dismissal
were to be overturned on appeal, the Company does not believe
that a purported class action is appropriate given the great
differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances
surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-
deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to
continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and,
consistent with past practice in connection with this type of
unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and
expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued
against the plaintiff.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated
electronic broker in approximately 120 electronic exchanges and
market centers worldwide. It specializes in executing and
clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange
instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. The company is based in
Greenwich, Connecticut.


JAZZERCISE INC: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jazzercise, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jazzercise, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05580 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2018).

Jazzercise is a dance fitness franchise company founded by Judi
Sheppard Missett in 1969 and headquartered in Carlsbad,
California. Jazzercise combines dance, strength, and resistance
training with popular music for a full-body workout.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JEREMY NELSON: Attorney Seeks to Reclassify Suit as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Cantrell and Blake Williams writing for WHNT News 19,
report that a class action lawsuit is pending against a man and
his former employer in connection to cameras found in restrooms
and changing areas of several businesses.

In October 2014 Jeremy Nelson was arrested after police found out
he had placed video cameras in the restroom and changing areas of
several businesses in Madison County, including Ann's Dance
Studio and WHNT News 19.

Nelson pleaded guilty in 2015 in Federal Court to four counts of
sexual exploitation of a child, two counts of possession of child
pornography, and one count of distribution of child pornography.
He was sentenced to 140 years in prison.

There have been at least 100 different victims come forward since
the story came out. They have all contacted attorney Eric Artrip,
Esq., who filed the lawsuit against Nelson and James Starkey, the
owner of the company that employed Nelson at the time.

Artrip says currently the lawsuit is pending in Madison County as
a class action suit. It was something all the plaintiffs involved
agreed to do. He says potential Ann's Studio Dance class members
were contacted recently to inform them about the change.

"There has been a motion presented by the plaintiffs to have this
certified as a class. in other words, proceed as a single action,
where only representative parties will actually have to be
involved," said Artrip.

Nelson's actions have left hundreds of potential victims feeling
angry and violated after he placed cameras in restrooms and
changing areas in three Madison County businesses.

"The cameras were motion-activated and used to record the people
using the facilities in those three buildings. They were placed
there as a result of him being allowed access to do the
janitorial services."

Artrip says this is why the class action suit names Nelson and
the former company he worked for, Sanitary Systems. Artrip
doesn't have to prove Sanitary Systems owner, James Starkey, knew
about the cameras.

Huntsville man who hid cameras in restrooms of local businesses
sentenced to 140 years

"Rather what's required is, was Nelson a covered person under the
insurance policies at issue. And then does his conduct qualify
for coverage under the insurance policies," said Artrip.

He says they are looking for compensation for the plaintiffs.
Most of them are young children who attended Ann's Dance Studio.

"We don't know if those images were shared over the internet or
not. So it's that very real danger of future embarrassment,
future anxiety, the future mental anguish, if you will, of having
their images shared over the internet," said Artrip.

Artrip says they are also asking for an injunction from the court
to make Nelson, Starkey, and the employer aware they have to keep
a close eye on their employees and what they are doing.

Last year, Nelson filed a motion to reduce his sentencing. He
claimed the sentencing was unreasonable.[GN]


LA QUINTA: Appeal in "Beisel" Case Underway
-------------------------------------------
Appellate proceedings in the case captioned as Beisel v. La
Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., remain pending.

La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018 that on April 25, 2016, a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta
Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On July 21, 2016, the court
appointed lead plaintiff ("plaintiff"), and, on December 30,
2016, plaintiff filed the operative complaint on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 19, 2014
through February 24, 2016 (the "Class Period") and on behalf of a
subclass who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March
Secondary Offering").

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

On February 10, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On August 24, 2017, the motion to dismiss was granted
with prejudice. Subsequently, on September 20, 2017, plaintiff
filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. On December 29, 2017, plaintiff submitted its appellant
brief. Appellate briefing was scheduled to be completed in May
2018.

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

La Quinta Holdings Inc. is an owner, operator and franchisor of
select-service hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-
midscale segments under the La Quinta brand. All new franchised
hotels are La Quinta Inn & Suites in the U.S. and Canada and LQ
Hotel in Mexico and in Central and South America. The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


LA QUINTA: Parties in Merger Suits Ink MOU
------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings 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 cases, 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,
have entered into the confidential Memorandum of Understanding
providing for the settlement of the Actions.

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 disclosed in the Company's definitive merger proxy
statement filed with the SEC on March 20, 2018 (as amended or
supplemented from time to time, 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 these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth therein. 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.

La Quinta Holdings Inc. is a leading owner, operator and
franchisor of select-service hotels primarily serving the
midscale and upper-midscale segments under the La Quinta brand.
All new franchised hotels are La Quinta Inn & Suites in the U.S.
and Canada and LQ Hotel in Mexico and in Central and South
America. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


LEARNING EXPRESS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Learning
Express.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Learning
Express.Com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05577 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 20, 2018).

Learning Express, Inc. owns, operates, and franchises educational
toy stores. It also sells products online. The company was
founded in 1987 and is based in Devens, Massachusetts with stores
in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Trial on Shareholders' Suit Set for October
-------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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 court has set a trial date in the
case entitled, In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, No. CIV537300 for October 2018.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, several putative class
action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws
were filed in California Superior Court, naming as defendants the
Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the
underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the
IPO).

All of these actions were consolidated into a single action
(Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300. In August
2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading
statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus.

Following multiple demurrers, which were granted in part and
denied in part, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which became the operative pleading. In
April 2017 the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed. The motion was granted
in part in a June 2017 Order. The Court set the trial date for
October 2018.

LendingClub operates America's largest online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors. The company is
based in San Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that a hearing for final approval of the
settlement in the "Evellard" and "Wertz" consolidated suit is set
for July 19, 2018

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-
CV-2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the
Company and certain of its officers and directors; these matters
were subsequently consolidated into a single action.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
fourth quarter of 2016. The Court held a hearing on this motion
in the first quarter of 2017 and ultimately granted in part and
denied in part the motion. The plaintiffs thereafter amended
their complaint consistent with the May 2017 Order and the
parties began discovery. In September 2017 the plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification, which the Company opposed.
The motion was granted in an October 2017 Order.

In that Order, the Court also granted a motion by the plaintiffs
in the Consolidated State Court Action to intervene in the
federal action. Following court-ordered mediation in November
2017 and January 2018, the Company agreed to a preliminary
settlement in which the Company would pay a total of $125.0
million in exchange for a dismissal of both the federal and state
securities class actions with prejudice. Of that amount, $47.75
million will be paid from insurance.

The Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement on March 16, 2018 and has set a hearing for final
approval of the settlement for July 19, 2018. To satisfy the
payment obligations, insurance carriers directly paid $38.2
million to a settlement administrator in March 2018 and an
additional $9.6 million in April 2018.

LendingClub said "The Company paid $14.75 million to the
settlement administrator in April 2018 and expects to pay the
remaining $62.5 million in July 2018. In the event the settlement
is approved, these matters will be dismissed with prejudice and
settlement proceeds will be distributed to members of the
impacted class. In the event that this or any other settlement is
not approved, the matter will continue to proceed to trial and
the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the
claims."

LendingClub operates America's largest online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors. The company is
based in San Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: "Moses" Suit in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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 case captioned as, Moses v.
Lending Club, is still in its early stages.

In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. Lending
Club, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company improperly accessed the
credit report of the plaintiff, who had formerly had a loan
serviced by the Company. The complaint further alleges, on
information and belief, that the Company improperly accessed
credit reports of other similarly situated individuals.

LendingClub said "The lawsuit is in its early stages and the
Company denies the allegations of the complaint and will
vigorously defend against the allegations."

LendingClub operates America's largest online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors. The company is
based in San Francisco, California.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on June 4, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against MabVax Therapeutics
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:MBVX).  The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is March 14, 2016 through May 18, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all MabVax
Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. shareholders who purchased common
stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the
Class as described above.  You may move the Court no later than
August 3, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

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

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


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of MabVax
Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:MBVX) ("MabVax" or the
"Company") securities during the period between March 14, 2016
and May 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until
August 3, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that MabVax's
internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak
and deficient, it had incorrectly calculated and reported
beneficial ownership of MabVax shares, and it permitted improper
influence or control over MabVax, and/or MabVax's officers and
directors by certain shareholders.

According to the complaint, following a January 30, 2018
announcement that MabVax received notice that the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") was conducting an investigation
relating to certain of the Company's registration statements (and
amendments thereto), and a May 21, 2018, announcement that the
Company believes the SEC is investigating potential violations of
the federal securities laws by the Company and its officers,
directors and others, and that prior annual and interim period
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and
its registration statements filed during the years 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017 and to date for 2018 with respect to the number of
shares of common stock outstanding and the weighted average
number of shares used in calculating earnings per share and
related per share figures should not be relied upon, the value of
MabVax declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in MabVax securities purchased on or after March 14, 2016 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you.

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


MDL 2804: Judge Allows Los Angeles County to Join Opioid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an Orange County Superior Court judge allowed Los Angeles County
to join other California jurisdictions in a lawsuit that accuses
opioid manufacturers of downplaying the addictive nature of the
drugs to increase the number and length of opioid prescriptions,
to boost sales.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Faces Two Class Suits in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital 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 defending
against two class action suits in Pennsylvania.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube,
and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing
Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed
on December 15, 2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter,
"Class Action 1").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2") (together with Class
Action 1, the "Class Action Complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their
putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other
claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of
American Web Loan.

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1), and
the claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley
Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2), allege that those
defendants in each respective action exercised control over
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a
loan to American Web Loan.

The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1; in
Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any
loans or provided financing to, or had any other relationship
with, American Web Loan. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification
from American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties
with respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class
Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend
these lawsuits vigorously.

Medley Capital Corporation is an externally-managed, non-
diversified closed-end management investment company that filed
an election to be regulated as a BDC under the 1940 Act. The
company is based in New York.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Maestri" Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Justin Maestri, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-22447-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2018).

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is engaged in the marketing and
distribution of Mercedes-Benz, smart, and Sprinter vehicles in
the United States. It offers sedans, coupes, SUVs and wagons,
convertibles and roadsters, and hybrid and electric vehicles. The
company also provides vehicle and lifestyle accessories online.
It offers its products and services through dealers and collision
centers. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC was formerly known as Mercedes-
Benz of North America, Inc. The company was founded in 1965 and
is headquartered in Montvale, New Jersey with an additional
office in Long Beach, California. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of Daimler AG.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb Law Group LLC
   1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Fax: 444-0271
   Email: adam@webbllc.com

      - and -

   G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
   Webb Law Group LLC
   1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-9325
   Fax: (770) 444-0271
   Email: flemond@webbllc.com


MICHIGAN: DHS Faces Mental Health Care Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
filed against the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services claims the state has not fulfilled its obligation under
the Medicaid Act to provide home and community-based mental
health services to children and young adults.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     David M. Honigman, Esq.
     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     Theresamarie Mantese, Esq.
     Emily Fields, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone 248-457-9200
     Email: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
            gmantese@manteselaw.com
            tmantese@manteselaw.com
            efields@manteselaw.com

        -- and --

     Chris E. Davis, Esq.
     Andrea L. Rizor, Esq.
     MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICE
     4095 Legacy Parkway
     Lansing, MI 48911
     Telephone 517-487-1755
     Email: cdavis@mpas.org
            arizor@mpas.org

        -- and --

     John J. Conway, Esq.
     JOHN J. CONWAY PC
     26622 Woodward Ave., Ste. 225
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Telephone 313-961-6525
     Email: jj@jjconwaylaw.com


NAPW INC: Faces "Bayne" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NAPW, Inc. The case
is styled as Debora Bayne and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAPW, Inc. d/b/a National Association of
Professional Women and d/b/a International Association of Women
and Professional Diversity Network, Inc. d/b/a National
Association of Professional Women and d/b/a International
Association of Women, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03591 (E.D.
N.Y., June 20, 2018).

The National Association of Professional Women is a Chinese-
American for profit professional association and networking
platform fully owned by Professional Diversity Network since
2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NETGEAR INC: Sued Over Wireless Network Range Extenders
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
claims Netgear's wireless network range extenders don't extend
WiFi signal anywhere close to the 200 percent that the
California-based company says they do.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
     3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor
     Chicago, IL 60623
     Telephone: (773) 831-8000
     Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com
            eaw@beaumontcostales.com


NEUBERGER BERMAN: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neuberger Berman
Group LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neuberger Berman
Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05545 (S.D. N.Y., June 19,
2018).

Neuberger Berman is a private, independent, employee-owned
investment management firm. The firm manages equities, fixed
income, private equity and hedge fund portfolios for global
institutional investors, advisors and high-net-worth
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05543 (S.D. N.Y., June 19,
2018).

Oppenheimer Holdings is an investment bank and full-service
investment firm offering investment banking, financial advisory
services, capital markets services, asset management, wealth
management, and related products and services worldwide.[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


OPTHOTECH CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Micholle" Suit Due July 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation et al., Case No.
1:2017-cv-00210 (S.D.N.Y.), the Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Plan
of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada, as lead plaintiff,
filed an amended complaint against David R. Guyer, Ophthotech
Corporation, Samir Patel with jury demand on June 4, 2018.

The Plaintiff also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal,
dropping Michael G. Atieh and Glenn P. Sblendorio as
defendant(s).

In a June 13 order, Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order
granting the Letter Motion for Extension of Time.  The Court held
that the Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be filed on or
before July 27, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff's opposition shall be
filed on or before September 21, 2018, and the Defendants' reply
shall be filed on or before October 22, 2018.

Ophthotech 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 cases captioned, Frank Micholle v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al. and Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., have been consolidated and are ongoing.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 12,
2016.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the prospects of the company's Phase 3 trials for
Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of
wet AMD. The complaint seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On March 9, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and the same group of the company's
current and former executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. The
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and
December 9, 2016.

The allegations made in the complaint are similar to those made
in the Micholle complaint. Putative lead plaintiffs in the
Micholle action moved to consolidate the Micholle and Wasson
actions. These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. The
deadline for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint was June
4, 2018.

Ophthotech said "We intend to file a motion to dismiss on or
before July 19, 2018."

Ophthotech Corporation is a science-driven biopharmaceutical
company specializing in the development of novel therapies to
treat ophthalmic diseases, with a focus on age-related and orphan
retinal diseases. The company is based in New York.


ORBOTECH LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over KLA-Tencor Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders say in a federal class action that directors are
selling Orbotech too cheaply through an unfair process to KLA-
Tencor Corp., for $38.86 a share plus 1/4 of a share of Tencor
for each Orbotech share, a $3.4 billion merger.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     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
     Email: 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
     Email: rm@maniskas.com


ORLANDO, FL: Court Rejects Red Light Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A state appeals court on June 8 upheld the rejection of a
proposed class-action lawsuit about an Orlando red-light camera
program that was determined to be invalid.

The 5th District Court of Appeal said a circuit judge properly
declined to "certify" a class in a lawsuit filed by Richard
Easter against the city of Orlando. Easter received a notice in
April 2010 of a red-light camera infraction, according to the
appeals-court ruling.

Easter argued the city's red-light camera ordinance was illegal
but paid the fine and filed the lawsuit against the city. A 2014
Florida Supreme Court ruling effectively struck down the Orlando
ordinance in a case that focused on red-light camera programs
that cities began using before approval of a 2010 statewide law
that authorized the traffic devices and set requirements.

The Supreme Court said the cities did not comply with the state's
traffic laws at the time because of the way they enforced red-
light camera violations. After that ruling, Easter sought to
certify a class-action lawsuit to seek refunds from Orlando, the
appeals court said. But a circuit judge rejected the class
certification based on what is known as the "voluntary payment
defense."

The appeals court ruling said the defense is a longstanding legal
concept that involves preventing people from recovering money
that they had voluntarily paid. A three-judge panel of the
appeals court backed the circuit judge's consideration of the
voluntary payment defense in the Easter case. The appeals court
also looked at factors such as whether all the potential claims
in a class-action lawsuit would be similar.

"In considering the application of the voluntary payment defense,
Easter's course of conduct was significantly different than that
of virtually all other members of the proposed class," said the
13-page ruling, written by appeals-court Judge Kerry Evander and
joined by judges Wendy Berger and James Edwards. "Specifically,
Easter paid his fine under protest after raising a legal
challenge to the validity of the Ordinance. As a result, the
trial court could properly conclude that the questions of law or
fact that would need to be addressed on Easter's claim are not
common to the questions of law or fact that would need to be
addressed on the claims of other proposed class members."[GN]


PAGEUP: Could Face Class Action Over Potential Data Mishandling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asha McLean, writing for ZD Net, reports that human resources
software firm PageUp could find itself up against a class action
lawsuit, after it revealed it had fallen victim to a malware
attack that potentially compromised client information.

Centennial Lawyers, which last year filed a class action lawsuit
against the New South Wales Ambulance Service in the Supreme
Court of NSW after it compromised sensitive personal and health
information of NSW Ambulance workers, has said it is considering
a class action against PageUp.

According to the Sydney-based law firm, companies that may have
suffered at the hands of the malware attack include Wesfarmers-
owned Coles, Target, Kmart, and Officeworks; the National
Australia Bank (NAB); Telstra; the Reserve Bank of Australia;
Australia Post; Medibank; the ABC; the Australian Red Cross; and
the University of Tasmania.

"Employers owe a duty to keep highly personal information
confidential, not only of their workers but also those that are
applying for work. This can often include financial information
and even medical information required as part of an induction
process," principal solicitor of Centennial Lawyers A/Prof.
George Newhouse said.

"Companies, and those that provide services to them, must take
adequate steps to protect their employees' or potential
employees' information. This case highlights the damage that can
be done if security is breached."

Citing class action cases overseas due to the mishandling of
information by affairs-based dating service Ashley Madison and
search engine Yahoo, Newhouse said similar cases are only now
starting to be issued in Australia and that action against PageUp
would reaffirm the importance of protecting people's data that
contains personal, sensitive, or confidential information.

PageUp confirmed earlier this week it found "unusual" activity on
its IT infrastructure last month, which has resulted in the
potential compromise of client data.

On May 23, the SaaS provider said it immediately launched a
forensic investigation after malware was spotted on its system.
Five days later PageUp said its suspicions were confirmed, with
investigations revealing "some indicators" that client data may
have been compromised.

"If any personal data has been affected it could include
information such as name and contact details. It could also
include identification and authentication data e.g. usernames and
passwords which are encrypted (hashed and salted)," the company
said in a statement.

"There is no evidence that there is still an active threat, and
the jobs website can continue to be used. All client user and
candidate passwords in our database are hashed using bcrypt and
salted; however, out of an abundance of caution, we suggest users
change their password."

NAB took the proactive measure to suspended its use of PageUp
earlier this week, with the bank's chief privacy officer Jade
Haar saying an active investigation has commenced to ascertain
what data, if any, has been affected.

"In most cases, the personal information that could be
potentially impacted is the applicant's name, phone number,
application history, and email address," Telstra similarly wrote.

"For those whose applications were successful, the data in
PageUp's systems may include: Date of birth, employment offer
details, employee number (if a current or previous employee),
pre-employment check outcomes, [and] referee details."

Australia's Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme came into
effect in February, requiring agencies and organisations in
Australia that are covered by the Privacy Act to notify
individuals whose personal information is involved in a data
breach that is likely to result in "serious harm", as soon as
practicable after becoming aware of a breach.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) --
which handles the NDB scheme -- issued a statement earlier this
week confirming it is in contact with PageUp and the Australian
Cyber Security Centre about the incident.[GN]


PRESTIGE LAWNS: Faces "Carlo" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prestige Lawns,
Inc. The case is styled as Alejandro Carlo, on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Prestige Lawns, Inc. and
Rodney Wechsler, individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-05578
(S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2018).

Prestige Lawns, Inc. is a full service landscaping company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


QUALCOMM INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that
it has filed a class action complaint against QUALCOMM
Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM) ("QUALCOMM" or the "Company") on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities
between January 31, 2018, and March 12, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action, captioned Camp v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01208 was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Investors who purchased QUALCOMM securities during the Class
Period may, no later than August 7, 2018, seek to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/qualcomm-incorporated#join.

QUALCOMM develops and commercializes "foundational technologies
and products used in mobile devices and other wireless products."
The Company derives revenues principally from the sale of
integrated circuit products and the licensing of intellectual
property. Broadcom Limited ("Broadcom") is a "designer, developer
and global supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices,
with a focus on complex digital and mixed signal complementary
metal oxide semiconductor ["CMOS"] based devices and analog III-V
based products."  Broadcom is incorporated in, and maintains its
principal executive offices in, Singapore.

Beginning in late 2017, Broadcom announced a series of
unsolicited proposals to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
QUALCOMM's common stock.  The Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States ("CFIUS") is "an inter-agency committee
authorized to review transactions that could result in control of
a U.S. business by a foreign person ('covered transactions'), in
order to determine the effect of such transactions on the
national security of the United States."  Unbeknownst and
undisclosed to investors, on January 29, 2018, QUALCOMM secretly
filed a voluntary request for CFIUS to initiate an investigation
into Broadcom's actions in a brazen attempt to frustrate
Broadcom's attempt to acquire the Company.

Once the Company's unilateral secret action was revealed to the
market on March 5, 2018, and as the market continued to learn
additional information about the nature and extent of QUALCOMM's
secret action vis-Ö-vis CFIUS, and the ramifications therefrom,
the price of the Company's common stock declined substantially.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose to investors that QUALCOMM had secretly filed
a unilateral notice with CFIUS in order to frustrate Broadcom's
attempt to acquire the Company.

Qualcomm investors who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at
(888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Qualcomm investors may, no later than August 7, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         Telephone: (888)-299-7706
                    (610)-667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com[GN]


QUALITY CARE: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters' Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Quality Care Properties, 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's motion to dismiss
the case entitled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
HCP, Inc., et al., remains pending.

HCP has reported that, on May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of
HCP filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio against HCP, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and
certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal
securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and alleges that HCP made certain false or
misleading statements relating to the value of and risks
concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to
disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by
the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act.

The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an
unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief
as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28, 2017, the
Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany)
and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems
(Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. Co-Lead
Plaintiffs must file a consolidated Amended Complaint by February
28, 2018. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on March 30, 2018.

HCP believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Quality Care Properties, Inc. ("QCP" or the "Company") is a
publicly-traded Maryland corporation primarily engaged in the
ownership and leasing of post-acute/skilled nursing properties and
memory care/assisted living properties. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.


RABOBANK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
superior court class action accuses Rabobank of unfair debt
collection: charging a $5 a day "continued overdraft fee" for up
to 10 days in addition to the initial $35 overdraft fee, without
properly disclosing it.


RAPID7 INC: Says Litigation Accrual Increased to $600,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Rapid7, 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's litigation accrual has
increased to $0.6 million.

In November 2016, Rapid7 LLC and two of its then executive
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit which
alleged violations of certain Massachusetts wage and hour laws.

In the three months ended March 31, 2018, the company increased
its litigation accrual by $0.4 million to $0.6 million which
reflects the preliminary settlement amount discussed between the
parties in April 2018.

Rapid7 is a provider of security and IT analytics and automation
solutions for SecOps, and is trusted by professionals around the
world to provide visibility, analytics and automation to help
manage risk, simplify IT complexity and drive innovation. The
company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


REINS INT'L: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reins International
(USA) Co., LTD. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Reins
International (USA) Co., LTD. doing business as: Gyu-Kaku,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05582 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2018).

Reins International (USA) Co. Ltd. owns and operates a barbecue
restaurant. The company is based in Gardena, California.[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


RECRO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Recro Pharma, Inc. ("Recro Pharma") (NASDAQ:REPH)
between July 31, 2017 and May 23, 2018. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. To get more information go to:

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company's lead product, IV
meloxicam, lacked supporting clinical data to show sufficient
clinical benefits to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") approval; and (ii) as a result, Recro Pharma's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On May 24, 2018, Recro Pharma announced that the FDA had
declined to approve its New Drug Application ("NDA") for IV
meloxicam. In its Complete Response Letter, the FDA stated that
the drug's analgesic effects did not meet FDA expectations and
raised questions related to chemistry, manufacturing and controls
data.

If you suffered a loss in Recro Pharma you have until July 30,
2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


REV GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers REV Group, Inc.
(NYSE:REVG) securities pursuant and/or traceable to REV Group's
initial public offering ("IPO") on or about January 27, 2017. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for REV Group investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the REV Group class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1355.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) REV Group was
unable to use its "strong visibility into future net sales" to
"effectively plan" and manage its backlog of vehicles; (2) REV
Group facilities were not operating efficiently or at a low cost
to satisfy customer demand; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 7, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Hit With New California Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Ripple Labs
Inc. has been hit with another lawsuit in state court in
California claiming the fintech company's XRP digital tokens, or
"Ripples," should be registered as securities under the state's
Corporations Code.

The lawsuit, which also names Ripple subsidiary XRP II LLC and
CEO Bradley Garlinghouse as defendants, claims the company has
intentionally "conflated the value of XRP with its other software
efforts" to pump up the value of the tokens.

The new lawsuit, which seeks to certify a class of all California
XRP purchasers, was filed on June 5 by lawyers at Robbins Arroyo
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Mateo Superior Court, a
venue viewed as plaintiff-friendly by the securities defense bar.
It comes as lawyers for Ripple at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom and Debevoise & Plimpton -- including former SEC Chair Mary
Jo White -- this week removed a previously filed securities suit
against the financial technologies company to federal court.

A Ripple spokeswoman said the suit was "just another example of
an extortionist bringing forth an opportunistic suit that lacks
merit."

"We feel confident that the claims regarding XRP are completely
unfounded both in law and fact," she said.

According to the new suit, Ripple founders kept 20 billion of the
100 billion total XRP, which has a market capitalization of $24
billion. The lawsuit claims the company held onto the remaining
80 billion and can sell up to 1 billion XRP per month in what the
complaint terms "a never ending ICO. " The lawsuit claims that
the sale of XRP " dwarfs any other source of revenue" at Ripple,
and the defendants sold nearly $92 million worth of XRP in the
fourth quarter of 2017 alone.

The Robbins Arroyo and Robbins Geller lawyers argue that XRP
should be registered as a security under California law, since
its sale is used to fund Ripple's business activities, its
available for sale to the public at large, and its buyers are
effectively powerless to control the success of the company or
its tokens. The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of damages and
the ability to undo prior XRP purchases.

"If defendants fail to create an adequate market for XRP,
inadequately or incorrectly manage the XRP Ledger, or there is a
loss of confidence in Ripple's management by the general market,
plaintiff and the class members investment in XRP will likely
lose money," the lawyers wrote.

The suit claims Ripple and Garlinghouse, in particular, have
fostered confusion in the market by linking the company's
software efforts, aimed at facilitating international transfers
between banks, with XRP. The complaint points specifically to a
Garlinghouse Twitter post in response to a New York Times
reporter who had posted a series of skeptical quotes he'd heard
from bankers about whether Ripple's financial customers would
actually buy XRP.

The complaint claims the tweet helps demonstrate the defendants
"acted on behalf of the common enterprise, with the expectation
of increase (sic) the value of XRP, and thus causing a profit."

Neither Brian Robbins, Esq. -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- of
Robbins Arroyo nor Shawn Williams, Esq., of Robbins Geller
immediately responded to messages.

The earlier suit, unlike the one filed this week in San Mateo
County, included claims under federal securities law. In federal
court, securities plaintiffs cannot get discovery until they
survive a motion to dismiss.

Robbins Arroyo, Esq., has previously represented the name
plaintiff in the case, California resident Vladi Zakinov, in a
federal lawsuit against a dog food maker filed last year claiming
his 4-year-old cocker spaniel-poodle mix died from kidney failure
after eating the company's allegedly lead-tainted food. Those
claims were tossed by a judge in San Diego who found earlier this
year that they were covered by a previous settlement in a
nationwide false advertising class action.[GN]


RITE AID: Aklile Files Suit Over Albertsons Merger
--------------------------------------------------
Mel Aklile, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Rite Aid Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Rite Aid
Corporation, Albertsons Companies, Inc., Ranch Acquisition II,
LLC, Ranch Acquisition Corp., John T. Standley, Joseph B.
Anderson, Jr., Bruce G. Bodaken, David R. Jessick, Kevin E.
Lofton, Myrtle S. Potter, Frank A. Savage and Marcy Syms,
Defendants, Case No. 2018-0305 (Del. Ch., April 24, 2018), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the merger between
Rite Aid and Albertsons, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate
the merger.

The Plaintiff seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Delaware General Corporations Law.

On February 18, 2018, Rite Aid and Albertsons entered into a
merger agreement pursuant to which the two companies will merge
into a new entity to be renamed "Rite Aid LLC." Current
Albertsons stockholders will own approximately 70.4% to 72% of
the combined company, while current Rite Aid stockholders will
own approximately 29.6% to 28% of the combined company.

Defendants allegedly manipulated deal structures and denied
Aklile appraisal rights and violated their fiduciary duties in
change of control transactions that includes terms that Rite Aid
common stock held, each Rite Aid common stockholder will receive
one-tenth of a share of Albertsons stock and have the option of
receiving either 18.32õ or 0.0079 of a share of Albertsons stock.

Albertsons is a food and drug retailer with 2,318 stores across
35 states. Rite Aid operates 2,548 retail drug stores in 19
states across the country. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
      Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
      ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
      2 Mill Road, Suite 202
      Wilmington, DE 19806
      Telephone: (302) 595-9102
      Email: rsianni@andersensleater.com
             eric@andersensleater.com


RPX CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against RPX Corporation ("RPX" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:RPXC) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired RPX securities
on the open market and still hold their shares, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 1, 2018, RPX issued a press release announcing it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with HGGC, LLC
through Riptide Parent, LLC ("Parent") and Riptide Purchaser,
Inc. ("Purchaser" and together with HGGC, LLC and Parent,
"HGGC"), dated April 30, 2018 (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, HGGC commenced a tender offer (the
"Offer") to purchase all of the outstanding shares of RPX common
stock for $10.50 per share ("Offer Price"). The Offer commenced
on May 21, 2018 and will expire one minute after 11:59 p.m. New
York City Time, on June 18, 2018. According to the Complaint, the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest RPX's public
stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders.

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


S. RICCI: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S. Ricci America,
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.
Ricci America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05542 (S.D.
N.Y., June 19, 2018).

S. Ricci America, Inc. is a luxury men's wear brand in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Homeless RV Owners' Class Suit Survives First Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge in San Diego on June 8 refused to dismiss a class
action from disabled homeless people who challenged city laws
that prohibit them from living in their RVs or parking them
overnight on the street.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia refused the city's request
to dismiss the November 2017 lawsuit on behalf of an estimated
class of 800 who say vehicle codes which appear to be "facially
neutral" discriminate against disabled San Diegans with nowhere
to go.

"Living with yearly record-breaking rent increases seems to be
par for the course in San Diego -- part of the so-called
'Sunshine Tax,'" Battaglia wrote in an 8-page order.

"Plaintiffs in this case, disabled and homeless individuals, are
amongst those hit the hardest by the Sunshine Tax. Unable to work
and living off of government assistance, plaintiffs took refuge
from the streets in their RVs; a risky endeavor as two San Diego
Municipal Codes make it unlawful."

The average rent in San Diego is $2,043 a month for an average-
size apartment, which is 827 square feet, according to the
recently updated RentCafe website: $24,500 a year, without
utilities.

The class claims two vehicle codes, one which outlaws parking RVS
on city streets between 2 and 6 a.m., and one which makes it
illegal to live in one's vehicle, place a "disproportionate
burden on disabled people," in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

In their original lawsuit, class members requested a "reasonable
modification" from the city, allowing homeless RV owners to use
empty parking lots at night in nonresidential neighborhoods. But
the City Council took no action and continued to ticket homeless
RV owners.

Oddly, the city opened "safe park" overnight lots for homeless
people living in vehicles, but excluded RVs.

In its dismissal motion, the city claimed that its laws are
neutral and do not discriminate on the basis of disability, and
so do not violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

But Battaglia said the city's argument misses the
disproportionate burden claims that a "facially neutral" policy
or program can be found to violate the ADA if it
disproportionately affects disabled people.

The class cited three ways in which they are disproportionately
burdened by San Diego's municipal code:

They cannot stay at the city's homeless shelters, which cannot
accommodate their disabilities;

Pre-existing conditions make them more vulnerable to unsheltered
homelessness if their RVs are impounded;

and they have no access to permanent housing as their
disabilities prevent them from working, and they live on fixed
incomes through government assistance.

Battaglia found the complaint "plausibly alleges that disabled,
homeless plaintiffs are disproportionately burdened by the
ordinances."

"While the city does raise credible issues as to the complaint's
focus on homelessness as the discerning factor here rather than
plaintiffs' disabilities, the complaint addresses these
deficiencies," Battaglia wrote.

Disability Rights attorney Ann Menasche said in an interview that
the judge understood that even a facially neutral ordinance which
does not intend to discriminate can be found to do so if it
disproportionately affects disabled people.

"You don't have to have intent to have discrimination," Menasche
said. "People with disabilities are being harmed by the city
because they have disabilities."

Menasche said the city is continuing to ticket and impound
homeless owners' RVs.

A hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction is set for July
26.

The City Attorney's Office did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on June 8.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Defendants Mull Appeal in "Baker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that defendants' petition with the
Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the court's class
certification order in the case, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment,
Inc., et al., is still pending.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014,
captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive
officers and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas
Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional
plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke
Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against
the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its
executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial
public offering and secondary public offerings.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially
false and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were
reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's
business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015,
the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among other
things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters as
defendants. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the renewed
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court
granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants
filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal
the Court's class certification order which petition is still
pending. Discovery is currently ongoing with the trial scheduled
for 2019.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. is a leading theme park and
entertainment company providing experiences that matter and
inspiring guests to protect animals and the wild wonders of our
world. The company is based in Orlando, Florida.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 appeal from the ruling in
the Holly Hall class action lawsuit remains pending.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.  Plaintiffs' claims
are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented
the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its
orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket
purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with
intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class
members.  The complaint further alleges that the specific
misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,
but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the
class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In
addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates. Such actions were subsequently
dismissed or consolidated with the Hall matter described above.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the
plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC") with
prejudice on February 25, 2016.  The United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered
judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016.  Plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on June 10, 2016.  The appeal
has been fully briefed and argued and the Company awaits the
Court's decision.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. is a leading theme park and
entertainment company providing experiences that matter and
inspiring guests to protect animals and the wild wonders of our
world. The company is based in Orlando, Florida.


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Mazurek" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seres Therapeutics, 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 court has granted the company's
motion to dismiss the case entitled Mazurek v. Seres
Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On March 30, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the company's motion to dismiss the
putative class action lawsuit filed on September 28, 2016,
entitled Mazurek v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc., et al., alleging
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions about the company's
clinical trials for our product candidate SER-109 in our public
disclosures between June 25, 2015 and July 29, 2016.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. is a microbiome therapeutics platform
company developing a novel class of biological drugs, which are
designed to treat disease by restoring the function of a
dysbiotic microbiome. The company is based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


SONY CORP: Canada High Ct. to Hear Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear two
appeals from major electronics companies in a pair of British
Columbia class-action suits that allege a global price-fixing
conspiracy between 2004 and 2009.

The suits, first filed by Whistler, B.C., businessman Neil
Godfrey in 2010, allege the companies overcharged purchasers of
optical disc drives and products containing them, such as
computers and video game consoles.

The suits -- involving more than 40 defendants, including
powerhouses such as Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Philips, Panasonic
and Pioneer -- were certified as a class action in 2016, a
decision upheld on appeal.

Godfrey's suit notes that in 2009 and 2012, authorities in the
United States and Europe levelled multimillion-dollar fines
against optical disc suppliers over allegations of bid-rigging
and price-fixing.

The Supreme Court says the two appeals will be heard together.

As usual, the justices gave no reasons for agreeing to hear the
appeals.[GN]


SOUND TRANSIT: Faces $240-Mil. Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Josh Kelety, writing for Tukwila Reporter, reports that Sound
Transit is once again in the cross-hairs of state lawmakers --
this time, in the courts. A class-action lawsuit, partially
orchestrated by state Sen. Phil Fortunato (R-Auburn) has been
filed against Sound Transit by seven central Puget Sound
residents in Pierce County Superior Court.

The lawsuit alleges that the 2015 bill that authorized Sound
Transit to go to the voters to approve Sound Transit 3 is
unconstitutional. The measure -- approved with 54 percent of the
vote in 2016 -- allows for the collection of car tab taxes to
fund an infrastructure package to build out the regional Link
Light Rail and bus systems.

As a regional transit authority, Sound Transit levies a
combination of sales, property, and car tab taxes on residents in
the western portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to
pay for projects. The seven plaintiffs in the suit all live
within the agency's regional taxing district, two of whom reside
in King County. The plaintiffs are seeking $240 million in
damages.

Ever since the 2016 ballot measure was approved, the transit
agency has come under fire for the way it calculates car tab tax
rates. The agency utilizes a valuation formula that was approved
by the legislature back in the 1990, one which critics argue
doesn't reflect accurate market values and sometimes inflates the
value of cars, hiking up owners' tax bill. Sound Transit
estimated that the tax increase would raise rates by $110 per
$10,000 in vehicle valuation, but reports emerged in early 2017
documenting steep increases (such as a raise from $90 annually to
more than $260).

After headlines about "sticker shock" circulated, state lawmakers
began gunning for the agency during both the 2017 and 2018
legislation sessions, pushing bills that would force Sound
Transit to adopt a valuation system based on Kelley Blue Book.
However, such bills never gained enough approval to make it to
the governor's desk. Sound Transit has promised to change its
vehicle depreciation schedule by 2029 in order to pay off bonds,
but argues that changing the system now could cut critical
funding and delay or halt transportation projects.

The crux of the argument is that the 2015 bill authorizing Sound
Transit to increase taxes didn't specifically spell out that the
agency would be using the '90s vehicle valuation schedule. "The
constitution has that clause to prohibit deceptive things from
happening and that's pretty much what this is," Sen. Fortunato
told Seattle Weekly. "Sound Transit drafted the legislation. If
they were to do this properly, the proper way to do it would've
been to list the [motor vehicle excise tax] schedule."

Fortunato -- who does not live within the agency's taxing
district boundaries, but has long been critical of Sound Transit
-- said that he originally tried to file a lawsuit making the
same argument back in April, but couldn't get any lawyers to do
the work pro bono. The lawyers that are bringing the current case
are Joel Ard, Esq., and David DeWolf, Esq., who found the
plaintiffs and filed the case themselves independent of
Fortunato. DeWolf testified before the state Senate last year,
where he raised the same argument that's made in the current
class-action lawsuit.

Fortunato said that he has drafted a senate bill for the 2019
legislative session that would -- if passed -- prevent Sound
Transit from starting construction on new projects, change the
vehicle valuation system to reflect current market values, and
mandate that the Sound Transit board members be elected to their
seats.

In response to the lawsuit, Sound Transit spokesperson Geoff
Patrick wrote an email to Seattle Weekly stating: "We are
confident in the validity of the law and will be reviewing and
responding to the lawsuit. Since voters' decisive approval of ST3
highway congestion has only worsened, and it will continue to
worsen. Any reduction of [motor vehicle excise tax] revenues
would delay or kill voter-approved transit alternatives."[GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: Major Development Brewing in Stucco Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wade Livingston, writing for The Island Packet, reports that a
yearslong lawsuit brought by scores of Sun City Hilton Head
residents against a contractor accused of faulty stucco
installation on thousands of homes appears to be moving toward a
settlement -- shortly before it's scheduled to go to trial.

An email forwarded to The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette
by multiple Sun City residents says "a tentative settlement has
been reached in the stucco class action lawsuit. Therefore there
will not be a trial taking place as originally scheduled on  June
11."

Parties associated with the case are mum and details about the
settlement are not available. But the contractor already has paid
millions to a group of people who opted out of the case. Given
the number of homes included in the suit -- and the amount of
money plaintiffs have asked for -- the settlement could total
even more.

The case, Anthony Grazia v. South Carolina State Plastering et
al. -- which now includes some 4,000 Sun City homeowners -- was
initially supposed to go to trial before Judge Edgar Dickson in
the 14th Judicial Circuit in Beaufort, according to Beaufort
County court records.

But Dickson ordered that the trial be rescheduled for early
August, and reserved June 11 for a motion hearing.

South Carolina State Plastering LLC (SCSP), the lead defendant,
applied stucco to about 4,500 Sun City homes from 1998 to 2007,
according to court documents. Anthony and Barbara Grazia filed
their suit in May 2007, and it became a class-action case in
2012.

Residents have said their homes were damaged by improperly
applied stucco, which can cause mold. Some houses had minor
damage, while others needed partial replacement of walls.

Del Webb Communities Inc. (which operates Sun City), Pulte Homes
Inc. and Kephart Architects Inc. are third-party defendants in
the suit, since SCSP alleged it installed the stucco under the
direction and design of those companies.

Court documents show that 187 people opted out of the case and
took individual settlements from SCSP ranging from $1,500 to
$50,000. The combined payout totaled more than $2.6 million.

According to court documents, defense attorneys said, as of
August 2017, their clients had spent "approximately $23 million
... to date in attempted corrections as part of the Right to Cure
Process."

The S.C. Right to Cure Act requires a homeowner to give 90 days
notice of the intent to file a lawsuit over construction and lays
out a timeline for a contractor or subcontractor to assess the
situation and offer repairs, money or some another solution.

However, plaintiffs in the Grazia suit "allege that the only
appropriate repair of the damaged homes is to de-clad and then
re-clad the houses with an appropriate stucco system, at a cost
of approximately $75,000.00 per structure," according to court
documents.

When reached on June 8 afternoon, a representative of Dickson's
office said the judge could not comment on the case or scheduling
matters associated with it, and said Charleston attorney Michael
Seekings, Esq., was the point of contact.

Seekings, listed as one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on court
documents, did not return a phone message and email left for him
on June 8 morning.

John Chakeris, Esq., and Phillip Segui, Esq., also representing
the plaintiffs, did not return phone messages left with their
offices.

Defense attorney Victor Rawl Jr., Esq., declined to comment when
reached on June 8 afternoon. And defense attorneys Suzanne
Deters, Esq., and Marshall Crane, Esq., could not be reached
immediately for comment.

Sun City resident Ross Glatzer, whose name appeared on the email,
could not be reached for comment. Neither could Jason Schloss,
likewise listed on the email.

When reached on June 8 afternoon, Anthony Grazia declined to
comment.

The email said, "Our lawyers anticipate that it will take some
time to get the settlement finalized, as there are a number of
details still to be worked through.

"Over the next few weeks we will issue updates starting in about
30 days, as they progress towards finalizing the settlement."[GN]


SUNLIGHT SUPPLY: "Martin" Suit Asserts Illegal Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunlight Supply, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00600, (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2018) seeks unpaid wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued
vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other
benefits, for 60 days, including medical expenses that would have
been covered and paid under the then-applicable employee benefit
plans had that coverage continued for that period.  The lawsuit
also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs and
such other and further relief under the under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Martin was employed by defendant as an IT Desktop Specialist and
reported to its facility located at 3204 NW 38th Circle,
Vancouver, WA 98660.

The complaint says the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff and
approximately 200 employees who worked at or reported to their
Vancouver, Washington facilities without 60 days advance written
notice of their terminations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael C. Subit, Esq.
     FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
     705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: (206) 682-6711
     Email: msubit@frankfreed.com

            - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     RenÇ S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2070
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
            jar@outtengolden.com


SUNOPTA INC: Awaits Prel. Approval of Settlement in "De Jesus"
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta 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 case, De Jesus, et al. v.
Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, are awaiting preliminary court
approval of a settlement.

On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled
De Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed
against Sunrise Growers, Inc. ("Sunrise") (then named Frozsun,
Inc.) in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking
damages, equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for
alleged wage and hour violations.

This case includes claims for failure to pay all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations,
waiting-time penalties, improper wage statements and unfair
business practices. The putative class includes approximately
10,000 non-exempt hourly employees from Sunrise's production
facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard, California. The parties
attended mediation on October 12, 2017, and reached a general
agreement to resolve the matter on a class-wide basis.

After negotiating the remaining details of the settlement, the
parties sought preliminary approval of the settlement from the
court in April 2018, and are awaiting the court order.

The Company expects to recover the full amount payable under the
settlement through insurance coverage and an escrow account
established in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Sunrise.

SunOpta Inc. is a global company focused on sourcing organic and
non-genetically modified ("non-GMO") ingredients, and
manufacturing healthy food and beverage products. The company is
based in Ontario, Canada.


SUNRUN INC: Motion to Approve "Slovin" Settlement Due July 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs are required to file any motion
for preliminary approval in the case captioned Slovin et al. v.
Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, by July 10, 2018.

On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et
al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California. The complaint generally alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA")
on behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons
alleged to be similarly situated.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015,
and a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting
individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order
entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion
to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint, and granted leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016
asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On
October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion to again
strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other
things, revise the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs
seek to represent.

The Company has opposed that motion, which remains pending before
the Court. In each iteration of their complaint, plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the absent
classes.

On April 12, 2018, the Company and Plaintiffs advised the Court
that they reached a settlement in principle, and the Court
vacated all deadlines relating to the motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs are required to file any motion for
preliminary approval by July 10, 2018.

Sunrun Inc. provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at savings
compared to traditional utility energy. The company also offers
battery storage along with solar systems to its customers in
select markets. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 court has granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against
the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making
false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's
August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation
of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant
or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or
rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate
by the court.

On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Baker
and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel
complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on
behalf of the same purported class.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making
false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5,
2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business
practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments.
The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek
similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker
actions.

On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions
were consolidated. On December 27, 2017, the court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Sunrun said "The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

Sunrun Inc. provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at savings
compared to traditional utility energy. The company also offers
battery storage along with solar systems to its customers in
select markets. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Fink et al. Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 in multiple
class action suits in California.

On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements in connection with public filings made
between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017 regarding the number
of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the
Company's home-solar energy system.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest,
attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than
the defendants who purchased the Company's securities between
September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.

On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865,
was filed in the United States District Court, Northern
California District of California.

The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially similar to the
Fink complaint, and seeks similar relief against similar
defendants on behalf of a substantially similar class.

On August 23, 2017, the Fink, Hall, and Sanogo actions were
consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying
violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints. On
April 5, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
May 3, 2018.

Sunrun said "The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

Sunrun Inc. provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at savings
compared to traditional utility energy. The company also offers
battery storage along with solar systems to its customers in
select markets. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Files Lawsuit
---------------------------------------
Khaleej Times reports that Elon Musk's multi-billion dollar
compensation package should be rescinded and the board of Tesla
should be overhauled to better protect investors in the
electronic car company, according to a law suit filed by a
shareholder on June 7.

The lawsuit accused the board of corporate waste and Musk, the
company's chief executive officer and chairman, of unjust
enrichment. The lawsuit is seeking class action status.

Tesla said in a statement that the lawsuit "seeks to take the
power from our shareholders and instead give it to plaintiffs
lawyers. We will respond accordingly."

Musk received the support of the company's shareholders in March
for a package that Tesla estimated to be worth $2.6 billion.

A Morgan Stanley analyst estimated the package could be worth up
to $70 billion if the company continues to grow quickly. While
the award of the pay package cooled speculation that Musk might
be planning to quit, it was also criticised for its unprecedented
size.

Proxy advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis both had recommended
shareholders reject the package.

"The new E. Musk compensation plan is so large it dwarfs the pay
package of every other public company CEO," said the complaint by
Richard Tornetta that was unsealed in Delaware's Court of
Chancery.

Tesla's statement noted that Musk gets nothing unless the
company's market value doubles and continues to increase until it
becomes one of the world's most valuable companies.

Much of the complaint describing the how the pay package is
unfair was redacted.

The complaint said Tornetta obtained corporate records from Tesla
as permitted under Delaware corporate law. Companies sometimes
provide that information only if a shareholder signs a non-
disclosure agreement.

The lawsuit was unsealed days after shareholders rejected a
shareholder proposal to strip Musk of the chairman role.

That had represented the strongest challenge yet to Musk's grip
on the Silicon Valley car maker, which also faces production
setbacks and expectations by many analysts that it will need to
raise new cash.

The case was assigned to Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights. In
March, Slights ruled against Tesla's request for an early
dismissal of a shareholder class action challenging the company's
acquisition of SolarCity Corp, a renewable energy company.

The lawsuit alleged that Musk used his power over Tesla's board
to buy SolarCity at a price that unfairly benefited Musk, a large
shareholder in SolarCity.

The SolarCity deal closed in November 2016.

That case is proceeding to trial.[GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Stockinger" Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Paul Stockinger, Elizabeth
Stockinger, Gailyn Kennedy, Basudeb Dey, Eliezer Casper and
Yvette Alley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a
California corporation and Yvette Gayfield non-party, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-mc-80103-EDL (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2018).

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and sells vehicles.
It offers cars, trucks, sports utility vehicles, crossovers,
hybrids and electric vehicles, hybrid cars, hybrid sports utility
vehicles, concept vehicles, and accessories. The company also
sells used vehicles. It provides its products through dealers in
the United States and internationally. The company was founded in
1957 and is based in Torrance, California with design, research,
and development facilities, as well as regional offices in the
United States. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corporation.

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Jennifer Lauren Joost, Esq.
   Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP
   One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 400-3000
   Fax: (415) 400-3001
   Email: jjoost@ktmc.com

      - and -

   Natalie Lesser, Esq.
   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: nlesser@ktmc.com

      - and -

   Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
   Barroway Topaz Kessler & Check LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com

      - and -

   Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Email: tgraden@ktmc.com


TRACKER MARINE: Court Upholds Couple's Suit
-------------------------------------------
Gregg Jones, writing for eMissourian.com, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a St. Clair couple's class action suit
against Tracker Marine Boat Center (TMBC), a Bass Pro subsidiary.

Robert and Janet McKeage, St. Clair, filed the class action suit
against TMBC, LLC, in January 2009. On May 21, the Supreme Court
upheld a lower court's award of more than $21.7 million. There
were approximately 100,000 people who were part of the class
action suit.

The McKeages and other plaintiffs were represented by David L.
Baylard, Esq. -- dbaylard@bbd-law.com -- attorney with Baylard,
Billington, Dempsey & Jensen, P.C. of Union; and Steve Garner,
Esq., and Chandler Gregg, Esq., attorneys with Strong-Garner-
Bauer, P.C. of Springfield, Mo.

The McKeages filed the suit seeking damages for unlawful charges,
in the form of "document fees," in connection with purchases of
boats, boat trailers and accessories or recreational vehicles
since January of 2004.

In May 2008, the couple purchased a boat from the Tracker Boat
Center inside the Bass Pro Shop in St. Charles. The McKeages were
charged a $75 document fee.

According to court records from the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the McKeages were unhappy with their purchase and
contacted Baylard to rescind the sale. After reviewing the
contract, Baylard filed suit in the St. Charles County Circuit
Court contending that the document fees violated state statute.

According to the McKeage suit, document fees are a separate
charge often levied by banks and automobile and boat dealers for
preparing legal documents involved in the transactions. Document
fees are an "unauthorized practice of law in Missouri since the
1950s" because the legal documents are prepared by someone not
licensed to practice law.

Baylard explained that Tracker Marine charged varying amounts in
document fees to different customers depending on the number of
items purchased and the total price of the items. The fees ranged
from $25 to $150, or more, per customer.

The class action suit sought that illegal charges to customers be
reimbursed, as well as triple damages as allowed by Missouri
statute.

The McKeages asked the state court to certify a nationwide class
action, but the state courts only certified the class action for
purchases made in Missouri.[GN]


TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Class-Action Suit
---------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health and two of its subsidiaries
are facing a punitive class-action lawsuit alleging hourly wage
workers were shorted overtime pay, a violation of federal and
state wage laws.

Here are seven things to know:

1. The lawsuit was filed against Trinity Health, Conshohocken,
Pa.-based Mercy Health System and Camden, N.J.-based Lourdes
Health System. It was brought by John Layer, a medical lab
technician for Trinity Health, on behalf of himself and other
employees in a similar situation. Mr. Layer is jointly employed
by the three defendants, paid an hourly wage and classified as
non-exempt from federal and state overtime laws. Mercy Health and
Lourdes Health are fully owned by Trinity.

2. Mr. Layer is seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, which generally both
require employees to receive overtime pay for hours worked beyond
40 in a seven-day week. This obligation is modified for hospitals
and other healthcare providers so that workers receive overtime
pay when their work hours exceed 80 hours in a 14-day period.

3. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff argues Trinity fails to pay
adequate overtime to employees who work more than 40 hours a
week, or 80 hours a pay period, at two or more Trinity locations.

4. In particular, Mr. Layer claims he worked 80.25 hours at Mercy
Philadelphia Hospital, part of the Mercy Health System, and 16.75
hours at two hospitals that are part of the Lourdes Health
System. Combined, he worked 97 hours in a 14-day period, which
equates to 17 overtime hours. However, he only received overtime
pay for .25 hours, or 15 minutes.

5. The lawsuit alleges the defendants limited overtime pay to the
hours worked at just one health system, instead of combining the
hours, in violation of federal and state wage laws.

6. "Defendants have willfully violated the overtime pay mandates
of the FLSA and PMWA through their reckless disregard of [a U.S.
regulation] and other well-established provisions," the lawsuit
reads.

7. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the class, is seeking
unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, liquidated
damages and reimbursement of any litigation and attorneys
fees.[GN]


TURTLE BEACH: Asks Nevada Supreme Court to Reverse Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that defendants have petitioned the Nevada
Supreme Court to reverse its order denying their motion to
dismiss.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings Inc. and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain
an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited
to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada
cases denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their
action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada
action, which was granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014,
VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion
was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous
en banc panel of Nevada Supreme granted defendants' petition for
writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the
complaint but provided a limited basis upon which plaintiffs
could seek to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the
Company, as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes
Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the
Company's Board of Directors.

All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January
2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018.
Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this
ruling on April 18, 2018.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California,
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio technology company with expertise and experience in
developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products
across a range of large addressable markets operating under two
reportable segments, Turtle Beach(R) ("Headset") and
HyperSound(R).


UNITED STATES: Central American immigrants File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a group of Central American immigrants has filed a class
action lawsuit against the Trump administration over the secret
termination of a refugee program that gave children fleeing
violence in the region a path to reunification with their parents
in the United States.

The plaintiffs, Central American immigrants legally residing in
the United States and their minor children living in Central
America, say racism against Latinos motivated the
administration's 2017 decision to terminate the Central American
Minors (CAM) program.

The June 13 complaint claims the administration shut down the
program just days after Trump entered office in January 2017, but
didn't announce the termination until August of that year.

The plaintiffs say the new administration immediately stopped
interviewing program beneficiaries and froze their applications;
stopped issuing decisions to applicants who were likely
candidates for parole; and stopped scheduling the medical exams
required for parolees to travel to the United States -- all in
secret.

Nonetheless, the administration continued to accept money from
applicants, including $100 or more for medical exams and $1,400
for each child's plane ticket to the United States, the class
representatives say.

The money hasn't been returned, despite the revocation of the
plaintiffs' conditional approval to travel to the United States,
according to Daniel Asimow -- daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com --
who represents the class.

"These are thousands of families that expected their children
would be reunified with them, kids in grave danger in the
Northern Triangle countries," Mr. Asimow said by phone.  "To be
told your child is approved for legal travel, that authorization
is forthcoming, and to have the government go silent is
devastating for these families."

The only recourse for the 3,000 young people whose conditional
approval was revoked is to request review of the denial.

The plaintiffs' reviews have yet to be granted, however, raising
fears that children who had been accepted as parolees will be
permanently blocked from entering the United States.

Citing President Donald Trump's racist statements made during the
2016 presidential campaign, the plaintiffs claim the
"unprecedented, unexplained, and unsupported secret shutdown" of
the parole portion of the program violates the Constitution's due
process and equal protection clauses.

"This administration's highly erratic and unexplained termination
of the CAM Parole program," the 46-page complaint states, "can
only be understood as another one of this administration's cruel
and xenophobic policies against people it has publicly labeled
'animals.'"

The Department of Justice did not return a request seeking
comment.

Established under the Obama administration in 2014, the Central
American Minors program allowed legal immigrants from El
Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras -- sometimes called the Northern
Triangle countries -- to bring their children fleeing violence to
the United States as refugees or parolees.

The program was a response to the explosion in the number of
unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle arriving at the
United States' southern border.

Border Patrol apprehended about 50,000 children at the border the
year the program took effect, up from 8,000 two years earlier,
according to the complaint.  Before then, Border Patrol had
stopped just 4,000 unaccompanied children from these countries
each year.

The plaintiffs, identified in the complaint only by their
initials, include a teenage girl who was forced to drop out of
high school just before graduation because she feared being raped
or killed by an MS-13 gang member trying to forcibly "date" her;
a teenage boy who has trouble walking and bathing after being
beaten by MS-13 members; and a teenage boy MS-13 gang members are
threatening with murder after shooting his uncle outside the
boy's home.

Mr. Asimow is optimistic about obtaining a court order
reinstating the parole portion of the program, noting several
factors working in the class' favor: their reliance on the
administration's representations that they could travel to the
United States; the money they spent on the application process;
and the program's secret termination.

"We have a strong case," he said.

Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have some of the highest
child homicide rates in the world, according to the complaint.

Gangs like MS-13 and Barrio 18 have created "semi-autonomous
mini-states" there, facilitating gruesome acts of violence, much
of it aimed at children.

Attacks on buses, abductions, gang rapes, and shootings occur
each day in many neighborhoods, according to the plaintiffs.
Gangs regularly try to recruit young children as members and sex
slaves, and kill them when their efforts are rebuffed.

One Honduran city has reported regular killings of children under
10 years old and as young as two.

Mr. Asimow is with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in San Francisco.
The International Refugee Assistance Project in New York also
represents the plaintiffs.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Visa Delays
--------------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
forced to wait years for the visas they were promised in exchange
for assisting U.S. war efforts, five Afghan and Iraqi nationals
say in a federal class action that their lives and their
families' safety are at stake.

"By working with the United States, the allies and their families
have become targets for retaliation by the Taliban, Al-Qaida,
ISIS (aka Daesh), and other terrorist groups," the 29-page
complaint says.  "This risk is not theoretical: numerous Afghans
and Iraqis helping the United States have been targeted and
assassinated by these terrorist organizations."

Filed in Washington, the lawsuit from the International Refugee
Assistance Project and the firm Freshfields Bruckhaus is dated
June 12 but only made public on June 13, having been filed under
seal pending permission for the lead plaintiffs to proceed
anonymously.

In 2013, Congress set a nine-month deadline for the Departments
of State and Homeland Security to process special immigrant visas
for those Iraqis and Afghans who gave "faithful and valuable"
service to U.S. or allied troops.

With those agencies now acknowledging that applicants often have
to wait several years for decisions, the five plaintiffs say the
consequences have been deadly.

Despite the government's decision to settle two similar lawsuits
filed in 2015, the plaintiffs say the problems with delays
persist, leaving them and their families in danger while they
await decisions on the visas they applied for years ago.

Deepa Alagesan with the International Refugee Assistance Project
said it's not fully understood what causes the delays, but
information in the public record suggests that lengthy security
checks and breakdowns in interagency coordination compound the
problem.

But while their applications languish, Ms. Alagesan said that her
clients live a very stressful life.

"The stress is twofold: there's the stress of maintaining their
safety and their families' safety," she said in a phone
interview.  "There's the stress of always trying not to slip up
-- they're living in hiding, they can't tell family members or
close friends about what they do."

Meantime the kids must stay home because it is too dangerous to
send them to school.

"Whatever it takes to minimize the chances that a militant group
will identify them based on their allegiance to the United States
and take some action against them," Ms. Alagesan said.

The other part of the stress comes from the uncertainty of
waiting for news on their applications, she said.

One of the plaintiffs, an Iraqi identified as John Doe-Echo, says
militants kidnapped and murdered his father after he applied for
a special immigrant visa in July 2013.  Afghan co-plaintiff Jane
Doe-Delta says masked men have followed her and her family
members since she applied for a visa in 2016, and threatened them
with death unless she quits her job working for a U.S. military
contractor.

Apprising the United States of such threats has had no effect on
the sluggish processing of their applications, according to the
complaint.

"The allies, and others like them, are currently in limbo, unable
either to count on the arrival of a US visa or to devote the few
resources they have towards trying to secure alternative means of
relative safety by moving elsewhere in their home countries or
abroad," the complaint says.  "Instead, they wait, in mortal
danger, for Defendants to fulfill the promise Congress made to
them."

A State Department official declined to comment on the pending
litigation.  The Department of Homeland Security did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs have alleged violations of the Administrative
Procedure Act, and seek a declaratory judgment and mandamus
relief to compel the government to process their visa
applications.


UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Bond Hearings for Immigrant Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge on June 5 ordered the government to grant
bond hearings to a class of undocumented immigrants in the Ninth
Circuit detained longer than six months, blocking the
government's practice of denying the hearings.

In granting the preliminary injunction and certifying the class,
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco
found a recent Supreme Court decision that detainees do not have
the right to a bond hearing after six months did not overrule
Ninth Circuit law saying they do.

"Jennings is in tension with Diouf II and perhaps even calls it
and Zadvydas into doubt," Judge Corley wrote in a morning order,
referring to the cases at issue.  "But such circumstances do not
permit this federal trial court to not follow Diouf II.  As Diouf
II is not clearly irreconcilable with Jennings it remains good
law in this circuit. "

Plaintiffs' attorney Judah Lakin, with Van Der Hout, Brigagliano
& Nightingale in San Francisco, said his clients were pleased
with Judge Corley's ruling.

"The law clearly mandates that our class members get bond
hearings after 180 days in immigration detention.  Nonetheless,
in clear violation of that law, the government had been denying
our class members hearings they were statutorily entitled to,"
Mr. Lakin said in an email.  "That ends today and we are excited
for all of our class members as they will now receive the most
basic of procedural protections--a bond hearing before a neutral
adjudicator to determine whether their detention is justified."

Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez, who
both entered the United States illegally from Mexico, sued in
March over the San Francisco Immigration Court's refusal to grant
them bond hearings after six months in detention.  They said that
in the absence of a bond hearing, their detentions violate the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution.

Unless the government can show through "clear and convincing
evidence" that a detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the
community, detainees are entitled to release after six months,
they claim.

A month later, Messrs. Aleman and Gutierrez moved for a class-
wide preliminary injunction barring the government from detaining
immigrants longer than six months without a bond hearing.

Mr. Aleman, who has been held in the Contra Costa West County
Detention Facility in Richmond since his arrest at his Bay Area
home last August, claims that without the injunction he risks
losing shared custody of his two U.S.-born daughters.

Mr. Gutierrez, who lived in the Bay Area city of San Lorenzo with
his U.S.-citizen wife and two daughters prior to his September
2017 arrest, says he was the family's sole breadwinner before
being detained.

Both men contend that they can't adequately prepare their
immigration cases behind bars, which increases their chances of
deportation.

At a preliminary injunction hearing, Judge Corley said the
question of whether to require the federal government to grant
detainees the hearings turns on which precedential ruling she
should apply: the Ninth Circuit's 2011 ruling in Diouf v.
Napolitano, commonly referred to as Diouf II, or the Supreme
Court's 2018 ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez, which gutted an
earlier 2001 Supreme Court decision Zadvydas v. Davis.

Diouf II requires the government to grant bond hearings after six
months, and Zadvydas requires it to justify detention for longer
than six months by showing at a bond hearing that deportation is
likely in the near future.

Jennings, however, found that detainees do not have the right to
periodic bond hearings, and that the Ninth Circuit should not
have held otherwise.

The federal government had argued Jennings superseded Zadvydas
and therefore Diouf II by holding that because the Immigration
and Nationality Act can't be interpreted to require bond hearings
every six months, the U.S. Code can't be interpreted as requiring
a bond hearing for prolonged detention.

But Judge Corley noted in the June 5 ruling that Jennings
"specifically did not overrule Zadvydas and in Zadvydas the
Supreme Court used the canon of constitutional avoidance to
construe section 1231(a)(6)[of the U.S. Code] to include
procedural requirements not specifically set forth in the
statute."

The canon of constitutional avoidance advises federal courts to
avoid ruling on a constitutional issue if the case can be
resolved on nonconstitutional grounds.

"This court can find Jennings clearly irreconcilable with Diouf
II only by ignoring Zadvydas.  However, even if 'recent Supreme
Court jurisprudence has perhaps called into question the
continuing viability of [its precedent], [the lower courts] are
bound to follow a controlling Supreme Court precedent until it is
explicitly overruled by that court,'" Judge Corley wrote, quoting
from the Ninth Circuit's 2011 ruling in Nunez-Reyes v. Holder.

Judge Corley also certified the proposed class as to their
statutory claims.  But she denied without prejudice their motion
to certify their due process claims pending the Ninth Circuit's
resolution in Jennings of whether Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure authorizes class certification of such claims.

The class comprises most present and future detainees in the
Ninth Circuit.  It excludes detainees within classes already
certified by the Central District of California and the Western
District of Washington.

Cara Alsterberg with the Department of Justice in Washington
represents the government.  The department did not return a
request for comment on June 5.


UNITED STATES: DA Nurse Practitioners Get Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit involving
nurse practitioners and physician assistants accusing the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs of failing to pay overtime since
2006.

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
granted certification in an action brought by class
representatives Stephanie Mercier, Audricia Brooks, Deborah
Plageman, Jennifer Allred and Michele Gavin on behalf of nurse
practitioners and physicians assistants at 85 different
facilities across the country.

Provost Umphrey attorneys Michael Hamilton of the firm's
Nashville office and Guy Fisher in the Beaumont, Texas, office
are among the attorneys working on the lawsuit along with counsel
David Cook and Clement Tsao of Cincinnati's Cook & Logothetis,
LLC, Douglas Richards of Lexington, Kentucky and Robert Stropp of
Washington DC's Mooney Green, P.C.

"These health care professionals dedicate their time for the
well-being of our veterans, and by law, are entitled to overtime
when they are required to work beyond their work schedules," said
Mr. Hamilton. "We believe this lawsuit to be critical for veteran
patient safety and health. To expect these employees to work
extended hours without overtime pay is wrong. With the class
certification, we can now proceed onto the next step in this
lawsuit."

The lawsuit seeks compensation for employees who worked overtime
processing electronic and computer patient records using VA
facility computers, VA laptops and sometimes personal computers,
work that is critical to the medical treatment of patients. Nurse
practitioners and physician assistants say the work is considered
mandatory. Those who failed to complete the assignments were
subject to disciplinary measures for poor time management.

"I'm grateful that the judge agreed with us and certified the
lawsuit as a class action," said Mr. Cook. "It is wrong for any
employer to expect people to work for free."

Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Cook estimate that as many 10,000 VA
employees could be represented in the class action lawsuit.

The case is Stephanie Mercier, Audricia Brooks, Deborah Plageman,
Jennifer Allred, Michele Gavin v. The United States of America,
No. 1:12-cv-00920 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

         Media Contact:
         Sophia Reza
         Telephone: 800-559-4534
         Email: sophia@androvett.com [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: ED to Probe Handling of Sex Abuse Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the U.S. Department of Education's civil rights division said on
June 11 it will investigate the University of Southern
California's handling of sexual-harassment reports against USC
gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall; dozens of women complained over
more than 25 years.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Now Face 11 Sex Abuse Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
R Bradley Bermont, writing for USC Anneberg Media, reports that
another lawsuit was filed against USC and George Tyndall -- the
11th lawsuit in three weeks against the university and its former
on-campus gynecologist. In the most recent suit, one woman
alleged that Tyndall penetrated her with his ungloved fingers,
took pictures of her genitalia, and made inappropriate sexual
comments, asking what she enjoyed during sex. Her account echoes
claims made by Tyndall's former patients in earlier lawsuits.

Following the Los Angeles Times' story about Tyndall's alleged
sexual misconduct with patients, multiple lawsuits have been
filed every week, and the deluge of complaints shows no signs of
slowing.

Two lawyers who filed suits two weeks ago -- David Ring, Esq.,
and Raymond Zolekhian, Esq. -- raymond@oakwoodlegal.com -- told
Annenberg Media that they will both file amended complaints in
the coming days, with both of their firms representing an
additional 30 victims each. If they do, there will be over 100
victims collectively represented by all the independent lawsuits
against the university.

Three of the lawsuits filed so far are class-action suits,
including one by Mike Arias, founding partner of Arias
Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos. He wouldn't disclose how many
clients he is representing, but said, "We have enough to fill
several football teams."

Susan Owen, managing partner of Owen Patterson, & Owen, is
leading her firm's effort against the university, representing
four clients who allege that Tyndall harassed and assaulted them
during examinations. She told Annenberg Media that she continues
to get calls from more victims daily, though she would not say
how many. Tyndall has denied any wrongdoing.

All four lawyers interviewed by Annenberg Media agreed that the
scale and scope of this scandal were unprecedented. The LAPD says
Tyndall was allowed to operate for nearly 30 years, with
complaints dating back to 1990. Police estimate he may have seen
10,000 patients in that time -- a number that Owen says is a low
estimate.

Some drew comparisons to the Miramonte Elementary School scandal
in 2013. Los Angeles Unified School District teacher Mark Berndt
was convicted of 23 counts of lewd conduct. He was accused of
blindfolding and spoon-feeding children semen. Owen and Ring
independently represented Berndt's victims in this case.

Others drew comparisons to Larry Nassar, the USA Gymnastics
national team doctor and an osteopathic physician at Michigan
State University, who pleaded guilty to 10 counts of first degree
criminal sexual conduct with children under the age of 16. John
Manly, founder and managing partner of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi,
represented many victims in this case; he also represents several
victims in the case against Tyndall. (Manly did not reply to
requests for comment for this story.)

Rather than jury trials, both cases resulted in large financial
settlements for victims and their families.

The Miramonte case led to nearly $30 million in payments from
L.A. Unified to settle lawsuits brought on behalf of 63 students.

The Nassar case led to a $500 million settlement from Michigan
State University for his victims. In January, NBC News reported
that 265 individuals accused Nassar of sexual misconduct and
assault.

Michigan State officials denied knowing about Nassar's conduct
for decades, but months after his conviction, the university
settled with his victims. The New York Times reported that the
settlement is believed to be the largest ever reached in a sexual
abuse case involving an American university. The Times said it is
unclear how Michigan State will pay this steep penalty.

While none of the lawyers offered any predictions about the
Tyndall's case to come, they all hope for a quick and speedy
settlement. None want to go to a jury trial, though all say they
are preparing for one.

Owen said that she wears two hats approaching this case -- one as
a well-respected lawyer, fighting for justice, and another as a
concerned parent whose son went to USC. She told Annenberg Media
that the number of people who reached out to her through her son
was "staggering."

"We are all part of the Trojan Family. My son feels great pride
in that -- I feel great pride in that," she said. "But this has
no place in that story."

"In every single person that has approached me with this," Owen
said, "the feeling is the same -- USC owes this to them. That USC
should have done more. All of their apologies in the past two
weeks -- all of those platitudes -- they mean nothing. What they
should have done is to protect these girls."

In addition to her son who went to USC, Owen has a 16-year-old
daughter as well who wanted to go to USC her entire life, Owen
said. But now, she doesn't think she would let her daughter
attend the school.

"How could I trust them? It was one guy who did this, but this
was an entire university that turned a blind eye. And thousands -
- potentially hundreds of thousands -- of women have suffered as
a result." [GN]


VALEANT PHARMA: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP has filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of persons or entities that purchased call
options and/or sold put options on Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (NYSE: VRX) ("Valeant" or the "Company")
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged
thereby (the "Class"). The case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:18-cv-
10246, against Valeant and related defendants (collectively,
"Defendants").

The class action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts concerning the Company's business and prospects. In this
regard, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company used a
network of specialty mail-order pharmacies it controlled to prop
up sales of its high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their
insurance companies from switching to less costly generic drugs;
(2) Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it
subject to increased regulatory risks; and (3) without the use of
the specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and
Class Period financial guidance would have been negatively
impacted. As a result of Defendants' false and misleading
statements and omissions, Valeant call options traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, while
Valeant put options traded at artificially deflated prices during
the Class Period. In this action, Plaintiff seeks an award of
damages, and prejudgment interest, to Plaintiff and other Class
members.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from today, or
by August 7, 2018. Any member of the proposed Class may move the
Court to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter through counsel
of their choice, or they may choose to do nothing and remain a
member of the Class.

         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
         Telephone: (212) 894-7200
         Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
   rcappucci@entwistle-law.com  [GN]


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Shoppe, 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 a federal
securities class action suit filed in the United States District
Court in the District of New Jersey.

On or about August 22, 2017, a federal securities class action
suit was filed in the United States District Court in the
District of New Jersey against Vitamin Shoppe and certain
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Vitamin Shoppe
common stock between March 1, 2017 and August 6, 2017.

The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
reported goodwill, initiatives designed to improve the Company's
financial performance, the Company's profitability trends, and
its financial results.

Vitamin Shoppe said "We believe this lawsuit is without merit,
and we are vigorously defending the lawsuit."

Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. is an omni-channel specialty retailer of
vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, sports
nutrition and other health and wellness products. The company is
based in Secaucus, New Jersey.


WASHINGTON: Suit Seeks Addiction Treatment in Whatcom County Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for KIRO 7, reports that the lawsuit, filed
on June 7 in U.S. District Court in Seattle, says the Whatcom
County Jail's refusal to provide the medicine violates the
Americans with Disability Act, because opioid addiction qualifies
as a disability under the law. Prisoners suffering from opioid
addiction are as entitled to medication as those with any other
condition requiring medical treatment, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also says the jail's policy is counterproductive
because inmates who go cold turkey risk severe relapse upon
release - increasing the likelihood they'll commit new crimes to
satisfy their cravings and that they'll overdose.

The Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, which runs the jail and was
named in the lawsuit, said it did not have any immediate
response.

"If a person in the Jail suffered from a heart condition and
needed medication the Jail would provide it, but it denies access
to Medication-Assisted Treatment, which reduces the risk of
overdose and death," ACLU attorney Jessica Wolfe.Esq. said in a
written statement. "This is unsafe and discriminatory."

The medicines at issue include methadone and buprenorphine, which
is also sold under the brand names Suboxone and Subutex. They
work by inhibiting opioid receptors in the brain, counteracting
the euphoric effects and physiological cravings.

While the Whatcom County Jail does provide the medicine to
pregnant women suffering from opioid withdrawal, it does not
provide them otherwise, the lawsuit says. Meanwhile, the county -
like places across the country - has seen more and more opioid
overdoses over the past 15 years. According to the lawsuit, at
least 18 people died of overdoses in Whatcom County in 2016, a
year the jail saw at least 253 prisoners self-report as abusers
of heroin and other opiates.

Despite the effectiveness of the medicines, jails that provide
them remain the exception nationwide, said Sally Friedman, legal
director of the New York-based Legal Action Center, a nonprofit
which has advocated for correctional systems to offer such
treatments. Friedman said the lawsuit appears to be the first of
its kind and could help alert officials that the ADA requires
them to provide the drugs.

"The word is getting out that people -- the judges, the police,
the prosecutors, all the players in the criminal justice system
who have prevented people from accessing these lifesaving
medications -- aren't going to be able to get away with that
anymore," she said.

The Justice Department entered a settlement with a skilled
nursing facility in Norwood, Massachusetts, that requires it to
start providing the medications to those suffering from opioid
use disorder under the ADA. The Boston Globe has also reported
that the DOJ is investigating whether Massachusetts prison
officials are violating the ADA by forcing incoming inmates who
had been taking the addiction medications to stop while they're
behind bars.

Some in law enforcement have argued that allowing such
medications, which are opiates themselves, enable users to
replace one addition with another, or that the medications
themselves can be abused in high doses.

But Leo Beletsky, a professor of law and health sciences at
Northeastern University in Boston, said "maintenance treatment"
with the drugs cuts the risk of overdose by up to 80 percent
while allowing people to get their lives back on track. He noted
that after Rhode Island began offering the drugs in its prison
system, the state's total number of fatal overdoses fell 12
percent.

"This effort is not only timely, but is long overdue," he said.
"There is no empirical or public safety rationale for the
existing barbaric standard of care."

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of two prisoners: Sy
Eubanks, 46, and Gabriel Kortlever, 24, both of whom have been
addicted to opioids since their teens. The lawsuit seeks class-
action status.[GN]


WILLBROS GROUP: Aug. 2 Fairness Hearing Set in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a fairness hearing in the case captioned, In
re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, is set for August
2, 2018.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on
October 28, 2014 seeking class action status on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock and alleging damages on their
behalf arising from the matters that led to the restatement.

The original defendants in the case were the Company, its former
Chief Executive Officer, Robert R. Harl, and its former Chief
Financial Officer, Van A. Welch. On January 30, 2015, the court
named two employee retirement systems as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, captioned In re
Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, on March 31, 2015,
adding as a defendant John T. McNabb, II, the former Chief
Executive Officer who had succeeded Mr. Harl, and claims
regarding the restatement of the Company's Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the SEC filings and other
public disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal
controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance
with debt covenants and liquidity, certain financial results and
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure. On July 27,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part. On July 22, 2016, the
Company filed an answer to the suit denying the remaining
allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act
regarding internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas
segment and Mr. Harl's departure. On June 28, 2017, Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its
order in 2016 dismissing certain claims and allow Lead Plaintiffs
to replead two of the claims the Court has dismissed; the Company
opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument but has not
ruled.

On February 16, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in
principle, which, if approved by the Court, would settle all
claims against the defendants and be fully funded by our
insurance carriers. On April 17, 2018, the Court signed Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing Notice,
preliminarily approving the settlement and also scheduling, among
other dates, a hearing for August 2, 2018 to determine whether
the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class Members.

Willbros is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor serving
the power and oil and gas industries with offerings that
primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities
development services. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


WORLEY & OBETZ: Files Bankruptcy, Faces Class-Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Shelby White, writing for Central Penn Business Journal, reports
that Worley & Obetz filed for bankruptcy on June 6 and is now
facing a class-action lawsuit filed by two former employees who
allege the company violated a federal law that requires 60-day
notice of mass layoffs.

The suit was filed on June 7 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Penn Township-based
energy company and two of its subsidiaries, Amerigreen Energy
Inc. and Amerigreen Propane Inc.

The plaintiffs are Amy Daveler and Marco Perez, who were both
laid off May 21, according to the lawsuit. They are suing the
companies on behalf of themselves and dozens of other employees
for the recovery of 60 days' pay and benefits. The suits allege
that the companies violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, under which companies notify the government
when they are planning mass layoffs.

The lawsuit claims that Worley & Obetz conducted a mass layoff of
about 250 full-time employees on or about May 21 but did not give
adequate notice under the WARN Act. The law calls for at least 60
days notice, the suit said.

"Upon information and belief, none of the terminated employees
received any written notice of termination," the suit claims.

Worley & Obetz did file WARN notices for some employees,
according to a state website that tracks the notices. The notices
cover 150 employees at Worley & Obetz, 25 employees at AmeriGreen
Energy and an unknown number at both Molly's Convenience Store
and Ranck Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning Inc.

Daveler worked as a sales manager for Worley & Obetz while Perez
was in an operation sales position, according to the lawsuit.

The energy company and its subsidiaries shut down amid news that
it is being investigated for an alleged fraud related to a former
executive. The investigation involves the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, along with the Lancaster County district
attorney's office and Northern Lancaster County Regional Police,
according to previous news reports.

Attempts to reach Seth Obetz, vice chairman of Worley & Obetz,
were unsuccessful. Reached by phone, an attorney for Worley &
Obetz declined to comment.

Efforts to reach attorneys for the plaintiffs were not
immediately successful on June 8.

Bankruptcy

The suit is the latest blow for Worley & Obetz.

On June 6 it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Chapter 7
generally indicates a desire to liquidate a business.

The filing also covers 10 subsidiaries, including Amerigreen
Energy Inc. and Ranck Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning.

The filing lists assets of between $10 million to $50 million and
liabilities between $50 million and $100 million. According to
Business Journal records, Worley & Obetz reported revenue in 2015
of $520.5 million. It did not report revenue for 2016.

The bankruptcy filing also says the company has 1,000 to 5,000
creditors.

While most creditors are unknown, at least two are: Fulton
Financial Corp. and F&M Trust. Both confirmed that Worley & Obetz
was responsible for multimillion-dollar credit losses at each
institution.

Two other Pennsylvania banks -- S&T Bancorp Inc. and Univest Bank
and Trust Co. -- reported multimillion-dollar losses in Security
and Exchange Commission filings. They have both declined to
identify the borrower that triggered the losses.[GN]


* Crawford & Co Announces Deal to Sell Garden City Group to Epiq
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford & Company(R), the world's largest publicly listed
independent provider of claims management solutions to insurance
companies and self-insured entities, on June 18 disclosed
that it has sold Garden City Group, LLC (GCG), its legal
administrative services unit to Epiq, a worldwide provider of
legal services, serving law firms, corporations and financial
institutions.

The sale allows Crawford to focus on its core services of
providing claims solutions globally and further solidify its
position as market leader for independent claims management
services.  It also allows Crawford to invest additional resources
in industry solutions where the company is a market leader and
expects significant future growth.

"This is an important transaction for Crawford that allows us to
further concentrate our attention and resources on high-growth
business segments where we have established leadership.  Just as
importantly, we have found a great home for our legal
administrative services business and the dedicated GCG
employees," said Harsha V. Agadi, president and CEO of Crawford &
Company. "The professionalism, commitment and contributions of
GCG's employees have been unmatched and I'm pleased they can
continue their growth with a well-regarded leader in the legal
administrative services industry."

As part of the agreement, Epiq will continue to provide ancillary
support services to Crawford in support of its claims operations.

"Crawford's GCG is well known and respected in the industry and
the transaction will create even more value for our clients,"
said John Davenport Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Epiq.  "We
look forward to welcoming GCG employees to Epiq and we look
forward to further serving GCG clients."

Combined operations include two state of the art print, mail and
contact center locations in Beaverton, Oregon and Dublin, Ohio as
well as call centers in Phoenix and Tampa.

As a result of the transaction, GCG will rebrand as Epiq in the
fourth quarter of 2018.

The transaction closed on June 15, 2018.

VRA Partners acted as financial advisor to Crawford on the
transaction.  Dentons US LLP and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
served as legal advisors to Crawford & Company and Epiq,
respectively.  Amanda K. Leech, Esq. -- Amanda.Leech@dentons.com
-- served as legal advisor to Crawford & Company in the deal.

                    About Garden City Group

GCG provides legal administration services for class action,
bankruptcy, mass tort, regulatory matters, and legal notice
programs.

                          About Epiq

Epiq -- http://www.epiqglobal.com-- a global leader in the legal
services industry, takes on large-scale, increasingly complex
tasks for corporate counsel, law firms, and business
professionals with efficiency, clarity, and confidence.  Clients
rely on Epiq to streamline the administration of business
operations, class action and mass tort, court reporting,
eDiscovery, regulatory, compliance, restructuring, and bankruptcy
matters.

                           About Dentons

Dentons -- https://www.dentons.com -- is a global legal practice
providing client services worldwide through its member firms and
affiliates.

                         About Crawford(R)

Based in Atlanta, Crawford & Company (NYSE: CRD-A and CRD-B) --
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com-- is the world's largest
publicly listed independent provider of claims management
solutions to insurance companies and self-insured entities with an
expansive global network serving clients in more than 70
countries.  The Company's two classes of stock are substantially
identical, except with respect to voting rights and the Company's
ability to pay greater cash dividends on the non-voting Class A
Common Stock (CRD-A) than on the voting Class B Common Stock
(CRD-B), subject to certain limitations.  In addition, with
respect to mergers or similar transactions, holders of CRD-A must
receive the same type and amount of consideration as holders of
CRD-B, unless different consideration is approved by the holders
of 75 percent of CRD-A, voting as a class.


* Wealthy Investors Attempt to Cash in on Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wealthy Investors Attempt To Cash In On Class Action Lawsuits

Tired of Isas and pensions, wealthy investors are putting their
money into high-profile court cases in a bid to take a cut of
potentially huge settlements.

Access to this kind of investment is via specialist funds that
claim litigation offers a truly alternative asset, unrelated to
the vagaries of the stock or bond markets and economic cycles.

Funds being touted offer exposure to cases including claims from
British drivers over the VW emissions scandal and television host
Noel Edmonds's long-running battle against Lloyds Bank, which, he
says, destroyed his business.

Normally the preserve of large institutional investors, company
pension schemes and insurance companies, funds in this area are
occasionally open to private investors. This week Connection
Capital, an investment firm for high net worth individuals,
opened a new GBP10m fund via Therium Capital Management, a
litigation funding specialist.

You'll need to invest at least GBP25,000 and pay up to 3pc in
set-up fees. The money is then put to work in a range of cases,
in Britain and around the world, with a share of any settlements
paid as and when successful cases close.

Neil Purslow, chief investment officer at Therium, said in the
most successful cases investors could treble their money, but
would get little or nothing back from others.

He said investors had to be "sophisticated" and understand that
they could not easily get their money out. Returns are paid as
and when settlements are received, meaning some money could be
returned within weeks or months, while some will take years.

Connection Capital said it aimed to return investors double their
original money, after fees. To date, Therium has invested around
GBP400m into 120 cases, with the value of claims lodged at
GBP27bn.

Unlike stocks, bonds or funds, litigation investments cannot be
held directly in pensions or Isas. Anna Sofat of Addidi Wealth,
an advice firm, said most private investors would lack the
resources to complete the required due diligence on their own.





                            *********


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  * * *